Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Don't worry, the chances that you'll be murdered by the police are fairly low from a statistical viewpoint.

[Solifuge]

So... I've got a Participation/Observation field assignment for Anthropology, where I'm supposed to enter into a different cultural or counter-cultural group that's slightly outside my comfort zone, participate in what they're doing, make inferences about their background and beliefs, etc. Meanwhile, Occupy's got their 1 year anniversary next weekend from Sept. 15th-17th. This also happens to be a weekend I'm off from work.

I'm expressly not supposed to be endangering myself, but it's pretty perfect timing. So I ask you, internet, is this a terrible idea?

Don't worry, the chances that you'll be murdered by the police are fairly low from a statistical viewpoint.

I also have a propensity for dodging deadly projectiles like knives, hatchets, poisonous fluids, dodgeballs, blunt objects thrown at me from behind, etc. Never dodged a hollow-point round, but I'd give it my damnedest.

[Frumple]

I think the real question, Soli, is if the teacher will excuse absences if you get arrested and jailed for standing nearby, and if so, whether it will negatively or positively affect your grade. Last I checked, Occupy has been pretty peaceful but law enforcement relatively not-so, so overreaction (and you getting caught up in it) might occur.

When in doubt, ask the teacher. See what dey say.

[SalmonGod]

Don't look like you're making any sort of recording whatsoever of the event.  Police very heavily target anyone with a camera, even if it's just holding up a cell-phone, or anyone who otherwise looks like an independent journalist.  I would even go out of my way to take notes in a private or removed location. 

Also pay very close attention to kettling efforts by police.  They can be very sneaky.  If you are ever with a group that the police starts to herd together or directs towards a very specific space, immediately remove yourself from that group by any means.  Even if it's just "Hey you guys right here are obstructing such and such, could you go stand over there instead?", there is a good chance that there is a group of police right around the corner from 'over there' that will promptly reveal themselves and surround the group.

Be mindful of those things and generally non-confrontational, and I think your chances of getting arrested are pretty low.  Still possible, but not probable, especially if whatever event you attend is going to be large.


Edit:

Some more perspective on Assange's situation.

It's really fucking ridiculous that there are people who still doubt the obvious conclusion as to what's really going on here....

[Zangi]

Eh, some people will believe what they want to believe... and whats first told to them.

[SalmonGod]

A Texas judge who presides over Family and Protective Services cases gets video taped beating his daughter for downloading music.  His ex-wife also claims he is abusive.  His punishment?  Some paid leave and a public warning.

[palsch]

Some more perspective on Assange's situation.

It's really fucking ridiculous that there are people who still doubt the obvious conclusion as to what's really going on here....

So, erm, what would that be? I honestly don't see what the conspiracy here is supposed to entail. Worst case: Assange gets arrested for rape in Sweden, is granted full and considerable due process before extradition in the UK, then is granted far stronger due process in both the UK and Sweden from some hypothetical extradition from the US (which, under extradition law, can't be for political or espionage crimes or if the death penalty is a possibility - a quick legal summary and a case where a defected CIA officer was not extradited from Sweden).

If I were conspiring to get Assange into a US jail the last thing I would do is keep him in the European judicial system. Having him somewhere with a weaker legal framework and maybe a recent history of

That article is full of falsehoods. In particular;

(It is worth noting that neither of the two women accused Assange of rape; although that is one of the allegations that has been spread throughout the media and the world).

Also the court documents filed in the case.

Seriously, here are the legal descriptions of the allegations, including summaries of the statements from the women.

According to three British courts (the original magistrate, the High Court and Supreme Court) and at one Swedish (the appeals court that approved the initial arrest warrant) these allegations amount to serious sexual offences including rape. My personal reading is that they would be similar crimes under US law as well.

The Swedish government also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the U.S. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the U.K., for that matter) to arrange.

This is entirely false. Under Swedish law and international treaty, the final decision about any extradition would rest with the Swedish Supreme Court. Two Swedish legal experts on this topic. They can't legally offer such assurances even if it were a reasonable thing to do.

And frankly, it's not a reasonable thing to do. Someone accused of a crime doesn't get to dictate how that crime is investigated and the conditions of their own questioning.

The idea that they are abandoning the case because they are unwilling to play along with the legal fiction of the accused is twisted and delusional.

I've been following this considerably and a lot of the material coming from Assange supporters has been making me feel sick.

