On January 27 2014 18:04 KwarK wrote: Do you legitimately not understand in the Ukraine that when police officers start handing out "justice" the system isn't working. That the police as an institution should not be in the business of justice, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals and hold them until such a time as the people can deal out justice.
I know that it's a concept that has no historical basis in the ex Soviet world and that police officers all over the world struggle to understand that they have no mandate to deal out justice but justice is in the hands of the people and when the police start doing it it's no more legitimate than any other armed gang imposing upon your liberties to compel you to do what they want,
And you do understand? What do u know about soviet police standarts in real? As you say, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals, but every striker that throws a cocktail, cobbles, spoils statues (V.V. Lobanovskiy statue) and using chains of police squads - automatically becomes a criminal and must be jailed. And police only holds, with almost no agression (although some manifistations was seen) to prevent things even scarier.
And yet the post I was referring to, your post, included this
U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them
This is not how policing works. You honestly seem to not understand that.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
So is your right to protest intact or did you never have it in the first place?
Have you ever been to a protest with football hooligans? I have. In 2008 I took a free bus to Belgrade to take part in peaceful protests. Now anyone can take advantage of free buses so half the bus was filled up with local football hooligans. With all their talk of patriotism on the way to Belgrade you would think they would come with us to the protest once we go there? Yeah, they joined up with a friendly group from Belgrade and spent the whole day looting and vandalizing throughout the city. When we were supposed to go home they slashed the tires on the bus because the driver wouldn't wait for one of their friends who had cut his hand robbing a store... yeah
If anyone one thinks these hooligans have joined the protesting for any other reason beside a license to freely attack police and be all around animals, you are delusional. The peaceful protesters have only the animals within their ranks to blame for the new laws.
edit: Most Ukrainian's (outside of TL), that mentioned the protesters use the word Бандеровцы
There is no doubt in my mind that there are criminals among the protesters, but so what? The actions of football hooligans do not give a government the right to indefinitely suspend the right of the people to have a peaceful protest.
And they do not justify the thugish behavior of the police acting on the behalf of an obviously corrupt government desperately clinging to power.
On January 27 2014 17:46 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them (and I personally think that police made it right)
Care to show us some photos or videos? There are thousands of them in the internet, you might get lucky. The only photo I have seen of him was when he was carrying an injured female journalist to the medics (1+1 journalist, hit by a rubber bullet).
The only thing u see, or the only thing u WANT to see? Do u realise that u're in the middle of INFORMATION WAR? And do u realise that u are on the brink of civil war?
civil war against whom? Will you shoot and beat people to keep Yanukovich in power?
I won't shoot in people that trying to keep Yanukovich, but i'm not going to shoot at police officers! If u won't follow legetimate way to change government, u will be in danger. Sooner or later, as a result, all the riots will be smashed.
That's the problem with such political institutions though, there are no legitimate ways to change the government. It's clear that the ukraine president is not a democratically elected president that can be democratically removed, or even have any democratic checks on his power. He is a dictator, there is no legitimate way of going against him.
President elections comes to my mind and it had to happen relativly soon. Impeachment is also the legetimate way out. Yes, he's a bad president, but he's not a dictator.
On January 27 2014 18:27 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: [quote]
And you do understand? What do u know about soviet police standarts in real? As you say, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals, but every striker that throws a cocktail, cobbles, spoils statues (V.V. Lobanovskiy statue) and using chains of police squads - automatically becomes a criminal and must be jailed. And police only holds, with almost no agression (although some manifistations was seen) to prevent things even scarier.
And yet the post I was referring to, your post, included this
U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them
This is not how policing works. You honestly seem to not understand that.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
So is your right to protest intact or did you never have it in the first place?
Have you ever been to a protest with football hooligans? I have. In 2008 I took a free bus to Belgrade to take part in peaceful protests. Now anyone can take advantage of free buses so half the bus was filled up with local football hooligans. With all their talk of patriotism on the way to Belgrade you would think they would come with us to the protest once we go there? Yeah, they joined up with a friendly group from Belgrade and spent the whole day looting and vandalizing throughout the city. When we were supposed to go home they slashed the tires on the bus because the driver wouldn't wait for one of their friends who had cut his hand robbing a store... yeah
If anyone one thinks these hooligans have joined the protesting for any other reason beside a license to freely attack police and be all around animals, you are delusional. The peaceful protesters have only the animals within their ranks to blame for the new laws.
edit: Most Ukrainian's (outside of TL), that mentioned the protesters use the word Бандеровцы
There is no doubt in my mind that there are criminals among the protesters, but so what? The actions of football hooligans do not give a government the right to indefinitely suspend the right of the people to have a peaceful protest.
