-
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Good Stuff, check out the reviews of the pepper spray on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Techno...DateDescendingAccept no substitutes when casually repressing students, November 21, 2011
By D-bag of Liberty
This review is from: Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray (Misc.)
Whenever I need to breezily inflict discipline on unruly citizens, I know I can trust Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray to get the job done! The power of reason is no match for Defense Technology's superior repression power. When I reach for my can of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray, I know that even the mighty First Amendment doesn't stand a chance against its many scovil units of civil rights suppression.
When I feel threatened by students, no matter how unarmed, peaceful and seated they may be, I know that Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray has got my back as I casually spray away at point blank range.
It really is the Cadillac of citizen repression technology.
Buy a whole case! -
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Deleted, reposted by accident when I was playing with thumbnails.Last edited by brent217; November 22, 2011, 09:40 PM.Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Here's a few more. IMO, pepper spraying the constitution wins.Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Thanks!! What a fantastic way to undermine their authority!Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
contributing... taking requests for theme... 'i wish he'd pepper spray these assholes... post a pic & i'll try to shop it...Originally posted by BillBoard View Post
Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
I am a strong believer in law enforcement. I am also a strong believer in the Constitution and constitutional rights. When the police decide theyOriginally posted by BillBoard View Post
can pepper spray protestors sitting peacefully on a sidewalk on a college campus in a sign of protest, I believe they have stepped on the rights of
those protestors. One could easily walk aorund them, there was NO threat to law enforcement or anyone else by them. Someone, be it Officer
Pike, or someone above him, made the bad decision of trying to teach the protestors "a lesson" and to do so in front of film and video cameras.
As a result, this incident is now immortalized.
This is NOT crowd control. This is NOT a riot. This in my opinion is police abuse.
In Seattle a young woman in a crowd tried to get out of the way of the police screaming she was pregnant.
She got kicked in the stomach and pepper sprayed as a result and lost her future child as a result. There
was no reason to kick her. That was police abuse.
This is also police abuse:
However, this is NOT police abuse, because once you put your hand on a cop (unless it is some form of self defence) you are asking for it.
The girl in the pink who inserted herself was asking for it and got what she deserved. You do not see that in the other videos above.
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if some of the police are just itching for a real riot to get started and doing their best to provoke one.
If that happens, I fear one or more of the cops will end up killed along the way as all these videos pass thru the mind of some out of
control anarchist bent on reveng.
This kind of s**t really has to stop, and soon.Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
The Mysterious Mind of a Cop Who Goes Bad
By MANOHLA DARGIS
A sun-scorched noir, “Rampart” tells a familiar story with such visual punch and hustling energy that it comes close to feeling like a new kind of movie, though it’s more just a tough gloss on American crime stories past. Directed by Oren Moverman from a fast, nasty, at times queasily funny screenplay by him and James Ellroy, it stars Woody Harrelson as Dave Brown, one of those dirty cops who ooze out of the smog-kissed Los Angeles sprawl to keep the peace in paradise, usually by breaking heads and gunning for trouble.
If you’ve read Mr. Ellroy, whose crime novels include “L.A. Confidential,” or one of his influences, Joseph Wambaugh (“The Choirboys”), you will recognize Dave Brown, the bullheaded, red-necked cop who swings first, asks later and calls the city a jungle and himself one of its soldiers. The language is no accident: For decades the Los Angeles Police Department followed a military model that made it a paradigm of ruthless efficiency in which police violence, particularly against minorities, was tolerated. By 1999, the year the movie opens, the department was rocking from the revelation that cops in the anti-gang unit in the Rampart Division, in central Los Angeles, had been dealing drugs and worse.
“Rampart” isn’t a docudrama take on the scandal, which is mentioned in passing, but a fictional, sometimes surrealistic exploration of the kind of mindset or maybe ideology, personal and professional, that led some Los Angeles cops to rob, kill and turn into a gang of their own. It’s a vivid, often mesmerizing portrait of a man rotting from the inside out, though perhaps only partly because the organization he works for (though really against), and the world he inhabits, are sick too. Yet why Dave does what he does is anyone’s guess, because one of the movie’s strengths is that it finds meaning in his actions without trying to explain him. Some people, it suggests, remain mysteries, which, however maddening, also helps make Dave insistently watchable.
He’s hard to miss. Mr. Moverman, working in digital and with the great cinematographer Bobby Bukowski, keeps something of a visual chokehold on Dave right from the start. The movie opens with a series of jump cuts that show Mr. Harrelson in profile in extreme close-up, his face filling the left third of the screen. There’s something totemic about this face, which stands out sharply against the colorful, meaningfully blurred background. Dave may be patrolling the city, listening to the radio, smoking a cigarette, but the neighborhoods under his watch are nothing but blots of color and light. You can’t see the people he’s passing, and it becomes evident — as when he drives into a crowd, scattering it with a raucous laugh — that neither does he.
