RIOT police arrest hot lady thats wearing a summer dress.

[Harry Guerrilla]

We, or at least I, are talking about a photo Harry. Just a photo, and the impression/impact it has on any individual or audience.

It is reminiscent of the classic photo from TS. That is all. :mrgreen:

Only on the most superficial level.
In context it's over dramatized.

 

[Thoreau72]

Only on the most superficial level.
In context it's over dramatized.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Visbek]

Your take on this is without merit....and assholish.

When you can't argue, resort to ad hom attacks. Stay classy, Mickey. :roll:

And who's fault is that??? Certainly not the police!

It's not the police's fault that they chose to turn themselves into paramilitary forces, and deployed full riot gear to handle a nonviolent protest?

 

[Visbek]

Where you see total militarization and a desire for total control, I see cops protecting themselves after five were killed and 9 wounded at a similar demonstration. I don't see a woman in a sundress. I see a person who has decided not to obey a lawful order from law enforcement.

Funny, isn't it?

Not funny. Sad and inaccurate.

Again: Riot gear is not going to protect those officers from snipers or gunfire. Claiming they were wearing riot gear because one unstable person shot at police officers... that doesn't add up.

It is a standard tactic of protestors to do things that draw attention, including deliberately get arrested. It's a decades-old tactic called "civil disobedience," and was routinely used by protest leaders like Gandhi and by civil rights activists.

Insisting that "X is justice, because X is the law" is not a solid moral argument -- especially when the protest is over people who were killed by officers while obeying lawful orders, or already in police custody.

 

[MaggieD]

Not funny. Sad and inaccurate.

Again: Riot gear is not going to protect those officers from snipers or gunfire. Claiming they were wearing riot gear because one unstable person shot at police officers... that doesn't add up.

It is a standard tactic of protestors to do things that draw attention, including deliberately get arrested. It's a decades-old tactic called "civil disobedience," and was routinely used by protest leaders like Gandhi and by civil rights activists.

Insisting that "X is justice, because X is the law" is not a solid moral argument -- especially when the protest is over people who were killed by officers while obeying lawful orders, or already in police custody.

We are a nation of laws. They can certainly be enforced with common sense, but they have to be enforced with fairness. That woman was blocking the roadway. As you said, she wanted to be arrested. Apparently she got what she wanted. Awesome publicity.

Riot gear is going to protect officers from bottles, rocks and rebar. Just dome of the things that have been flying in cops faces over the last week or so. In a nation of 320,000,000 people, militarizing the cops makes sense. I have absolutely no problem with it.

 

[Visbek]

If she was the only protester they could have expected to encounter you’d have a point but they were obviously facing a much wider issue that the picture is being quite deliberately used to present.

You'd prefer an image of a massive line of officers facing off against the protestors?

You can’t certainly make an argument about the specifics of police policies, procedures and response in these kind of circumstances but you can only reasonably do that in the context of all of the rioting and violence that was promised and expected.

The what now?

Who "promised" a riot and violence?

And yes, I can make arguments that the police are too militarized, and that part of the function of riot gear is to intimidate protestors.

 

[countryboy]

And yes, I can make arguments that the police are too militarized, and that part of the function of riot gear is to intimidate protestors.

What should police do to protect themselves against rocks, bottles, bodily fluids, and in some cases even molotov cocktails, while not appearing "intimidating"?

 

[HonestJoe]

You'd prefer an image of a massive line of officers facing off against the protestors?

I’d prefer there weren’t images at all, just accurate representations of reality. This picture was an accurate representation of part of the reality from a particular viewpoint but there are far too many wider images being created off the back of it which aren’t necessarily accurate.

Who "promised" a riot and violence?

I didn’t mean promised by specific individuals (though I’d not be entirely surprised if that was the case), just promised by the situation – the most likely outcome. The point is that the police expected rioting and prepared for that eventuality. As it turns out, they were right to do so but there’ll still be lots tasks they carried out that day that the riot gear wasn’t necessary for.

Most US police officers carry a firearm on their belt but most of the things they deal with day-to-day don’t require them to even draw it, let alone fire.

And yes, I can make arguments that the police are too militarized, and that part of the function of riot gear is to intimidate protestors.

You could, as could I, but not on the basis of this picture.

 

[Visbek]

We are a nation of laws. They can certainly be enforced with common sense, but they have to be enforced with fairness. That woman was blocking the roadway. As you said, she wanted to be arrested. Apparently she got what she wanted. Awesome publicity.

...yes, that is how civil disobedience works.

Plus, hello? We have police killing civilians with impunity, and what upsets you is that 100 protestors blocked a street? Seriously?

In a nation of 320,000,000 people, militarizing the cops makes sense. I have absolutely no problem with it.

I do. And I'd say you should as well.

The job of the police is not to enforce an authoritarian state, or to dominate the streets by sheer force. Their job is to protect and serve the public.

