I've just seen a bunch of Norwegian policemen kicking a woman pressed to the ground and hitting her with rubber staves. What was she doing? Taking part of a demonstration ie scanding anti-war slogans and playing a drum. Opinions please. If anyone knows an official e-mail address to which a protest could be sent, I'll be grateful. For signing the protest with me too. So far I have contacted Amnesty International in Norway (info@amnesty.no).

[ March 23, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Things like this happen always in demonstrations. The surpise is that this is coming from a scandinavian police, which don't have the bad reputation of german, spanish, italian and greek riot police. I remember that old people (over 70 years old) made a demonstration requesting higher pensions few years ago and the riot police attacked them. It was disgusting.

While I certainly don't condone unnecessary police brutality I have found that in most of these clashes with demonstrators the police are justified in using the amount of force that they do. After seeing our wimpy police get pummled twice in a couple of months including the savage maiming of police horses by protestors the general opinion around here is that the police are justified in using whatever force they feel they have to in order to maintain their own safety from these unruly mobs.

Of course I have not seen the incident that you are referring to, and don't know what the protestors did to incite the violence that the police displayed, but unless you saw the whole affair I wouldn't be so quick to judge against the police.

Sounds pretty wicked.

But of course, I want to know about the whole circumstances, first.

All information that's important is given by me above. More data doesn't really matter in fact - what would you like to know? Exact time, street names, numbers of people and police units? I suppose some more details will be in Monday's newspapers if ever. Considering the fact that TV transmitted from that riot, that is still possible although I doubt they will say much.

EDIT: I saw it. I saw police attacking people speaking and playing drums and striking them down on the ground using not even fighting, but *holding* techniques to increase the pain. Of course police should be authorised to use whatever force necessary for their safety from the mob, but I don't view all people who disagree openly with the government as mob.

[ March 23, 2003, 11:38: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I saw a news clip of the Oslo protest as well - the Police were using dogs on people who weren't resisting. The tiny bit I saw looked pretty extreme, and the commentator made no mention of what - if anything - the protestors did to deserve such treatment.

Things also got violent in New York City, and again I'm not in a position to know who instigated it. The protests I *did* see here in Philadelphia have all been quite civila nd peaceful. The protestors are going so far as to notify the poilce of where they intend to go, what they want to do, and how long they expect to be there. The police have then shown up in force to KEEP ORDER - directing traffic, etc. It's been a little inconvenient for some drivers and pedestrians, but nothing more.

Who would ever have expected such restraint from Philly cops?! ;)

From what I've seen at TV, demostrants were throwing rocks and other hard objects, and IMHO they got what they deserved.

The woman with a drum deserved that because she was with them, right?

Personally I would resist and sue the police and individual policemen if possible under local law for not only damages but plainly assault. Apart from that unlawful imprisonment. Loss of trust in the state could be in order... Well, a nice bunch of law suits.

Sounds pretty horrible. Here in Canada, things got pretty heated in Calgary. I believe some punches were thrown. I have no problem with peaceful protesters, but they have no right to break the law. They sometimes do, and then cry foul when punished for it. Videos often don't show the whole story. Cops can get out of line, no question, but I would need to get the WHOLE story before condemning the cops.

The thing is that cops believe that protesters are there just to make trouble. While some are, most just want things to be better. If one person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, they could get beaten. There is nothing a protester could do to a cop in Riot Gear that deserves a beating. What laws are they breaking, BTW? Is voicing you opinion against the law?

Please, beating by the police is not a punishment. Punishment is when the court sentences you or a lesser organ fines you if applicable under the local law.

The difficulties police have in the face of an angry mob are substantial though. Although I appreciate the specific point you make and the isolated incident, I think to talk about general police brutality etc is taking this out of the context of the situation in which it happened.

