European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, August 2, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 2432
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 16, 2012 1:35 AM

Quote:
And if those people do destroy property as has occurred in several other G20, World Bank, and WTO demonstrations, just explain to the folks who lost their property and livelihood that it's all for the greater good?

Well, why not just impose a curfew on everyone, all the time, and be done with freedom altogether? Because after all, who knows what mischief people MIGHT get into?

Yanno, I disagree with the definition of "crime". Say, a bank building is burned and a million dollars damage is done. How does that compare with the billions of dollars the bank loaned irresponsibly? Who belongs in jail?

SIGNYM

Friday, March 16, 2012 1:56 AM

Quote:
Various "tough on crime" legislators here in the US have proposed it at various times, but it has never caught on.

Actually, it has.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 16, 2012 2:01 AM

Quote:
Woman had a restraining order against her husband because he'd threatened to kill her. He was arrested two times within 72 hours for stalking her, and released by a judge. He then went to where she was staying, beat her, dragged her to her car, drove her downtown, and killed her.

Geezer, there is a difference between detaining a specific person who is making threats against someone, violating a restraining order and stalking them... those are already crimes. This would not be "preventive" detention, but actually detention for crimes already committed... versus detaining people who have not made any specific threats and in some cases were completely uninvolved in what was going on.

So apparently you think that people should be detained en masse for crimes which they haven't commmitted and haven't even threatened to commit.

Got it!

OONJERAH

Friday, March 16, 2012 2:05 AM

I sure don't see where the stalking, murderous husband fits into this thread.
The LAW (judge, cops) failed the wife which is pretty SOP in this country.

BTW, was the husband even arrested for his crime? Serve 2 years maybe?

RIONAEIRE

Friday, March 16, 2012 6:28 AM

Geezer a chara, I see where you're coming from sort of, but I can't go there, this is unlawful imprisonment and I just can't abide that in our country here. If England wants to do that then its their business, but I don't want that happening here.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

GEEZER

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, why not just impose a curfew on everyone, all the time, and be done with freedom altogether? Because after all, who knows what mischief people MIGHT get into?

Not quite the same as reacting to people who threaten 'mischief".

Quote:
Yanno, I disagree with the definition of "crime". Say, a bank building is burned and a million dollars damage is done. How does that compare with the billions of dollars the bank loaned irresponsibly? Who belongs in jail?

Say it's a coffee shop, grocery store, or electronics store. They're just damn capitalists anyway. Right?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

I sure don't see where the stalking, murderous husband fits into this thread.
The LAW (judge, cops) failed the wife which is pretty SOP in this country.

Because there are folks here saying that law enforcement has no right to interfere with people until a crime is committed. Apparently they see things the same as the judge who released the abusive husband because he said he wouldn't harm his wife.

Quote:
BTW, was the husband even arrested for his crime? Serve 2 years maybe?

After killing his wife, he drove her van to a friend's house and killed himself.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Geezer a chara, I see where you're coming from sort of, but I can't go there, this is unlawful imprisonment and I just can't abide that in our country here. If England wants to do that then its their business, but I don't want that happening here.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't want it either, and don't mind that there are courts to examine instances where it occurs.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we don't live in a world where there are enough police on hand to, at the same time, allow protestors to go where they will, protect private property, maintain right-of-way for non-protestors who are in the same area, and - as Anthony suggests - escort folks who are trying to get away from the demonstration area.

The police have a responsibility to all the people, not just the protestors, and have to protect everyone's interests as best they can with limited resources. They also have to respond on the fly, no matter what contingency plans they have in place, because situations most always change in unforseen ways.

Then again, in most any recent G20, WTO, Anti-globalization protest, you'll read of people who were trapped in their offices or businesses due to fear of violence by the protestors. Is that unlawful imprisonment by the protestors? Do they have any responsibility to these people, or the ones with property or businesses damaged?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CAVETROLL

Friday, March 16, 2012 3:38 PM

Quiet, peasant! No protests allowed where you might disturb your betters!

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 16, 2012 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Then again, in most any recent G20, WTO, Anti-globalization protest, you'll read of people who were trapped in their offices or businesses due to fear of violence by the protestors. Is that unlawful imprisonment by the protestors? Do they have any responsibility to these people, or the ones with property or businesses damaged?

Hello,

Of course. Confining people against their will is morally and legally wrong. Anyone who was actually prevented from leaving a building has been injured. (This does not include a generic fear of unwashed masses, but rather someone actually preventing them from leaving, or harming them when they attempt to leave.)

Anyone who damages property is similarly a violator.

But people who don't do these things are not criminals and can't be treated as criminals on the assumption that they will do these things.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE