There certainly seems to be evidence of overboard police tactics, but news reports here in Minnesota also indicate that a few extremists groups among the protest groups had been planning violent tactics well in advance, such as kidnapping delegates; and some blatantly violent actions that were actually carried out by such groups have been widely reported, such as setting a dumpster on fire and crashing it into a police car, and punching an officer.

It's hard to know what all the relevant facts are at this point but it seems that regular security investigations discovered evidence for credible plans of criminal acts, and omitting information about these in this post doesn't give a reasonably complete picture of the situation.

Actually, most of the charges from that incident were dropped and the police acknowledged error. That's because lawyers and employees of law firms were swept up. Who knows what would have happened if reglar folks were there.

perspective is everything ... you seem to believe in the supremacy of your perspective. I say bullshit.

not mine but the reality of objective truth

Yes, the police have engaged in deliberate intimidation, likely illegal preemptive arrests ... however, they also got warrants ... Are psych-ops part of the police repetoire? Yes. Always have been, from the proverbial "beat cop" on up.

Get over yourself.

methinks you project WAY too much

Consider phenomenon such as the OJ Simpson Trial or the Michael Jackson and/or Kobe Bryant prosecutions ... those were highly public situations in which the "objective reality" can still be argued

Really? Nothing to see here just move along

... See also the assasinations of JFK, MLK and RFK ...

They are all still dead right?

See? Objective truth is a reality just because you dont want to admit it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

I suggest you reread my last post carefully.

And by the way if you cant take it, if you dont have a good arguement, just STFU.

I didn't realize you were asking for St Paul examples. I haven't heard of anything way out of line happening there yet either, as far as the protests themselves.

Only, that is, the disproportionate use of arrest powers to detain 300 people when only "50-100" were officially engaged in lawbreaking, and charging people with felonies when misdemeanors would have done the job. My guess is that most of those charges will be dropped.

The preemptive strikes Glenn documented before the convention were worse.

and mock Bush and his "for us or against us" mentality....

I was hoping Glenn would update on those being held and the warrant for the "wrong house," and the work of the NLG, etc.

Shock, horror, the MSM is giving Palin a kid-glove, free-ride ... and the GOP are claiming they're being mean ... and Salon's War Room and Broadsheet have been updating for each little crumb on NEW scandal ...

HuffPo was saying she'd back-out... having watched the MSM annoint GWB as a "serious candidate" in 2000, why should she? Have see seen pictures of her in Levi's yet?

My hunches are usually spot on.

As a matter of fact, I used to be a landscaper.

I thought your claim to know all about pigs was an idle boast or I might have guessed you were a pig farmer.

They were looking for a test case. They, Democracy Now, wanted to push this envelope and bring this on - vis a vis the larger issue of press access. Is the press exempt from the lawful order to disperse?

We'll see.

If you trust the ACLU, you will know that they don't agree with you. Is it almost Kafkaesque to the uneducated civilian? Probably.

But Amy had a choice. She could have shut up and left the area as lawfully ordered or not. She chose not to.

With her producers, I expect it has because she kept on filming and there was nothing to film but the officers. They weren't going to let her into the area. Does her press credntial give her access to the area? Let's let a judge decide that.

If you know DC, you know the parks are used by pedestrians all the time. Most of the people caught were going to work. They were easy to identify, but weren't let out, but instead were arrested. I call it deliberate, and so did every single observer and commentator in the media.

So, what do you think of that? I honestly find it hard to believe you never heard of it, and if you haven't, well ... maybe you need to pay more attention to exactly that kind of event. You know, just to keep your positions fresh and up to date.

-- Baldie McEagle

I am going on the best information I have to date. So far, considering what I have seen and based on my assessments of the credibility and inherent bias of the various reports, my feeling is this was handled appropriately. I make no judgments about other instances of riot control gone out of control or other abuse or uses of excessive force in other situations at other places involving other departments. There have been many of those. People around here have just gone stupid lately. If I fail to condemn one action that I deem appropriate, based on my experience, I am now not toeing the party line. Fuck that party, bubba.

So, what do you think of that? I honestly find it hard to believe you never heard of it, and if you haven't, well ... maybe you need to pay more attention to exactly that kind of event. You know, just to keep your positions fresh and up to date.

-- Baldie McEagle

Come on, you know the answer to this: you have no proof that those people were not doing something wrong; had they been complying with the law, that would not have happened to them in the first place; you don't have proof (video or otherwise) of what they were doing prior to that incident; and whatever statements they made to the contrary are self-serving. (This is similar to what the St. Paul police chief assumed - that Amy and her producers committed a crime and that's why they, members of the press, were arrested. The arrest itself, thus, becomes proof of their crime. Shoot, we can do away with the whole criminal justice system.)

It's really easy to "consistently" maintain a position when you deny any facts which are contrary to that position.