Here is a link to an English language version of events in one of Norway's biggest daily newspapers. Aftenposten (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=514864) Please note that this was the first story I could find, and that it does not mention the case you raised, but rather deals with the events that transpired as a whole. There are further English language links on the page. [Edit] The picture series is quite good. [edit]

I'm not an anarchist and am not picking at general police brutality. I'm talking about this specific case. People expressing their opinions are not mob, simply as it is. What I saw was policemen using techniques of inflicting extra pain on demonstrators pressed face down to the ground, including women. What's more, a women was specifically shown who had done nothing except scanding the slogans and playing the drum. If this annoyed the policemen (as would probably annoy most people in their shoes) that was their own problem only. They have about the same right as you or I to hit a person because he or she annoys them and that is no right at all. Besides, that was plainly a revenge and realeasing aggression accumulated in them. Nobody of such a psychical build should be given weapons or placed in defence of anything.

Chevalier, as I said, videos can be cut and edited. Now, there is a good chance that she was being abused, no question, I just want to bring up the possibility that she was engaged in some sort of illegal activity (trespassing, graffiti writing, etc) and when asked to stop, refused. Now, if you are breaking a law, and you are told to stop, and you go ahead anyway, then expect the police to use force.

And as for physique, WTF? Are you suggesting we only hire skrawny people for the police force?

I guess I have a sore spot when it comes to cops -- one of my good friends is a cop, and my students are always talking about how the police are out of line -- the same way they say we teachers are out of line for minor acts of discipline. The vast majority of the time, it's the little criminals who are to blame, not the cops. I don't think most cops want to risk their career by doing anything inappropriately violent. But they have to enforce the law somehow, and when reason and politeness don't work, well, they have to do something else.

It's never necessary for a few constantly trained guys to press a woman face down to the ground. Even if so, are you telling me that additional beating is justifiable? Or if one is not resisting is this just a prophilactic cure for him not to try that in future, just in case...? Normally I try to defend the police myself too, but well, I've seen that. Tapes can be edited, but this one was only shown without any comments etc so that the issue dies of negligence.

I'd have to see the tape, of course, and like I said, police brutality is a possibility. I've seen lots of demonstrations, and never any violence. The police stand and watch the protesters, and everything is dandy. So when the violence starts, I tend to think it's the protesters, trying to get more airtime by provoking the police into something.

Well, it depends. If the demonstrators are armed somehow, they could likely try to provoke the police. Sometimes unarmed people resist when police tries to move them from the place. But provocation is no excuse for beating. For action itself sometimes yes - if they are dangerous to order in a part of the city, but never for beating. As no citizen has the right to beat up another one who doesn't meet his expectations, neither have policemen. They are to use physical force when a criminal caught red-handed resists, would likely resist (then only measures of prevention), is dangerous to them or other people or important property. That's all. And in a democratic country they have never been and will never be authorised to hit people as they see fit.

I also repeat that if a man is disarmed, lying face down on the street etc there's no need to kick or hit him. That's a criminal activity and should be prosecuted as law prescribes.

They are to use physical force when a criminal caught red-handed resists, would likely resist (then only measures of prevention), is dangerous to them or other people or important property.And that's exactly what the policemen did! Do you seriously think have policemen that beat up people for fun? And if the person does not want to be disarmed, knocked to the ground and beaten up, well then that person should stay at home and stay away from violent and criminal protests!

It has been my experience that whenever a large crowd gathers, whether to protest or throw a party or what have you, there is always a problem with the fringe element stirring up trouble - I've seen it happen all too often at my uni. That woman may have very well done something to provoke the police (and that was conveniently left off the tape.)

Well, if one is lying face down and thus can't literally do anything, how do you justify beating him/her, please?

If it is the only way to teach that person something about respect for authorities, then it has to be done.

Ouch! Mollusken, I can't say I agree with you, but I also can't say I disagree. A lot of those protesters are nothing but troublemakers who have no respect for anyone else's property.

However, Chevalier, I see you are from Poland. I'm thinking you are thinking of the Solidarity business in the 80s. Police do need to have a great amount of oversite to ensure abuse does not occur.

Damn Mollusken, you are true little fascisti here. You do not learn to respect authoroties by getting a club in your head, the only thing that teaches them is to despise and fear the authorities. Even if the police is verbally abused and goaded it doesnt justify them beating up people, if they are not allowed to beat up a murderer they apprehend why should they be allowed to beat up teenage girls walking in a demostration and calling policemen pigs? In a democratic society the police must be held to higher standards than the rest of us, they can not give in to fear and anger no matter how much pressure that is on them.

One thing that I find funny though is that I have never seen the police wrestling and kicking on big strong men, or them smacking illegal nazi demostrators on the head, and I have seen nazi's toss both insults and stones at the police and they have done nothing. It is most often demonstrations dominated by 'leftist' and young people that gets the smack down, preferably people that are totally unable to resist even if they wanted to. Which hopefully is just how the media depicts it but then the picture shouldnt really be as one sided as it is.

If it is the only way to teach that person something about respect for authorities, then it has to be done. And what's that authority's worth then?

If we are to beat people for disagreeing with government's policy (ekhm, foreign government's policy in this case) what point voting?

So, who disagrees with the authorities should be beaten, right?

Besides, what was the harm done on the side of that woman?

Speaking about Poland and solidarity: the terrorist red regime that held the police was illegal and criminal. Legal authorities resided in London at the time.

Actually, Joacqin, if you ever saw the Rodney King video, you saw the police beating on a big, strong man. What that video didn't show, though, was that he had attacked the police, been tasered twice, and was still coming at the cops! So they did everything in their power to stop him. I honestly believe they overdid it, but I also feel for them, just a little bit.

I certainly don't think that people should be beaten on for disagreeing with the government. I do think they deserve it if they either a) get violent or b) begin to destroy or trespass on the property of others. That includes unlawful use of public property. If they refuse to listen to reasoned requests to stop an unlawful act (here comes the "fascisti" as Joacqin puts it ;) ) they need to be physically stopped, and they deserve everything they get.

Lots of demonstrators have their say peacefully; I can't help but think that most of those who have problems tend to bring it on themselves.

@Mollusken

Bah! Ya, you heard me. Bah! Why would you need authority beaten into you. If that's the case, we've become a communist country at heart. People should always be protesting and never accept things, cause then you've given up and they win. ANARCHY IN THE UK! (courtesy of the Sex Pistols)
We don't need your war machines (Anti-Flag)
Racist Cops and Racist Judges (Anti-Flag)
You might not think there's any wisdom in an effed up punk rock song (Bad Religion)
The War to end all wars, to begin a new war (Rancid)
I could go on, but I doubt you read the ones I wrote anyway :p

I do not see the problem here. If you follow the laws and act like a civilized and mature human being, you have absolutely nothing to fear from the police. But from the very second you show disrespect to the society in one way or another, you should be prepared to take your punishment. If you resist, well that's your stupidity and you are the only one to blame. I will not feel sorry for you.

And the police do not attack unprovoked. They're far to professional for that.

They're far to professional for that. I could give you quite a few examples of total unprofessionalism and power abuse by the police that I have either witnessed myself, been subjected to or heards from a reliable source. So in this case, I am, even without seeing the tape liable to believe that the woman on the tape was a victim of police brutality.

(Bitter much? Hell yeah!)

I have heard of many cases where protesting groups such as animal rights activists all the way to feminists would be made up mostly of people who were in it for the attention. You can obviously see the potential inherent in these groups, several hundred people who all want camera time at any cost. On the original point, I think police brutality sucks but on the other hand all the peaceful protestors would have run a long time ago so it's a safe assumption that any person still around is probably waiting for an opportunity to kick ass. On this subject it amazes me that so many troublemakers are incapable of defending themselves, you'd think that someone who was preparing themselves to do battle with the police would be better prepared for hand to hand combat but Noooooo.

Yes Mollusken if you do break the laws you should be punished, but not by the police. The police of today isnt any Judge Dredd's who are both police and judge in one. Punishment is decided by a court of law, not by a policeofficer bearing a grudge because someone called him fascist pig.

Mollusken, a few questions:

1. If you remain within the laws, who defines maturity and civilised behaviour standards, especially on the spot?

2. Since when is protesting against a war uncivilised or immature (let's leave aside our views on the war, 90% of Alley is about that)?

3. In what way is expressing possibly different opinions showing disrespect?

4. Should one be prepared for carnal punishment for disrespecting the society?

5. Is lying face down resisting?

6. Since when is resisting to direct carnal assault stupidity?

7. Is stupidity punishable under any law?

8. Who has given the police the right to punish people?

9. On what do you base the assumption that police don't attack unprovoked?

10. How should facts (however more or less blurred) submit to generalisations based on opinions?

No, it's not personal ;)

1. If you remain within the laws, you are mature and civilized, and you are a good example to others. Nobody has any reason to bother with what you do.

2. While my personal views are different in this case, I have to admit that there is nothing wrong against protesting against a war. But throwing rocks and disrespectful comments at the forces of law is very wrong.

3. It's a question of how you choose to do this.

4. Yes. By showing disrespect to the society (which in Norway is one of the best ones in this world to live in), you are immature and a disgrace to all of us and those who built the society.

5. You can still speak while laying on the ground.

6. It will only result in more "carnal assault".

7. It is stupidity to break the law, so the answer is yes.

8. Who has given people right to throw rocks and be rude against the police?

9. As a good citizen, I have to believe that what the authorities do is right without exceptions. If everyone were to have doubts in the police, why should we ever care to follow the laws?

10. I'm afraid I don't understand that question.

So you directly state that carnal punishment is due in case of disrespect towards the society and that the police has the right to exercise it with no legal reference. You also state that speaking may deserve punishment including carnal punishment and that the police has the right to beat you to silence you.

You base some of your arguments on that the protesters broke the law. Some of them certainly did - by insulting officers which is a matter for courts and doesn't necessitate any defensive action. Others resisted the police - while this is normally a breach of law it's conditional upon the police acting within the law. If the police act illegally or even unlawfully it's simply self-defence. However, this only applies to a narrow group of demonstrators. The one I'm speaking of are the men and women lying down on the street and bitten (I repeat: bitten) by police dogs and hit by officers with rubber staves and using techniques designed to inflict more pain. Even if they would normally offer some resistance, which I doubt, they weren't able to. Note also that those didn't violate any law whatsoever. If you still insist on your points you therefore believe that police officers have the right to administer carnal (I repeat: carnal) punishment regardless of the law if they consider someone rude (whether or not legally insulting) towards themselves or a part of society (I'm not sure if we may speak of majority in this case since generally only minorities and governments support the war in Europe) or the government.

Finally, if you say that breaking laws is stupidity, then the police are stupid when they act against the law - thus they deserve punishment as you say that stupidity is punishable. What's more you also state that breaking laws deserves carnal punishment and so does disrespecting the society. So when the police act outside the law (abuse their power or usurp competence) they deserve beating and they also deserve beating for beating defenceless people which is disrespect towards the morals of most societies constituting the majority of the Earth's inhabitants. Or there is some other solution: the police have the right to act outside or contrary to the law while no other person or body does.

[ April 10, 2003, 12:51: Message edited by: chevalier ]

It is true that a thrown rock may not hurt an armored policeman. However, if the protesters get away with that, they'll start throwing bigger rocks and maybe even go for guns. The police have to take steps to stop that sort of behaviour, or else things will break down very quickly.

Here's the scenario as I see it. A protestor either verbally or physically assaults an officer. He (we'll assume the protestor is male for the sake of writing convenience) is asked to either a) withdraw or b) come along -- he is being arrested (verbal assault is a crime, folks!) He refuses. So, the police use the techniques they were trained to use. The protestor resists, so the intensity of techniqe increases. Instead of being a decent, law abiding citizen and cooperating with the police, the resistance increases. So does the level of physical force used by the officers. Does it sound reasonable for the police to let someone get away with a crime because they are resisting? Not likely. At this point the camera starts rolling, and people say "did it really take all those cops to subdue that one guy?" Well, if he was resisting arrest, then yes, it did take a few. And the camera conveniently doesn't show how the situation got this way, or the fact that the police originally used peaceful methods of dealing with this guy.