As in classic art cinema, character psychology is all (or a lot of it, anyway). There isn’t a strong story tethering Dave, one of those heists or rackets of generic cop stories, but instead a succession of crises, most with no obvious solution. He’s in a relationship with not one woman but two, Barbara (Cynthia Nixon) and Catherine (Anne Heche), sisters with whom he has daughters. The families live in adjacent houses that Dave wanders in and out of, much as he seems to do in their lives. Mostly he flops in front of the TV, though he also comically pleads for one of the women (both ex-wives) to sleep with him.
Dave’s graver troubles ignite after he’s caught on video beating a suspect nearly to death. The episode turns up the heat in an already simmering city. Protesters start massing outside Dave’s station, Rampart, and politicians and the district attorney’s office (whose numbers include an excellent Sigourney Weaver) start circling.
One night Dave picks up a lawyer, a beauty with defeated eyes, Linda (Robin Wright, perfect), who he grows to suspect has it in for him, though it’s his old friend, a crooked ex-cop, Hartshorn (a wonderful Ned Beatty), who may be the bigger worry. As things go from bad to worse, the sweat on Dave’s face turns into a river, the visuals grow progressively baroque, all the women move farther away, and the walls close in like the grave.
A few years ago Mr. Moverman made a splash with “The Messenger,” his well-received directing debut about two soldiers, played by Mr. Harrelson and Ben Foster, who bring the news of the dead back home. (Mr. Foster has a small role in “Rampart” as a homeless man and served as one of the movie’s producers.) It was already clear that Mr. Moverman knew how to let actors go deep, so it’s no surprise that the performers in his new movie are uniformly very good and often better than that, starting with Mr. Harrelson, who brings both a raw intensity and a necessary lightness of touch to his unsentimental performance. His Dave is a monster in many ways, but brutally human to the end.
“Rampart” is rated R (Under 17 requires parent or adult guardian). Bad behavior in the extreme, and toe sucking.
RAMPART
Opens on Wednesday in Manhattan.
Directed by Oren Moverman; written by James Ellroy and Mr. Moverman; director of photography, Bobby Bukowski; edited by Jay Rabinowitz; music by Dickon Hinchliffe; production design by David Wasco; costumes by Catherine George; produced by Lawrence Inglee, Clark Peterson, Ben Foster and Ken Kao; released by Millennium Entertainment. At the Landmark’s Sunshine Cinema, 139-143 East Houston Street, East Village. Running time: 1 hour 52 minutes.
WITH: Woody Harrelson (Dave Brown), Robin Wright (Linda Fentress), Sigourney Weaver (Joan Confrey), Ice Cube (Kyle Timkins), Ned Beatty (Hartshorn), Steve Buscemi (Bill Blago), Cynthia Nixon (Barbara), Anne Heche (Catherine), Brie Larson (Helen), Sammy Boyarsky (Margaret) and Ben Foster (General Terry).
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/11/23...tml?ref=movies
Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Matt Taibbi's take . . .
To recap for those who haven’t seen it: police in paramilitary gear line up in front of a group of Occupy protesters peacefully assembled on a quad pathway. Completely unprovoked, police decide to douse the whole group of sitting protesters with pepper spray. There is crying and chaos and panic, but the wheezing protesters sit resolutely in place and refuse to move despite the assault.
Finally, in what to me is the most amazing part, the protesters gather together and move forward shouting “Shame On You! Shame On You!” over and over again. You can literally see the painful truth of those words cutting the resolve of the policemen and forcing them backwards.
Glenn Greenwald’s post at Salon says this far better than I can, but there are undeniable conclusions one can draw from this incident. The main thing is that the frenzied dissolution of due process and individual rights that took took place under George Bush’s watch, and continued uncorrected even when supposed liberal constitutional lawyer Barack Obama took office, has now come full circle and become an important element to the newer political controversy involving domestic/financial corruption and economic injustice.
As Glenn points out, when we militarized our society in response to the global terrorist threat, we created a new psychological atmosphere in which the use of force and military technology became a favored method for dealing with dissent of any kind. As Glenn writes:The U.S. Government — in the name of Terrorism — has aggressively para-militarized the nation’s domestic police forces by lavishing them with countless military-style weapons and other war-like technologies, training them in war-zone military tactics, and generally imposing a war mentality on them. Arming domestic police forces with para-military weaponry will ensure their systematic use even in the absence of a Terrorist attack on U.S. soil… It’s a very small step to go from supporting the abuse of defenseless detainees (including one’s fellow citizens) to supporting the pepper-spraying and tasering of non-violent political protesters.Why did that step turn out to be so small? Because of the countless decisions we made in years past to undermine our own attitudes toward the rule of law and individual rights. Every time we looked the other way when the president asked for the right to detain people without trials, to engage in warrantless searches, to eavesdrop on private citizens without even a judge knowing about it, we made it harder to answer the question: What is it we’re actually defending?
In another time, maybe, we might have been able to argue that we were using force to defend the principles of modern Western civilization, that we were "spreading democracy."
Instead, we completely shat upon every principle we ever stood for, stooping to torture and assassination and extrajudicial detention.