And they do not justify the thugish behavior of the police acting on the behalf of an obviously corrupt government desperately clinging to power.
Put yourself in a police officers shoes for a minute, you are cold, hungry and idiots attack you every day for doing your job and feeding your family. Now you've been at this for months now, you've seen friends you've known for years being hit with petrol bombs. You yourself have had your baton stolen and have been beaten with it.
One day scared for your life you just snap, grab the first person you see throwing petrol bombs and skin him naked in an attempt to make more thugs stop attacking you. I highly doubt Yanukovych himself ordered people to be beaten, its just the police not being able to handle their lives being endangered by criminals anymore.
On January 27 2014 17:46 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them (and I personally think that police made it right)
Care to show us some photos or videos? There are thousands of them in the internet, you might get lucky. The only photo I have seen of him was when he was carrying an injured female journalist to the medics (1+1 journalist, hit by a rubber bullet).
The only thing u see, or the only thing u WANT to see? Do u realise that u're in the middle of INFORMATION WAR? And do u realise that u are on the brink of civil war?
civil war against whom? Will you shoot and beat people to keep Yanukovich in power?
I won't shoot in people that trying to keep Yanukovich, but i'm not going to shoot at police officers! If u won't follow legetimate way to change government, u will be in danger. Sooner or later, as a result, all the riots will be smashed.
That's the problem with such political institutions though, there are no legitimate ways to change the government. It's clear that the ukraine president is not a democratically elected president that can be democratically removed, or even have any democratic checks on his power. He is a dictator, there is no legitimate way of going against him.
President elections comes to my mind and it had to happen relativly soon. Impeachment is also the legetimate way out. Yes, he's a bad president, but he's not a dictator.
Impeachment relies on the government to act and if he holds the majority/pressures the majority thats not always an option. And yes elections would be the normal way to solve this peacefully but well.... Thats in Yanukovich's hands and has he proposed quick elections yet?
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
So is your right to protest intact or did you never have it in the first place?
Have you ever been to a protest with football hooligans? I have. In 2008 I took a free bus to Belgrade to take part in peaceful protests. Now anyone can take advantage of free buses so half the bus was filled up with local football hooligans. With all their talk of patriotism on the way to Belgrade you would think they would come with us to the protest once we go there? Yeah, they joined up with a friendly group from Belgrade and spent the whole day looting and vandalizing throughout the city. When we were supposed to go home they slashed the tires on the bus because the driver wouldn't wait for one of their friends who had cut his hand robbing a store... yeah
If anyone one thinks these hooligans have joined the protesting for any other reason beside a license to freely attack police and be all around animals, you are delusional. The peaceful protesters have only the animals within their ranks to blame for the new laws.
edit: Most Ukrainian's (outside of TL), that mentioned the protesters use the word Бандеровцы
There is no doubt in my mind that there are criminals among the protesters, but so what? The actions of football hooligans do not give a government the right to indefinitely suspend the right of the people to have a peaceful protest.
And they do not justify the thugish behavior of the police acting on the behalf of an obviously corrupt government desperately clinging to power.
Put yourself in a police officers shoes for a minute, you are cold, hungry and idiots attack you every day for doing your job and feeding your family. Now you've been at this for months now, you've seen friends you've known for years being hit with petrol bombs. You yourself have had your baton stolen and have been beaten with it.
One day scared for your life you just snap, grab the first person you see throwing petrol bombs and skin him naked in an attempt to make more thugs stop attacking you. I highly doubt Yanukovych himself ordered people to be beaten, its just the police not being able to handle their lives being endangered by criminals anymore.
Then don't be a police officer. There is no excuse to act in such a way.
ps. No protesters shouldn't be throwing Molotov's either.
On January 27 2014 18:04 KwarK wrote: Do you legitimately not understand in the Ukraine that when police officers start handing out "justice" the system isn't working. That the police as an institution should not be in the business of justice, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals and hold them until such a time as the people can deal out justice.
I know that it's a concept that has no historical basis in the ex Soviet world and that police officers all over the world struggle to understand that they have no mandate to deal out justice but justice is in the hands of the people and when the police start doing it it's no more legitimate than any other armed gang imposing upon your liberties to compel you to do what they want,
And you do understand? What do u know about soviet police standarts in real? As you say, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals, but every striker that throws a cocktail, cobbles, spoils statues (V.V. Lobanovskiy statue) and using chains of police squads - automatically becomes a criminal and must be jailed. And police only holds, with almost no agression (although some manifistations was seen) to prevent things even scarier.