The increased militarization not only degrades that key function, it also sets up an antagonistic relationship between the police and the public -- which is one of the sources of our current problems. It deteriorates the trust necessary for the police to do their job.

 

[MaggieD]

...yes, that is how civil disobedience works.

Plus, hello? We have police killing civilians with impunity, and what upsets you is that 100 protestors blocked a street? Seriously?



I do. And I'd say you should as well.

The job of the police is not to enforce an authoritarian state, or to dominate the streets by sheer force. Their job is to protect and serve the public.

The increased militarization not only degrades that key function, it also sets up an antagonistic relationship between the police and the public -- which is one of the sources of our current problems. It deteriorates the trust necessary for the police to do their job.

You need an attitude adjustment.

First, protecting and serving the public sometimes entails getting a lady out of the middle of the street when her sole purpose is to obstruct 300 cars needing to get through. They don't dominate the streets by force nor do they enforce an authoritarian state. THEY ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES PUT ON THE BOOKS.

If they wear protective gear for their protection in case things get physical, I have no problem with that.

If you object because you think it might escalate a demonstration by setting expectations of violence? I don't disagree. I simply think that, at this particular time, when there are obstructive demonstrations going on all over the country, they should err on the side of personal protection.

If, on the other hand, you're too chicken to share the street with a professional doing his job because he reminds you of Darth Vader, you need to grow up.

 

[MaggieD]

What should police do to protect themselves against rocks, bottles, bodily fluids, and in some cases even molotov cocktails, while not appearing "intimidating"?

Wear frilly aprons.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Hot is a relative term

a little skinnier then what keys me on, but I'd certainly hit on her if she were next to me in a bar.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Got to admit the optics are terrible!

You're missing the part about "proportional response" - she's clearly passive & unarmed! :doh

yes but they were expecting more volatile protests, you don't put that much armor on in 6 seconds, it has to be planned, so they're already there and equipped and she's standing in the road refusing to leave, she gets arrested, and officers are already wearing the gear. they didn't go "gee look at that lady in the road, better go get my pads on to arrest her"

it's like I don't need to use the pickup truck to pick up a relative from school, but if I'm already running errands with the pickup and someone calls and asks me, I'm not going out of my way to get my sedan for that task.

 

[clownboy]

They were doing this in 68, right before the riot started.

 

[natsb]

So you are saying police should not wear any sort of protection in case the protests turn into a riot or deadly like in Dallas? Maybe on that tiny island that you live on that has a tradition of being ruled by inbreeders the protests don't turn violent or deadly.But here in America protests can turn violent and deadly. When protests turn into riots the rioters throw ricks, bricks, molotov cocktails and other things at cops and everything else or can become deadly like the one in Dallas.A photograph that only capture a small area doesn't show whats behind the woman. There could be a whole mob of black lives matter protesters behind her.

Whaaaaat? Surely they dressed up like that just for her. I am sure the picture of what the police were really facing is not important. Can we wonder why the photographer didn't step back for a wider image?

Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Photos - Protests erupt after Baton Rouge police fatally shoot Alton Sterling - NY Daily News

 

[countryboy]

Wear frilly aprons.

And nothing else? Lol.

I really don't understand this ridiculous objection to safety equipment.

 

[Visbek]

You need an attitude adjustment.

Pass

First, protecting and serving the public sometimes entails getting a lady out of the middle of the street when her sole purpose is to obstruct 300 cars needing to get through....

Uh huh

Sorry, but given a choice between outrage over police brutality, or obstructing traffic? I'm gonna have to go with the former.

And in case it isn't obvious, I do view peaceful civil disobedience as a legitimate form of protest. Perhaps you believe Gandhi should have obeyed the law, and disbanded every protest because the British Raj told him to do so?

They don't dominate the streets by force nor do they enforce an authoritarian state. THEY ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES PUT ON THE BOOKS.

If you say so

If they wear protective gear for their protection in case things get physical, I have no problem with that.

I don't have a problem with police taking precautions.

I do have a problem with police suppressing peaceful protests with a military-style show of force. Especially when those choices deeply antagonize the communities those officers are supposed to protect, and need to build trust.

Nothing says "we trust and respect the community" like... a line of police in riot armor? That doesn't sound quite right, now does it?

 

[Caine]

...yes, that is how civil disobedience works.

Plus, hello? We have police killing civilians with impunity, and what upsets you is that 100 protestors blocked a street? Seriously?



I do. And I'd say you should as well.

The job of the police is not to enforce an authoritarian state, or to dominate the streets by sheer force. Their job is to protect and serve the public.

The increased militarization not only degrades that key function, it also sets up an antagonistic relationship between the police and the public -- which is one of the sources of our current problems. It deteriorates the trust necessary for the police to do their job.

Yes, wearing protective equipment at a protest to prevent injury to themselves a mere day or so after police were murdered at a similar protest event in another city is "Militarization".