From the very start we unleashed those despotic practices on foreigners, whom large pluralities of the population agreed had no rights at all. But then as time went on we started to hear about rendition and extralegal detention cases involving American citizens, too, though a lot of those Americans turned out to be Muslims or Muslim-sympathizers, people with funny names.
And people mostly shrugged at that, of course, just as they shrugged for years at the insane erosion of due process in the world of drug enforcement. People yawned at the no-knock warrants and the devastating parade of new consequences for people with drug convictions (depending on the state, losing the right to vote, to receive educational aid, to live in public housing, to use food stamps, and so on).
They didn’t even care much about the too-innocuously-named new practice of "civil asset forfeiture," in which the state can legally seize the property of anyone, guilty or innocent, who is implicated in a drug investigation – a law that permits the state to unilaterally deem property to be guilty of a crime.
The population mostly blew off these developments, thinking that these issues only concerned the guilty, terrorists, drug dealers, etc. And they didn’t seem to worry very much when word leaked out that the state had struck an astonishingly far-reaching series of new cooperative arrangements with the various private telecommunications industries. Nobody blinked when word came out that the government was now cheerfully pairing up with companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to monitor our phone and Internet activities.
Who cared? If you don’t have anything to hide, the thinking went, it shouldn’t bother you that the government might be checking your phone records, seeing what sites you’ve been visiting, or quietly distributing armored cars and submachine guns to every ass-end suburban and beyond-suburban police force in America.
We had all of these arguments in the Bush years and it’s nothing new to assert that much of our population made a huge mistake in giving up so many of our basic rights to due process. What’s new is that we’re now seeing the political consequences of those decisions.
Again, when we abandoned our principles in order to use force against terrorists and drug dealers, the answer to the question, What are we defending? started to change.
The original answer, ostensibly, was, "We are defending the peaceful and law-abiding citizens of the United States, their principles, and everything America stands for."
Then after a while it became, "We’re defending the current population of the country, but we can’t defend the principles so much anymore, because they weigh us down in the fight against a ruthless enemy who must be stopped at all costs."
Then finally it became this: “We are defending ourselves, against the citizens who insist on keeping their rights and their principles.”
What happened at UC Davis was the inevitable result of our failure to make sure our government stayed in the business of defending our principles. When we stopped insisting on that relationship with our government, they became something separate from us.
And we are stuck now with this fundamental conflict, whereby most of us are insisting that the law should apply equally to everyone, while the people running this country for years now have been operating according to the completely opposite principle that different people have different rights, and who deserves what protections is a completely subjective matter, determined by those in power, on a case-by-case basis.
Not to belabor the point, but the person who commits fraud to obtain food stamps goes to jail, while the banker who commits fraud for a million-dollar bonus does not. Or if you accept aid in the form of Section-8 housing, the state may insist on its right to conduct warrantless "compliance check" searches of your home at any time – but if you take billions in bailout aid, you do not even have to open your books to the taxpayer who is the de facto owner of your company.
The state wants to retain the power to make these subjective decisions, because being allowed to selectively enforce the law effectively means they have despotic power. And who wants to lose that?
The UC Davis incident crystallized all of this in one horrifying image. Anyone who commits violence against a defenseless person is lost. And the powers that be in this country are lost. They’ve been going down this road for years now, and they no longer stand for anything.
All that tricked-up military gear, with that corny, faux-menacing, over-the-top Spaceballs stormtrooper look that police everywhere seem to favor more and more – all of this is symbolic of the increasingly total lack of ideas behind all that force.
It was bad enough when we made police defend the use of torture and extrajudicial detention. Now they’re being asked to defend mass theft, Lloyd Blankfein’s bailout-paid bonus, the principle of Angelo Mozilo not doing jail time, and 28% credit card interest rates.
How strong can anyone defending those causes be? These people are weak and pathetic, and they’re getting weaker. And boy, are they showing it. Way to gear up with combat helmets and the the full body armor, fellas, to take on a bunch of co-eds sitting Indian-style on a campus quad. Maybe after work you can go break up a game of duck-duck-goose at the local Chuck E Cheese. I’d bring the APC for that one.
Bravo to those kids who hung in there and took it. And bravo for standing up and showing everyone what real strength is. There is no strength without principle. You have it. They lost it. It’s as simple as that.
Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
hard to beat . . .
Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
It is getting weird on it's way to way weird Metalman. Hope it stops for my kids, but I don't think so U?Originally posted by BillBoard View PostComment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Make your own...
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...6dbf3c5b2f.pngComment
-
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
a picture says . . .
Comment
-
Re: The Officer Pike Collection
Insert Taibbi quote: "All that tricked-up military gear, with that corny, faux-menacing, over-the-top Spaceballs stormtrooper look that police everywhere seem to favor more and more – all of this is symbolic of the increasingly total lack of ideas behind all that force."Originally posted by don View Posta picture says . . .
Comment
For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance. Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Working...
Tweet
Comment