And yet the post I was referring to, your post, included this
U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them
This is not how policing works. You honestly seem to not understand that.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
On January 27 2014 18:27 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: [quote]
And you do understand? What do u know about soviet police standarts in real? As you say, their purpose is simply to apprehend criminals, but every striker that throws a cocktail, cobbles, spoils statues (V.V. Lobanovskiy statue) and using chains of police squads - automatically becomes a criminal and must be jailed. And police only holds, with almost no agression (although some manifistations was seen) to prevent things even scarier.
And yet the post I was referring to, your post, included this
U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them
This is not how policing works. You honestly seem to not understand that.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
If you were to go outside right now and grievously injure a police officer in the UK, you would revive the same punishment that you would have gotten if it was any other random guy on the street? Right?
And a police officer doesn't have the right to protect him or herself if their life is in danger?
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
And a police officer doesn't have the right to protect him or herself if their life is in danger?
Ofc they have that right. Its actually something that is taught to Police in a lot of parts of the world. And no, Stripping people naked is not part of that training.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
If you were to go outside right now and grievously injure a police officer in the UK, you would revive the same punishment that you would have gotten if it was any other random guy on the street? Right?
And a police officer doesn't have the right to protect him or herself if their life is in danger?
I don't think anything you wrote here has anything to do with anything I wrote. Please read my post again.
Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people.
How does invading a government building and doing this not warrant being arrested?
Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
If you were to go outside right now and grievously injure a police officer in the UK, you would revive the same punishment that you would have gotten if it was any other random guy on the street? Right?
And a police officer doesn't have the right to protect him or herself if their life is in danger?
I don't think anything you wrote here has anything to do with anything I wrote. Please read my post again.
No. I just aimed the questions at you, probably should have written @KwarK instead of quoting but meh.
On January 27 2014 17:46 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: U might be mentioned a guy, who systematicly threw molotova's on police squads for a couple of days, who finally was captured and stripped, just to show the other strikers what potentially could be with them (and I personally think that police made it right)
Care to show us some photos or videos? There are thousands of them in the internet, you might get lucky. The only photo I have seen of him was when he was carrying an injured female journalist to the medics (1+1 journalist, hit by a rubber bullet).
The only thing u see, or the only thing u WANT to see? Do u realise that u're in the middle of INFORMATION WAR? And do u realise that u are on the brink of civil war?
civil war against whom? Will you shoot and beat people to keep Yanukovich in power?
I won't shoot in people that trying to keep Yanukovich, but i'm not going to shoot at police officers! If u won't follow legetimate way to change government, u will be in danger. Sooner or later, as a result, all the riots will be smashed.
That's the problem with such political institutions though, there are no legitimate ways to change the government. It's clear that the ukraine president is not a democratically elected president that can be democratically removed, or even have any democratic checks on his power. He is a dictator, there is no legitimate way of going against him.
President elections comes to my mind and it had to happen relativly soon. Impeachment is also the legetimate way out. Yes, he's a bad president, but he's not a dictator.
Impeachment relies on the government to act and if he holds the majority/pressures the majority thats not always an option. And yes elections would be the normal way to solve this peacefully but well.... Thats in Yanukovich's hands and has he proposed quick elections yet?
It seems like a deterioration of the situation is inevitable: Russia has just invested billions of dollars in Yanukovych and they expect a return of investment in the form of Yanukovich staying in power and upholding his end of the deal (whatever that may be!). Since one of the primary reasons for the initial protests was to make Yanukovych step down, it is a situation where Yanukovych has committed to staying in power, while the ríoters are committed to make Yanukovych step down. It seems inevitable that Yanukovych will crack down very hard on the protests at some point. The current situation is simply unsustainable and it doesn't seem like Yanukovych is willing to or has the choice of meeting the demands of the protesters.
Whether the police or the protesters are at fault is pretty irrelevant overall. Police has done some very attrocious things and the protesters have escalated to rioting and thugs attacking non-violent police. In the end the scenarios for a solution seems to funnel inevitably towards a violent standoff.
Please, take care of yourself if you are in Ukraine. It may get very ugly, very fast, as soon as the negotiations break down completely.
On January 27 2014 23:26 KwarK wrote: [quote] Yet another ex Soviet guy completely missing the point.