Please note that I'm not talking about demonstrating. Demonstrating is fine and dandy, but breaking the law isn't. In this scenario, which is in my opinion the most likely one, the police did not act outside the law at all -- just because someone is at a protest doesn't give them the right to break the law.

Even if they would normally offer some resistance, which I doubt, they weren't able to. Note also that those didn't violate any law whatsoever.I simply do not understand were you get these views from. Where you there to see it? Do you choose to trust what a TV channel (commercial?) instead of the police? I believe the police knows a lot more about what they're doing than those TV reporters, you, me or any other person at these boards.

Of course the police know better - only I'm somehow unlikely to take any spokesman's word on anything. I'm more likely to believe what journalists say and show, but I'm a realist and I know 90% of them are leftists and some half are chronic liars.

However, verbal assault is not a crime for which one should be dragged into prison for a day until the charge is made up. It's a plain civil law suit between two private parties unless, as in several legal systems, it's prosecuted penally. In that case it's still a private accusation (generally). Perhaps obscene and continous verbal abuse could be stopped by the police preventing the person from speaking, but not beating him up afterwards! As I say - the police are under no circumstances to administer punishment apart from just levying fines. What's more, there is no carnal punishment in any democratic system.

I also specifically stress that beating already made powerless people is a criminal activity no matter in whose performance. Tell me please, how can a woman pressed down to the ground pose a threat to a bunch of armoured and trained men especially if she had not been taking violent actions. Or if she does not pose a threat, then she must have deserved beating, there's no third possibility. Tell me more about how it's possible to deserve beating legally in a democratic system.

Another thing I stress is using dogs on helpless people. Police dog's won't touch a cat if not allowed to. Someone must have let them run rampant.

Besides, there is no evidence of all protesters having committed the crimes mentioned and liability is always individual as a rule. In the case of those who haven't violated any law, there are two rules: 1) there's no crime other than specified by the law 2) there's no punishment other than prescribed by the law.

You have absolutely no reasons to judge who is innocent, who which does not give any resistance, who which is defenceless and who which is extremly rude towards the police, from seeing something in the news at TV. You were not there to see anything, and you critisism of the police has no solid foundation.

And when it comes to the dogs: While normal policemen may not be enough to scare people, there are extremly few who are not afraid of angry dogs. They're very effective, and as I've stated before they probably don't bite people just for fun.

How do you suggest that we are going to keep law an order in this world? When situations are extreme, such as big, criminal protests, the police has to use extreme actions to set an example. Do you believe that "everyone will be nice if the police is nice"?

Well, Mollusken, I wouldn't classify protests as criminal -- in most countries, they're not -- but certainly criminal activity happens during protests. If the police do not take steps, then why bother, lets just be anarchists! Every man for himself!

Ahem, sorry if I got silly there, but I just get really upset when we say to our police forces "we will underpay you and expect you to risk your life for us, and at the same time we will second guess you every step of the way and believe anything bad about you." Not the way to treat the people who strive to keep us safe.

What about individual liability? Are all protesters criminals because some have broken some law?

And it doesn't take a sage elf to judge that a person pressed down to the ground by a bunch of guys is not a threat to public order - especially a woman.

What I am going to say is simple: from what you say it is easily seen that you advocate carnal punishment and that you give the police more rights than they legally have.

In this case the government didn't want the trouble of the protesters being there and wanted them go home. Since they refused they are criminals. Right?

What if you went to protest against something and a guy next to you said a few rude words to a policeman for which all of you got beaten, kicked and bitten?

The police does not have time or resources to beat up everyone in a criminal crowd, and therefor has to take those who are worst. Their main goal is to scare and spread the criminals, because if they're gathered as a big crowd they will to much vorse things than they would do alone. And because of this confidence the crowd gives them, the only thing they will understand is violence.

As we know, protests such as this one always has a certain amount of morons in it. The police didn't start the fights, because protests are legal (in oppositions to being rude against and throwing rocks at the police). It's strange how protests against wars and stuff involving the USA often seem to end up in a mess, while serious protests against issues such as racism are much bigger and are completely without problems.

Mollusken, you are completely missing the problem here. The police never ever has any right to hurt people unless it is in dire self defence, even if the police break into a house and see a man in a room full of dead children and one live one he is raping before their eyes the police has no right to touch him except to cuff him if he comes peacefully. The police is there to keep order and bring people to justice, not to administer that justice, that is up to the courts.

Secondly I have seen many problems in anti-rascist rallies and anti-porn rallies, several cases where police has beaten the **** out of 14 year old girls that even if they wanted to would not pose any threat whatsoever for the police.

Chevalier, obviously getting the tar kicked out of you for something someone else did is an unacceptable state of affairs. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we don't know what this woman was doing before you saw her on camera. Perhaps she was victimized -- I fully concede that possibility. I merely also raise the possibility that she had engaged in a criminal act and needed to be forcefully restrained, and the earlier techniques didn't work.

In other words, I understand that police can engage in illegal activities, but I also know that what you see on TV isn't always the whole story.

BTW, is "carnal punishment" a legal term? I've always used the term "carnal" in a sexual sense, and I know that's not what we're talking about here!

I would assume that it means physical since carnal means relating to the flesh.

@Depaara: corporal punishment is more common in English.

@Mollusken: protests against racism are serious and protests against war aren't serious, rigth?

I believe protests agains this war are in a way protests against racism too. That's because non-American lives don't count, maybe except Europeans that count less.

@Depaara again: I'm far from believing the mostly leftist media fully, as I have already said. But, physical force is needed to restrain one from physical actions, not from verbal ones - unless real obscenities that necessitate the performer taken away. Here I agree. But I will never agree with beating one until he stops speaking - like a sick despotic parent with attitude problem. Or with inflicting pain to scare the target or his companions. Or with beating defeated targets (my option here: 'Goodbye, officer. You may seek a new job'). Or with letting dogs on protesting people like on some house-robbers or street thugs.

Another point of yours: insulting policemen being illegal. Insulting back is illegal too and so is beating even when insulted. So the policeman may only legally arrest the offender (not really criminal) using force if needed. I don't know how it is in US, but in some countries the preferred option for them is to check your papers and take legal steps if you don't assault them physically.

Last but not least I once more stress the obvious truth that police is not to administer justice but only to bring you to it (and it would be nice to be replied on this matter). Justice is administered in courts by either professional judges with legal education at university level among other requirements or justices of peace in whom citizens put trust and who are as independent from the government as it is posible and generally well educated and morally qualified. Johnny boy in uniform and with rubber stick in hand is no judge of anyone.

@Mollusken: I'm asking you now if you advocate carnal (or corporal if you prefer) punishment and justice administered outside judicature.

Last but not least, it's true that one can sue police or individual policemen. But who has tried that way knows that in practice it's close to sheer mockery.

All true stuff -- if you look at my posts, I don't believe I ever said the police should beat someone up for things they say -- but they can arrest the speaker. Now, some arrests go down easy. Others don't (look at my earlier scenarios). How can the police bring someone to the court system to have justice administered if the person refuses to come? The answer is force. No debate from me on the issue that sometimes too much force is used when making a legitimate arrest, or that some arrests are not legitimate. But like I said before, many arrests are performed with little to no hassle -- the hassle starts when the arrestee, hoping to be caught on camera or for some other weird reason, starts to get physical.

Anyhow, I figure we've both said our piece on this one -- I won't post on this one again unless I have something really cool to report. Cheers!

Who polices the police?

At the DC world bank protests last summer, DOZENS of passersby (including several lawyers and elderly tourists) were arrested and locked up, just for being on the wrong street at the wrong time. Almost all police act in the general good, but there are bad eggs in every basket.

The police does not judge anyone. It is wrong to judge anyone to physical punishment. But it is a weapon which is used by the police in extreme cases.

And why protests against war aren't serious? It's "in", "cool" and of course politicaly correct to be against everything the US does.

As for protests against US policy, I would say contrary.... Well, depends where in general. Myself, I've never been politically correct if anyone's asking ;) And I repeat once more: I'm not a leftist. I neither need nor want to be 'cool'. I just don't like to see wrong things happen and keep quiet.