no criminal charges for pepper-spray-cop

[Kentactic]

The decision for things to become way worse is in the hands of the LEO's ultimately.

The decision is in the hands of the government, LEOs do nothing without someone giving the order. LEOs are pawns.

They pull the trigger. They make the final decision wether they know it or not.

[Kentactic]

Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort?

That isn't conclusive, there were tons of occupy protests in the US without pepper spray and without the militia on guard.

Correct. But it does say it dosent immediatly make all cops swarm and start shooting everyone holding a gun every time... what ever thats worth.. Even cops have tolerance to some degree or another. and they too know to pick their battles. But one thing is for certain. If the battles look easier to win (no armed citizens) they are more likely to pick them.

[NOLA556]

Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort?

That isn't conclusive, there were tons of occupy protests in the US without pepper spray and without the militia on guard.

Correct. But it does say it dosent immediatly make all cops swarm and start shooting everyone holding a gun every time... what ever thats worth.. Even cops have tolerance to some degree or another. and they too know to pick their battles. But one thing is for certain. If the battles look easier to win (no armed citizens) they are more likely to pick them.

bingo! love ya APX, but I gotta side with Kenny this time.

I'd also add that the presence of guns doesn't automatically mean "violent" protest. that protest was just as peaceful as all the other ones. let's not forget that guns are TOOLS. nothing more than inanimate hunks of metal and plastic. the sack of meat and bones that carries the gun chooses to be peaceful or violent.

[APX808]

I never said that the presence of guns makes a protest violent.

My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.

The only way you mention is the dissuasive factor, but that means shit, in my country I have seen the police sent to disperse indigenous protests and there were wounded and dead on both sides, the indigenous were armed and that meant shit for the politicians, they just wanted the police to clear the road.

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart.

[Kentactic]

My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.

Simply being there and having the weight of actual risk to the officers is defending the protesters. They stop the protesters from being taken advantage of in many cases. If this went on and eventually one event turned out with blood shed, then so be it. If your not willing to defend your rights with blood then theres no way you can keep them.

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.

Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart

But simply being present on a spot on the map isnt picking a battle in my opinion. If it apears that way its because we have been driven to think that using our rights makes us bad. Again, it's up to police to make any attack on our liberties or not. They have freedom of choice as individuals. Americans however have a responsibility to stop attacks on our liberty.

[APX808]

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.

Ken, that's not the SOP of LE.

LE first ask nicely and if you refuse they insist.
If you continue to refuse, they'll use non lethal weapons (batons, tear gas, pepper spray, hydrant trucks etc), that's not becoming a terrorist, that's a usual day for riot police.
If protestors use lethal force, the second line of LE will shoot.( Riot police usually isn't armed to avoid losing the weapon). In this case they are not the terrorist because you shot first and they are defending themselves.

So, you cant apply "fire by fire" because the fire will be initiated by the militia (or an infiltrated gov agent), not LE.

The militia has no way to respond to non-lethal force without fucking it up.

Urban demonstrations have their own set of tactics, a better response to LE would be to move the protest to a different place, when the police go there you move again, that tactic can turn a city upside down and no one gets hurt or shot.

[Kentactic]

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.

Ken, that's not the SOP of LE.

LE first ask nicely and if you refuse they insist.
If you continue to refuse, they'll use non lethal weapons (batons, tear gas, pepper spray, hydrant trucks etc), that's not becoming a terrorist, that's a usual day for riot police.
If protestors use lethal force, the second line of LE will shoot.( Riot police usually isn't armed to avoid losing the weapon). In this case they are not the terrorist because you shot first and they are defending themselves.

So, you cant apply "fire by fire" because the fire will be initiated by the militia (or an infiltrated gov agent), not LE.

The militia has no way to respond to non-lethal force without fucking it up.

Urban demonstrations have their own set of tactics, a better response to LE would be to move the protest to a different place, when the police go there you move again, that tactic can turn a city upside down and no one gets hurt or shot.

ter?ror?ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Wether tickling you to death or shooting you to death, if the end result is destruction of your liberties then its a terrorist act. Forcing some one to give up a god given right through threat or actual use of LESS-lethal (not non-lethal) force is terrorism. "Do this or i will force you to against your will and over your rights".

For the LEO's to hide behind Less-lethal force that causes militia to use more-lethal force means nothing. Using Less-lethal force was the first shot fired. It was a direct threat on their liberties. And if the militia so chose but in my opinion wouldnt be morally obligated to do they could also carry less-lethal force to return in kind. And then thered be hundreds of miltia and LEO's coughing, and snotting all over themselves from all the pepper spraying. But i think its safe to say LEO's would fire shots at that point anyways.

But let me ask you this. When your in a fist fight with some one do you only hit them as hard as they are hitting you, or do you go for broke now that your enemy has crossed a line which he knowingly accepted any risk from there on out?

Forcing Americans out of their liberties is the line. Theres no levels of agression on that side of the fence.

[APX808]

That's nice rhetoric, its easy to talk about blood, shooting and killing LEOs from home, but doing that and living the consequences is another issue.

I see tons of guys saying what you say in many forums, but I never saw anyone shooting riot police, or shooting congress mans when they approved the assault weapons ban, or when in the latest NDAA they got the tools to incarcerate a US citizen without trial or other laws that are extremely more aggravating that pepper spraying you...

Maybe that's because people love their families and their lives and they don't want to spent the rest of their life in jail, or be shot in the streets.

Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is pretty fucking hard man, my country had more than 40 years of urban guerrilla against military dictatorships and it fucking sucks.

Please, don't take this as an attack to you Ken, is just that fighting against a government isn't easy business, lots of people die and your country will pay the price for generations, never talk easily about insurrection.

[NOLA556]

I never said that the presence of guns makes a protest violent.

My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.

The only way you mention is the dissuasive factor, but that means shit, in my country I have seen the police sent to disperse indigenous protests and there were wounded and dead on both sides, the indigenous were armed and that meant shit for the politicians, they just wanted the police to clear the road.

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart.

just to warn you, I'm responding to this post specifically. I haven't read any of the posts after this one at this point.

my feeling on this is that the guns are more symbolic than anything. if shit spirals out of control, well it's up to the men holding the guns what move they want to make.

the way I'm looking at it, these peaceful protests are just a way for wannabe activists to make themselves feel like they're doing something with their lives. in reality, it accomplishes nothing. so the presence of guns, which in this case is more just a symbol of power, or a warning, is kind of like the "next step" up on the ladder.

[NOLA556]

My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.

Simply being there and having the weight of actual risk to the officers is defending the protesters. They stop the protesters from being taken advantage of in many cases. If this went on and eventually one event turned out with blood shed, then so be it. If your not willing to defend your rights with blood then theres no way you can keep them.

I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.

Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.

Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart

But simply being present on a spot on the map isnt picking a battle in my opinion. If it apears that way its because we have been driven to think that using our rights makes us bad. Again, it's up to police to make any attack on our liberties or not. They have freedom of choice as individuals. Americans however have a responsibility to stop attacks on our liberty.

fantastic, Kenny.  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[Kentactic]

That's nice rhetoric, its easy to talk about blood, shooting and killing LEOs from home, but doing that and living the consequences is another issue.

I see tons of guys saying what you say in many forums, but I never saw anyone shooting riot police, or shooting congress mans when they approved the assault weapons ban, or when in the latest NDAA they got the tools to incarcerate a US citizen without trial or other laws that are extremely more aggravating that pepper spraying you...

Maybe that's because people love their families and their lives and they don't want to spent the rest of their life in jail, or be shot in the streets.

Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is pretty fucking hard man, my country had more than 40 years of urban guerrilla against military dictatorships and it fucking sucks.

Please, don't take this as an attack to you Ken, is just that fighting against a government isn't easy business, lots of people die and your country will pay the price for generations, never talk easily about insurrection.

I spoke only in theory and moral standing. Most will do anything to just stay alive. Give up every right they have. I wasnt speaking on a personal note so dont take anything i wrote as my own self proclaimed bravery or anything of the sort. There may come a point where jail or gunned down in the streets dosent look so bad anymore. But by that time there will be little ability to resist successfully. And when i say successfully i dont base failure or success on individuals surviving. Its based on the over all goal being reached.

I dont have all the answers but i know there is a point long before most would resist that if reached Americans would need to fight back.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

[Colombo]

Escalation of any sort should be avoided, help in the form of advice, particularly on communication and organizing is the better method from my point of view.

     The protesters lack both leadership and anything resembling tactics as far as I've seen. Just sending out more groups to targeted points than the police have sufficient numbers to address and pulling them out to other targets if enough law enforcement shows up would effectively lock "crowd control" down to only high priority points. They are a response only force without real mobile endurance in these situations and the momentum can be taken easily leaving them isolated and ineffective. If given cause they move in and make arrests but will not do so without sufficient numbers for the most part. Opportunities missed due to a lack of understanding the capabilities, limitations and rules of engagement of the opposing force.

[EJR914]

Escalation of any sort should be avoided, help in the form of advice, particularly on communication and organizing is the better method from my point of view.

     The protesters lack both leadership and anything resembling tactics as far as I've seen. Just sending out more groups to targeted points than the police have sufficient numbers to address and pulling them out to other targets if enough law enforcement shows up would effectively lock "crowd control" down to only high priority points. They are a response only force without real mobile endurance in these situations and the momentum can be taken easily leaving them isolated and ineffective. If given cause they move in and make arrests but will not do so without sufficient numbers for the most part. Opportunities missed due to a lack of understanding the capabilities, limitations and rules of engagement of the opposing force.

 [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co