We are not talking about "protesters". Simply that. there were around 28000 protesters, and 2000 rats. The mess has been caused by the rats, and they came with shoppingtrolleys filled with stones and the items I described above. At no point of time they ever cared to go there for protesting.

I see myself pretty much in conformity with what Neal said - we just expressed it in different words, but we want the same outcome - the rats disappearing behind bars for "twenty years" (Neal) / for "intended murder"(me) .

Firstly, most gunshot wounds do not result in death if treated quickly. This isn't the 19th century or before, where infection killed the vast majority of people who sustained gunshot wounds.

Secondly the use of deadly physical force, as used by some of these masked men/women, requires a like response. Unless you want it to continue or have it happen in the future.

At some point a decision has to be made as to whether your, law, those sworn to uphold that law, and life is important enough to stop the attack or not.

Looking at the German news they are debating this now.

Fine


How about arresting them, as has been happening in Germany?

Yes, and they can be arrested.

Why should the police be allowed fire on, and kill, protesters when it is possible to arrest them?

What is it you don't understand about being confronted with deadly physical force, as the German authorities were at Rostock?

Less then 10% of the rats were arrested only. Some 150 of 2000. Some fifty were released the same day, the majority of those not released the same days has been released meanwhile. 6 or 7 only will be brought to court, and stay in arrest.

Police is aware of the rest of the pack hiding in the protester's camps. they consider it to be too dangerous and risky to search the tent camps for these rats systematically, since police always is seen as the enemy of even peaceful protesters, so that operation most likely will cause confrontation even with the so far peaceful protesters. that'S why the rats are hiding in their middle. What noboby can explain is why the protesters allow that - some people must know some rats, could identitfy them at the police - but they don't do that. what would be true civil courage to defend the freedom of free speech- becomes the display of eventually accepting that free speech is prohibited even more - when the demonstration will be banned from Heilgendamm at even greater distances.

Edit: journalists said today in TV news they can't openly film in many of the peaceful protester's tent camps anymore - it would bring their health at risk, so high is the hostility and mistrust there. Edit end.

I said myself before that the security measures looked exaggerated. It partially looks like the old zone-border between both Germanys. But obviously I, and many others, were wrong. Rostock has justified these measures. I still stick with my criticism why such feudal summits must be held on land, instead on sea, where it would be cheaper, more safe, and since direct demonstration on land in reach of the leaders is already prohibited, it does not make a difference if protesters couldn't reach them on sea as well.

That would bring you only some grim and bitter smiles from policemen's faces today. Don't you think it would have been done if it would have been so easy? I wonder if outside Germayn the sayme kind of video footage was shown as what we have seen in Germany. It were pictures of fullblown war, fought with some kind of medieval primitive weapons.

we were lucky not to have many officers dead, some say.

Having never been in the situation of a policeman, I'd say there's a lot that I don't understand.
Why do you see shooting people as the immediate answer?
These kind of thugs need be be arrested and tried, not martyred in the streets in front of television cameras.


Why should the police be allowed fire on, and kill, protesters when it is possible to arrest them?

It makes a big difference, mostly line of sight. The essence of protest is voice, and it has to be recognised. It wouldnt solve anything for leaders to run away to a cruise liner. I remember being outside Dromoland Castle, watching Bush flying in, and then waving a sign as Air Force One took off the next day. That was close enough.

Where did I say shooting was the immediate answer? When confronted with deadly physical force, and disregard for German law and order as the German authorities were at Rostock how many options are available? I have mentioned the initial use of deadly physical force by the protestors a number of times now. You ignore the most pertinant aspect of my arguement. That is the litmus test. Once it is engaged all holds are and must be off in order to protect the lives of the non-violent demonstrators and the general public.

Well, arrests have been made, so there's an option.
You didnt say immediate, correct.

Can we call it deadly force when no one has died?

So, anything goes? That's a rather cavalier approach to law enforcement. Thugs engaging in certain behaviour does not remove all holds from the police. Using criminals behaviour as a standard, now there's some cognitive dissonance!

A couple of issues I shall address.

As a matter of law there is a concept called 'a reasonable person', google it, the answer will give you an answer to your first question.
Your second question goes to your misconception of police powers, which are ultimately that of the state. It also goes to my ongoing theme that the use of 'deadly physical force' must be responded to by like force.

:rotfl: As if the sea would hold them. They'll choose an alternative target. This amount of people, with this level of organization, would not go away simply because the summit went away, became inaccessible. They'll do a Paris and burn cars or something.

That'll keep her off the streets for good.







Oh.






The other Paris. :88)

You don'T get my point.
there is no los in heiligendamm. the defense perimeter with the main fence is already 2-3 km away from the hotels. Demonstrations currently are prohibited to come closer than 6 km to the fence. Makes how many km all together?

See my posting above.

Not really. It is called intended murder. If you target cobblestones at other people intentionally, if you use catapult-like constructions to use even greater rocks, and shoot them with greater velocity, if you chase single policemen with stick and stones and when you get them throw them to the ground and beat and kick them like crazy and brake them some bones - is this no lethal force? at the minimum you accept of seriously injure other people, and since you have total control of will over yoiur decision wether you throw that rock or not, it is an intentional act, which separates murder from slaughter. It is intended murder for sure. The only thing that has saved lives in Rostock was the heavy protecton gear these police-guys are wearing.

In your quarrel with WG you make it all looking as a hrmless, controllable event that can be dealt with by business as usual. You do not know what you talk about, and defend criminals who by their acts are guilty of intended murder. That simple. They are no demonstrators. They have not been provoked, but provoked themselves. They came fully armed, löooking for a rumble. They wear all black, which makes their appearance sort of a uniform dress code. they came with faces cloaked, which in Germany is under strict prohibition by law, and penalty. They use lethal force whose effects only is bolstered by the protection gear of the police.

Imagine for a while that the police would wear no body armour, and then would go into the battle at Rostock. We would have several dozens of dead. Not everybody has an unimpressable wooden head like you that does not care for getting hit by heavy rocks. Maybe your veins are of metal. as well. But usualy, policemen's veins are soft tissue that is easy to rip through by razor-blade-covered ammunition.

Take note that the police union itself for the very first time ever said that the use of firearms in such events maybe must be given a serious consideration. when lifes are at risk, the interests of the victims are weighing ultimately higher than the well-being of the agressors. note that I said "shooting at their legs at short distance". considering many scenes at Rostoick, for many policeman that would have been an option on the basis of self-defense. Instead, they did not do it. Many payed with their health for that. Most have cuts, sometimes quite deep and wide, still many have internal and even open fractures at limbs and rips, there are even some cases of head fractures. "So anything goes?" (Tchocky)

the German constitution, btw, in principle strips everybody off his constitutionally guaranteed rights, when he uses these rights to call for destruction of the constitutional system, or is acting on behalf of this aim himself. You can'T kick the state when you feel bad, and when he wants to sue you claim the rights he should guarantee you. You take both the rights and the duties, and if the duties are not of your taste, you are not to claim the rights. And that is the time when I ask sombody why the hell he is not getting out and leaves us behind, then.

Same question back to you.

I respect those cops for not kicking those asses all the way back to Mars, and not using shoot-to-kill, yet. But, could they use any non-lethal means to counter those vandals? Shooting in the legs, IMO, should be the last attempt to hold the situation under control...
I just happen to have a right guy for this situation....
http://www.geocities.com/theactionki...VDcoverart.jpg