Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media

[Evo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?

Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit

 

[Proton Soup]

Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?

Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit

it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.

 

[Evo]

it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.

It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law. I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think he does understand based on his posts.

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.

heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.

 

[turbo]

Would MLK have been granted permits for people to gather in southern cities and march in support of civil rights? I don't think so. The use of police dogs, water-cannons, and truncheons, etc against peaceful marchers argues strongly against prior restraint (requiring permits from the authorities lest all the marchers be considered rioters and be dealt with accordingly.)

I lived through that time, and remember thinking "what have these people done to get treated this way?" It's easy to pose such questions as if they were dichotomies, but that is rarely useful or even marginally honest, IMO.

 

[Evo]

well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.

That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it.

I think that the more or less instantaneous and untraceable electronic communication capability isn't "just a tool". It's a very effective tool that seems to enable the hooligans to stay ahead of efforts to stop them, as the OP and other posters have pointed out.

... writing a new law won't help.

I'm not sure about that. If penalties for the sorts of organized criminal activities that we're talking about were increased, and then uniformly enforced and prosecuted, then I think it would make a big difference. But I also think that none of that is likely to happen.

... if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.

But those means are much less effective and probably wouldn't enable the hooligans to stay ahead of police.

Anyway, you can't come down hard on people simply for using electronic media. What might work is increasing sentences for those caught and convicted of crimes and having those tougher laws consistently enforced and prosecuted. But part of the problem is that all components of the criminal justice system (including enforcement, prosecution, and incarcaration) are incapable of handling the sort of increases that that would entail.

... heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.

I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.

These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.

If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.

 

[Jack21222]

If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors ...

I have a hard time believing that anybody believes this.

Never once have I ever seen police protecting protesters. MANY times have I seen or heard of police beating, arresting, and even KILLING protesters.

Here's a video of police "protecting" a protester by shooting her in the head with rubber bullets for holding a sign, and then laughing afterward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnEjzYCHidw

 

[Evo]

A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez

 

[Jack21222]

A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez

You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.

 

[SteveL27]

It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law.

I'm painfully aware of the modern development of "free speech zones" and the like. You seem to believe that civil liberties are obtained by asking the government's permission. This is not the time or the place for a lengthy history lesson; but the absurdity of asking a repressive government's permission to protest that government's policies speaks for itself. If people waited for government permission, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, gays would be in jail, and for that matter, we'd still be a British colony.

I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.

A totally unwarranted personal attack. It seems to me you're drinking a lot of government Kool-Aid. The U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Permits and free speech zones are the latest attempt to prevent people from asserting their rights.

In any event, you continue to focus on the protesters. I've already said that I'll stipulate that a flash mob on a subway platform at rush hour is not a good idea. The question at hand is not whether this particular group of protesters are expressing themselves in an appropriate manner; the question is whether BART is within its rights, legally and morally, to shut down cell service in advance of a protest, before any crime has been committed? In fact, before anyone had even shown up?

It's a slippery slope problem. If what BART did is ok this time, what is the limit? That's why I started a few posts ago by asking if people believe that the government has the right to shut down a newspaper for printing things the government doesn't like. WikiLeaks comes to mind. Bradley Manning is in jail and at one point was being subjected to treatment that was illegal and bordered on psychological torture. His "crime?" Revealing some of the corruption and, uh, cattle excrement [LOL I got ***'d] at the heart of our recent foreign policy misadventures.

So ... can the government torture someone -- someone who has not yet been convicted of any crime, mind you -- because the government says so? Or do we still have due process in this country?

Evo my friend, due process and the rule of law are not something you ask the government permission for. Due process and the rule of law are things people fight for every day in the courts and in politics and in every interaction with the government. And throughout history, when the courts and the political system didn't work ... people in this country laid down their lives for due process and the rule of law.

If BART can turn off cell service before anyone even shows up to protest; then what CAN'T the government do, in your opinion?

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

I'm sure President Mubarak would agree. I just wonder if you've thought through the consequences of your own naive trust in getting government's "permission" to oppose its policies.

 

[rhody]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576502471452310218.html"

LONDON—After furious race riots broke out in London's Tottenham area 26 years ago, government and local authorities poured millions of pounds into the district and especially Broadwater Farm estate, a notorious housing project that was the epicenter of the 1985 unrest.

and

Meanwhile, gang culture has persisted, fueled, according to community workers, by a negative attitude to police and authority that was one of the legacies of the 1985 riot

I am not sympathsizing with the rioter's in any way. That being said, a hostile relationship between the police and people who are forced to live there is almost a 100% guarantee that history repeats itself. Sadly in this case, it has proven true. It isn't all about the money in the end, it is about lack of respect. Maybe this time, this issue will be addressed in the long term. It will be tough to do, I am sure of that.

Rhody...

 

[Evo]

You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.

When the protests don't become riots, why on Earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.

Apparently the police protection works.