The stupid... it hurts.

 

[Caine]

Pass



Uh huh

Sorry, but given a choice between outrage over police brutality, or obstructing traffic? I'm gonna have to go with the former.

And in case it isn't obvious, I do view peaceful civil disobedience as a legitimate form of protest. Perhaps you believe Gandhi should have obeyed the law, and disbanded every protest because the British Raj told him to do so?



If you say so

I don't have a problem with police taking precautions.

I do have a problem with police suppressing peaceful protests with a military-style show of force. Especially when those choices deeply antagonize the communities those officers are supposed to protect, and need to build trust.

Nothing says "we trust and respect the community" like... a line of police in riot armor? That doesn't sound quite right, now does it?

When the protest groups bus in people from other cities all over nation, that isn't THEIR community.

And, what good does "trusting" your community do when police officers are shot during similar protests?

Police lives matter to me. Maybe not to you. But to me they do, and I have no problem with them taking protective posture to prevent their death at these BlackLiesMatter protests.

 

[Visbek]

When the protest groups bus in people from other cities all over nation, that isn't THEIR community.

So Americans are not Americans? Police shouldn't protect someone from out of state? Good to know.

There is also no evidence of shadowy protest groups transporting anyone anywhere. Most people are protesting locally, and a few individuals choose of their own accord to travel in order to protest.

And, what good does "trusting" your community do when police officers are shot during similar protests?

The protestors had nothing to do with the Dallas sniper. He was looking for any excuse to kill police officers.

And again, riot gear is not designed to be bullet-proof. It's designed to protect officers from blunt objects like rocks and sticks... and to intimidate civilians.

Police lives matter to me. Maybe not to you. But to me they do, and I have no problem with them taking protective posture to prevent their death at these BlackLiesMatter protests.

Oh, good grief.

I never said "let's put the cops in danger!" My point is that the police, by suiting up for war, are actually making things worse overall. It suggests that they distrust civilians, that they are operating from a place of fear rather than building trust, that they have lost perspective on the nature of their jobs.

 

[jamesrage]

Whaaaaat? Surely they dressed up like that just for her. I am sure the picture of what the police were really facing is not important. Can we wonder why the photographer didn't step back for a wider image?

Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Photos - Protests erupt after Baton Rouge police fatally shoot Alton Sterling - NY Daily News

Because a picture says a thousand words.The op picture was meant to make cops look like overreacting military thugs.

 

[Caine]

So Americans are not Americans? Police shouldn't protect someone from out of state? Good to know.

There is also no evidence of shadowy protest groups transporting anyone anywhere. Most people are protesting locally, and a few individuals choose of their own accord to travel in order to protest.



The protestors had nothing to do with the Dallas sniper. He was looking for any excuse to kill police officers.

And again, riot gear is not designed to be bullet-proof. It's designed to protect officers from blunt objects like rocks and sticks... and to intimidate civilians.



Oh, good grief.

I never said "let's put the cops in danger!" My point is that the police, by suiting up for war, are actually making things worse overall. It suggests that they distrust civilians, that they are operating from a place of fear rather than building trust, that they have lost perspective on the nature of their jobs.

They have every right to distrust any protest from Black Lies Matter. This group has created havoc and chaos at too many protests in various cities across the U.S. to count.

In fact, three guys were just arrested in Baton Rouge with a cache of firearms and the intent to go kill police officers right there in the very city where this incident occurred. Where the individuals were wearing protective gear you are criticizing them for.

Baton Rouge police: 'Credible threat' against officers - CNN.com

So please, tell me that the police are wrong for gearing up in protective equipment in Baton Rouge.

 

[natsb]

Because a picture says a thousand words.The op picture was meant to make cops look like overreacting military thugs.

BUt... but... but... That would mean the media fabricated a photo op just to push a narrative that represents their own bias. And... and... The left is more interested in clinging to the optics of that false narrative than accepting the truth. Say it isn't so...

 

[SheWolf]

It's a great photo, no doubt. Calling it "iconic," however, and in particular waxing rhapsodic in attempting to compare this to Tiananmen Square makes me sick, just sick. Blech.

The beautiful woman's name is Leshia Evans. She traveled from NYC to participate in the protest, and the photographer, Johnathan Edwards, thinks she intended to be arrested.

Ieshia Evans: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

A Remarkable Photo of a Protestor in Baton Rouge, Louisiana - The Atlantic

Who Is Ieshia L. Evans? — 5 Things To Know About Baton Rouge Protestor In Dress - Hollywood Life

Why does comparing it to Tiananmen Square make you sick? The woman is as harmless the man photographed at Tiananmen Square. She is wearing a summer dress, is absolutely non threatening, and a bunch of people wearing riot gear are running to arrest her and take her down. What did she do? What was her crime?

 

[SheWolf]

THIS one speaks volumes.

It could have been staged too...