I'm not saying don't arrest criminals. I'm saying the police should not be dispensing in justice, punishment, deterrence, intimidation of the public or anything else. They have no mandate for it, only the people have the right to judge the people which they do in trials. The police just apprehend. "captured and stripped just to show the other strikers what would happen to them" is not policing, it's being an armed gang.
When they stormed government building, no one was afraid of jail. Besides, how do u think it is possible to capture all those riots? What police should do in practice? Not in theory as how u like to describe
In practice the police should still respect the rights of the people and by doing so the people will stop rioting. These are not two unrelated issues, the rioting is happening because the civil liberties of the people are being trampled on. All they're doing at the moment is justifying rioting and it's not going to stop.
Okay, so in practice, police shoud respect the right, but people don't have to respect the laws? Double standarts. Do u know why I'm not striking? I still can't find a reason, I can't find where my libirties were infranged. There is a couple of reason-and-consequence things happened during last two month, and all those things cannot be solved by storming the governmental building or firing cocktails at police.
Of course people should respect the law, and attacking police officers with molotov coctails is condemnable at least. But what should police do is to apprehend the criminals without resorting to violence. You have the guy stripped to his bare ass just for show off what will happen if others will follow. That looks more like a savagery, certainly not a lesson to anyone. And police has every right do defend itself when attacked, however by stripping people to bare ass they provoke even more attacks on themselves. That simply makes things personal, just as much as protesters trampling the police officers to the ground and throwing molotovs at them.
It is good though that you admit that YOU do not feel YOUR liberties being infringed. But this is just YOU, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. As are YOU so are the protesters, who got outlawed when protesting mostly peacefully. I say mostly, because there always be some individuals who can't hold their shit together on both sides.
Allright, I get ur point. But using ur logic, police had to shoot those guy, rather than stripping him. Cause they do have a right to protect themselves, and as everywhere, attacking police officer automaticly makes u a criminal. He caused serious danger that might even be followed by death, this is serious reason to shoot at cocktail-thrower. But what do we see? Gun bullets and a single guy being stripped. Oh what a liberty pinching...Police had and oppotunity, leagal opportunity to shoot them, but saved a lot of those idiot's asses. I don't get, how people are missing that point.
There is no "they could have done much worse". There is only what they have the right to do and what they do not and when police officers start dispensing justice without the people then they are an armed gang that should be fought. The police are not entitled to punish people, any more than they're entitled to go into your house and steal your stuff. It is no less criminal to be beaten by a police officer than it is to be beaten by anyone else, they are civilians, they are members of the public, they are part of the people.
If you were to go outside right now and grievously injure a police officer in the UK, you would revive the same punishment that you would have gotten if it was any other random guy on the street? Right?
And a police officer doesn't have the right to protect him or herself if their life is in danger?
I don't think anything you wrote here has anything to do with anything I wrote. Please read my post again.
No. I just aimed the questions at you, probably should have written @KwarK instead of quoting but meh.
Obviously police officers should be able to defend themselves in order to safely do their jobs. That is nothing to do with dispensing justice. And as with everyone else there should be a duty to use proportionate force and to de-escalate situations in which the force needed to resolve a situation is massively disproportionate to what is at stake in the situation.
Attacking public servants who put themselves at risk to help people is viewed by the justice system as more malicious than random acts of violence. It is comparable to how someone who deliberately murders children will receive a harsher punishment than someone who murders indiscriminately. The punishment responds to the degree of malice.
On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote: Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people.
I agree with you.
In Ukraine the situation is hopeless - the people are poor and just want a better future, some dream it lies with the EU. The government is probably a bad corrupted one, just like in my country. These points have been used to turn some people against the government to achieve the goals of the West - have the doorstep of Russia under control.
On the other side Russia has her own interests in wanting to control a country on her doorstep, and is doing this threw the current government. In a way Ukraine loses whichever side they chose, its just that the Russian side has more money. But at the end of the day whichever side 'wins the same reforms need to be made (just like in my country) - normalization of the state, abolishment of corruption, no more theft of state money, getting the economy back on its feet and all the good stuff that come with it.
In reality everyone wants change in Ukraine, just not in the 'pants-on-head' retarded way these protesters are going on about it. Risking the integrity and sovereignty of your country, sending your economy into freefall and risking the livelihood of future generations just so that your country can become a toy to taunt Russia with is criminal act. There is no side that is right in this whole matter, though one side is a hell of a lot wronger than the other.
On January 27 2014 22:17 xM(Z wrote: if UN/EU will try and give military help to Ukraine (opposition), russians will invade from the east for sure. worst case for Putin, he will have to "trade" Syria for Ukraine.