[Dsarker]

Beware of he who would control your access to free information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

[Graknorke]

The thing with half of those statements is that they said that the women didn't tell him to stop. One of them are something to the effect of that they felt that because it had already started they would allow it to continue. Then the condom one was basically that she didn't say anything, but when she did, he complied.

That's not really a very strong statement.

[DJ]

Really, any instance of sex can be classified as rape if you throw away the requirement to clearly deny consent. Explicit consent (as in saying "I hereby grant you permission to have sex with me") doesn't really happen very often in real life situations, because it's just awkward and kills the mood.

[Leafsnail]

The thing with half of those statements is that they said that the women didn't tell him to stop. One of them are something to the effect of that they felt that because it had already started they would allow it to continue. Then the condom one was basically that she didn't say anything, but when she did, he complied.

Ok, this is completely incorrect.  It is something that Assange supporters love to parrot, so I can understand why you'd get this impression, but it is not true.

Please read Palsch's link.  It explains the actual charges.  In particular look to the one which alleges he had unprotected sex with a woman in spite of the fact that she was sleeping at the time, and in spite of her previously expressed wishes to use a condom during sex.  Having sex with someone who is not in a state to give consent (eg sleep) is rape under UK law, and these charges have been found to amount to rape under UK law three times, including in our highest court.

I find it really strange that this thread which is supposed to be about social justice is getting sidetracked by trying to play down rape allegations.

[kaijyuu]

Probably because rape allegations are one of the easiest things to abuse to try and shame someone for ulterior motives.

But yeah, I'd suggest moving it to the progressive thread.

[SalmonGod]

I'll just let Naomi Wolf respond to all this...

[Graknorke]

The thing with half of those statements is that they said that the women didn't tell him to stop. One of them are something to the effect of that they felt that because it had already started they would allow it to continue. Then the condom one was basically that she didn't say anything, but when she did, he complied.

Ok, this is completely incorrect.  It is something that Assange supporters love to parrot, so I can understand why you'd get this impression, but it is not true.

Please read Palsch's link.  It explains the actual charges.  In particular look to the one which alleges he had unprotected sex with a woman in spite of the fact that she was sleeping at the time, and in spite of her previously expressed wishes to use a condom during sex.  Having sex with someone who is not in a state to give consent (eg sleep) is rape under UK law, and these charges have been found to amount to rape under UK law three times, including in our highest court.

I find it really strange that this thread which is supposed to be about social justice is getting sidetracked by trying to play down rape allegations.

I said half of them. For the reasons I said.
Like the one you brought up. Yes, it was legally rape because she was asleep, but she then said in a statement that she didn't say anything ecause she didn't think it was appropriate to interrupt or something like that.

I read the link. Stop being so aggressive.

[Leafsnail]

Probably because rape allegations are one of the easiest things to abuse to try and shame someone for ulterior motives.

But yeah, I'd suggest moving it to the progressive thread.

I'm sure Vector would be very pleased to have rape apology in her thread.

I'll just let Naomi Wolf respond to all this...

Kindof ironic that she was complaining about not granting him bail considering his unlawful flight from justice.  Granting him bail turned out to be a mistake.

But in any case, this argument is bizarre.  "Other rape cases aren't always taken seriously, therefore we should not take this one seriously" doesn't follow at all.  Sweden has indeed had serious problems with prosecuting rapes in the past - that's why they want to pursue this case to help prove that they're changing.  It's true that alleged rapists aren't usually extradited this vigorously, but that's because rapists don't normally take off to another country in the middle of an investigation into them.  They also don't usually have the legal muscle to repeatedly claim that what they are accused of isn't a crime.

I said half of them. For the reasons I said.
Like the one you brought up. Yes, it was legally rape because she was asleep, but she then said in a statement that she didn't say anything ecause she didn't think it was appropriate to interrupt or something like that.

I read the link. Stop being so aggressive.

According to the allegations she didn't say anything prior to the act because she was asleep.  Assange allegedly did not obtain consent before he started to have sex with her, and since she had previously only had sex with a condom there isn't even an "implied consent" argument to make here.  The fact that she may have decided it would be easier to allow the act to continue than to try and fight off a man while she was still half asleep does not retroactively make it consensual.

And I was not being aggressive.  I was just telling you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong, and if you previously read the link then that is even more of a problem.