 

[Galteeth]

When the protests don't become riots, why on Earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.

Apparently the police protection works.

Police are frequently assigned to protect the WBC people when they protest.EDIT: In most cases, protestors don't have much to fear from other civilians. Groups like the KKK and Westboro would be exceptions.

"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.

 

[Evo]

"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.

No, I'm saying when they do, it's in the news.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.

well, the prison sentence for stealing water was harsh, but i think part of that is that we can identify with an electrical engineering student as someone like us. but the assaults, and especially the arsons, could be worth that.

it still seems to me, though, that once you start seeing mayhem, you really need to establish a large police presence. even the presence will calm most of the joy-rioters without having to go to total control.

i just hate the idea of using some crazy law to outlaw most all forms of protest or political activism. speech in government-approved speech zones and predetermined times isn't really free speech.

 

[Proton Soup]

I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.

These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.

If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.

i'm still in awe of Norway. how do they do it? what about them instills a sense of social responsibility that makes keeping a large percentage of their population in jail unnecessary?

 

[ThomasT]

i'm still in awe of Norway. how do they do it? what about them instills a sense of social responsibility that makes keeping a large percentage of their population in jail unnecessary?

Good question. It might have something to do with Norway's degree of racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity. Among highly developed countries, the other Scandinavian countries, and Japan, and European countries in general, have much lower (about a tenth) incarceration rates than the US, which has by far the highest incarceration rate and also is probably the most racially, ethnically and culturally inhomogeneous country.

But maybe that's not a key factor wrt the flash mobs that this thread is about.

Rioters (in relatively recent memory) and flash mobbers tend to be predominantly young and African American (and whatever the British equivalent are called) -- but not immigrants. This is also the case with the prison population in the US (not sure about England).

It seems clear enough to me that this has a lot to do with the urban (sub)culture of criminality, violence and contempt for the rights of others that these kids grow up in. They've just taken the youthful 'rebel without a cause' thing to another level that nobody really knows how to deal with. And this is all magnified and exacerbated by modern refinements in communications technologies.

 

[ginru]

It seems clear enough to me that this has a lot to do with the urban (sub)culture of criminality, violence and contempt for the rights of others that these kids grow up in. They've just taken the youthful 'rebel without a cause' thing to another level that nobody really knows how to deal with. And this is all magnified and exacerbated by modern refinements in communications technologies.

But that subculture emerges from a lack of positive social structure and that is the real problem behind violent youth. When we see a black teenager involved in gang crime or a white middle-class kid that shoots up his school, we tend to treat these as completely separate issues because of ethnic differences but the common thread is in how youth have lost faith in taking constructive paths and instead turned to destructive influences for easy answers.

Personally, I think there has been a breakdown of the balanced family structure as that would supply stability. We dwell too much on the sexual preference of couples instead of focusing on the balancing of breadwinner and homemaker roles. I fully support women being free to achieve financial success and empowerment but in order to keep the balance then perhaps we need more men to transition into providing progressive leadership on the home front. If kids are getting bullied, then where are the parents to police the situation... if kids are out on the streets late at night, then where are the elders to drag them by their ears back home? There's a lot of talk about unemployment numbers nationwide but the most important jobs in our communities seem to be vacant.

 

[AlephZero]

Anyway, these two won't be doing any more organizing using social media for a while...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582

 

[ThomasT]

Anyway, these two won't be doing any more organizing using social media for a while...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582

They got light sentences (4 years, which they probably won't do all of) for serious deliberate crimes that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. This is what I don't understand. The authorities in England say that the sentences send the message that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated. But it seems to me that they're sending the message that if you're caught and convicted, then you can expect to get a light sentence relative to what the law allows. 'Gangstas' and their minions of wannabes expect to go to prison for a few years for things like armed robbery, murder, assault, drug dealing, rape, etc.

The light sentencing tendency is part of the problem.

 

[Galteeth]

Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.

Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!

 

[ThomasT]

Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.

Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what your point is. What are you recommending? Just think of violent flash mobs and riots as no big deal, relax and embrace the status quo? After all we've always had mobs and riots and gangsters and criminals. Is there no point in discussing ways of possibly improving things?

 

[Proton Soup]

Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.

Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!

yes, our crime rates were higher in the 70s and 80s. and then we started building larger prisons and keeping people incarcerated indefinitely and crime rates went down. so, we've been addressing the problem on the back end. what we haven't quite addressed yet is the problem on the front end, that pesky social fabric problem. if it were to come down to something so base as the previously-mentioned inhomogeneity stats, then we may be perpetually screwed. but if it is perhaps also related to something else, like say financial inequities, then perhaps we need to consider addressing the relative costs of that versus maintaining a huge crime and punishment industry.

 

[rhody]

Now, Maryland imitators... Ack...

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/justice/maryland.flash.mob_1_flash-mob-police-patrols-social-networking-sites?_s=PM:CRIME"

Rhody...