It wouldn't happen. Ukraine is more precious to Russia than Syria for a lot of reasons.
On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote: Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people.
Sometimes it is good for people to show their deep dissatisfaction in this way. An uprising of the people can be a catalyst for change, and by change I don't mean changing one corrupt official for another, or picking EU over Russia.
Throwing molotov cocktails and plundering government buildingd isn't a very good way to bring about change. But it is a lot better than just sitting back, saying: Yeah corruption is bad, but its always been and always will be, its how things are here. Which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is a common attitude in eastern Europe and Russia. I mean no offense.
On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote: Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people.
Sometimes it is good for people to show their deep dissatisfaction in this way. An uprising of the people can be a catalyst for change, and by change I don't mean changing one corrupt official for another, or picking EU over Russia.
Throwing molotov cocktails and plundering government buildingd isn't a very good way to bring about change. But it is a lot better than just sitting back, saying: Yeah corruption is bad, but its always been and always will be, its how things are here. Which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is a common attitude in eastern Europe and Russia. I mean no offense.
I think when violence of any kind appears, the goal and purpose of the side using it, is never true or noble, or tries to help in any way.They wanna make a not of noise , have the attention, scream , i believe not a single man on that square knows the pros and cons of integration or whos better suited to be a president and all those who suround him, they just follow "the voice".From what i've heard they vandalized 2 shops, burned them to the ground and 2 girls caught there who didn't shared they noble truth were striped or something like that. And i don't even know what could've happened off the camera and stories, people under blind fanatism do crazy things.
Sadly i don't know any other case, but i think Mahatma Gandhi showed what can be done with really good intentions and no bloodbath, obviously if they only want "change" well they cannot do it any other way. They don't know how to change or what they wanna change, they just demand it, with all the juicy words like freedom , indepence, for the people, etc.
In what world do some of the posters in this thread live in to think that it's alright for police officers to throw Molotov cocktails/gasoline bombs at protesters, or to strip people naked, beat them, slash them with knives, or even kill them? To go into hospitals and beat patients for information?
Hell, I didn't even know police officers carried around knives for slashing/stabbing people.
On January 28 2014 01:33 Greem wrote: Are we living in the same age ? I mean since when does the president of any country possesses some magicl powers to control everything ? Sure there are some legit politicians who went all the way to be a president by themselves, but most did so with help of some magnate, so the favours can be delievered aftewards with a great % of profit. Dont fool youself, changing a president ain't gonna change a thing as long as those behind him exist, welcome to corruption. It exist in every country, gently behind glorius red curtain. Sometimes its more clearly visible, sometimes its not. But what do you expect in politics other then a dagger behind a back. How many true-hearthed humanitarians politicians this world knew in last 50 years or so ? Not many i bet. And not every is intelligent enough to survive in this harsh enviroment. So to proclaim a revolution and use methods that this thugs are using on this EUROmaidan to change the man is charge is pathetic to say the least. I honestly don't know how to improve things or how to reduce corruption to aceptable levels, because lets be honest its never be at 0, but what i know is that its damn insulting to speak about this as some holy expedition to seek the truth and to restore the kingdom for people.
Sometimes it is good for people to show their deep dissatisfaction in this way. An uprising of the people can be a catalyst for change, and by change I don't mean changing one corrupt official for another, or picking EU over Russia.
Throwing molotov cocktails and plundering government buildingd isn't a very good way to bring about change. But it is a lot better than just sitting back, saying: Yeah corruption is bad, but its always been and always will be, its how things are here. Which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is a common attitude in eastern Europe and Russia. I mean no offense.
I think when violence of any kind appears, the goal and purpose of the side using it, is never true or noble, or tries to help in any way.They wanna make a not of noise , have the attention, scream , i believe not a single man on that square knows the pros and cons of integration or whos better suited to be a president and all those who suround him, they just follow "the voice".From what i've heard they vandalized 2 shops, burned them to the ground and 2 girls caught there who didn't shared they noble truth were striped or something like that. And i don't even know what could've happened off the camera and stories, people under blind fanatism do crazy things.
Sadly i don't know any other case, but i think Mahatma Gandhi showed what can be done with really good intentions and no bloodbath, obviously if they only want "change" well they cannot do it any other way. They don't know how to change or what they wanna change, they just demand it, with all the juicy words like freedom , indepence, for the people, etc.
violence against british colonial power played an important part in india's struggle for independence. are you suggesting it was unnecessary or are you oblivious to the fact? in any case if you want to draw comparisons you should substantiate.
EPT
