Credit to our Right-Wingnuts

Oh dear. In NZ, as you’ve probably heard by now, Baby Shark didn’t work either, so they resorted to looping James Blunt… 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-60371895
and yes, even though he offered to come over and sing for them live, that doesn’t seem to have sent the protestors home either. 

Re our Tent Embassy, I’ve just seen this article on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-60122063

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

how can anyone, except maybe an anarchist, disagree with such an anodyne, non-specific statement as that?

Police use military style tactics and equipment to disperse crowds. SOP. This is how they do it and is what ml1 disagrees with. 

If you think the "specialized skills and equipment" the Madison Method refers to is anything other than military style tactics and equipment, please share specifically what that is. If you don't have specifics but still believe its not military-style tactics and equipment, you're living in a fantasy world. 

PVW said:

drummerboy said:

I know he  didn't say it. But others of his ilk have been saying it. Others who largely give a crap about working class issues. "working class" is a tell in this case. So I put 1 and 2 together and got 3.

If he meant something else, I do apologize.

Careful, you know how sensitive he gets about math.

I suppose if the political left had a history of opposing employer work safety measures, this would be a shift. I'm having trouble thinking of any examples though. I can't recall significant blocks on the left claiming employees have a right to smoke at the office or come to work drunk, for instance.

I haven't heard any "working class" issues in the demands from the "truckers".

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

I didn't disagree with that.  Of course there are times when a crowd will need to be dispersed.

I disagreed with YOU that it necessarily means tear gas and the like.  

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

how can anyone, except maybe an anarchist, disagree with such an anodyne, non-specific statement as that?

Police use military style tactics and equipment to disperse crowds. SOP. This is how they do it and is what ml1 disagrees with. 

If you think the "specialized skills and equipment" the Madison Method refers to is anything other than military style tactics and equipment, please share specifically what that is. If you don't have specifics but still believe its not military-style tactics and equipment, you're living in a fantasy world. 

mounted police are used for crowd dispersement for one thing.  Not a military tactic since the 1800s.

joanne said:

Oh dear. In NZ, as you’ve probably heard by now, Baby Shark didn’t work either, so they resorted to looping James Blunt… 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-60371895
and yes, even though he offered to come over and sing for them live, that doesn’t seem to have sent the protestors home either. 

Re our Tent Embassy, I’ve just seen this article on BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-60122063

I piggin' love James Blunt. 

I mean, not his songs. Even he hates his songs. But I love him.

nohero said:

I haven't heard any "working class" issues in the demands from the "truckers".

because they are mostly Americans. The Canadian truckers are almost all vaccinated, and are actually becoming fed up with the bad name these magat truckers are giving them.

PVW said:

Idle side question -- does the RCMP still use horses, or is that just an anachronism forever stuck into it's name?

yes 

PVW said:

Idle side question -- does the RCMP still use horses, or is that just an anachronism forever stuck into it's name?

Ceremonially only. There is a unit of the RCMP called The Musical Ride, and several local detachments, but they are no longer an all-horseback force.

And btw, the same Lt. Marcou who wrote the Madison Method article also wrote an article on 16 police tactics for crowd control during modern demonstrations.

There are a lot of types of "specialized skill and equipment" that police can use before they would need to escalate to tear gas and SWAT teams.  

And note that the use of armored vehicles or other military style tactics aren't mentioned in his article at all.

Kettling was a typical military tactic used in some cities during BLM protests.  It was definitely used in DC.  And that goes 180 degrees against policing best practices for crowd dispersal which require the police to provide clear egress for crowds to disperse.

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

(When working-class people come together, the issue at hand does tend to have something to do with how aggressively the left opposes them.)

You'll have to explain your other comment, because it baffles, and certainly doesn't follow from terp's comment. He's describing a polar change - you're describing business as usual.

Because reactions depend more on the issue of the protest than on the class of the protesters, I’m suggesting that evidence of a polar change seems iffy.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

(When working-class people come together, the issue at hand does tend to have something to do with how aggressively the left opposes them.)

You'll have to explain your other comment, because it baffles, and certainly doesn't follow from terp's comment. He's describing a polar change - you're describing business as usual.

Because reactions depend more on the issue of the protest than on the class of the protesters, I’m suggesting that evidence of a polar change seems iffy.

that is less clear than your original comment.

maybe it's me.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

how can anyone, except maybe an anarchist, disagree with such an anodyne, non-specific statement as that?

Police use military style tactics and equipment to disperse crowds. SOP. This is how they do it and is what ml1 disagrees with. 

If you think the "specialized skills and equipment" the Madison Method refers to is anything other than military style tactics and equipment, please share specifically what that is. If you don't have specifics but still believe its not military-style tactics and equipment, you're living in a fantasy world. 

yet again, that's a massive amount of projection onto a statement that basically says nothing.

yes, military style tactics may be commonly used, but in no way - no way - does that mean that that's what the Madison Method is referring to.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

I didn't disagree with that.  Of course there are times when a crowd will need to be dispersed.

I disagreed with YOU that it necessarily means tear gas and the like.  

Well again without specifics on what the alternative to "tear gas and the like", it's just pixie dust. 

You said previously "I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal." But hope is not a plan. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

how can anyone, except maybe an anarchist, disagree with such an anodyne, non-specific statement as that?

Police use military style tactics and equipment to disperse crowds. SOP. This is how they do it and is what ml1 disagrees with. 

If you think the "specialized skills and equipment" the Madison Method refers to is anything other than military style tactics and equipment, please share specifically what that is. If you don't have specifics but still believe its not military-style tactics and equipment, you're living in a fantasy world. 

mounted police are used for crowd dispersement for one thing.  Not a military tactic since the 1800s.

Yes, horses worked great at the border last summer. I'm surprised you support this.  

ml1 said:

And btw, the same Lt. Marcou who wrote the Madison Method article also wrote an article on 16 police tactics for crowd control during modern demonstrations.

There are a lot of types of "specialized skill and equipment" that police can use before they would need to escalate to tear gas and SWAT teams.  

And note that the use of armored vehicles or other military style tactics aren't mentioned in his article at all.

Kettling was a typical military tactic used in some cities during BLM protests.  It was definitely used in DC.  And that goes 180 degrees against policing best practices for crowd dispersal which require the police to provide clear egress for crowds to disperse.

Another good link. I like this guy. Directly from the article:

"Trained grenadiers should be present and able to skillfully deliver less than lethal or less lethal munitions to specific targets on suspects in a crowd that pose an imminent threat to officers, and others. These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

I take it you don't disagree with this either?

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.

You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.   

which part do you think I disagree with?

"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."

I didn't disagree with that.  Of course there are times when a crowd will need to be dispersed.

I disagreed with YOU that it necessarily means tear gas and the like.  

Well again without specifics on what the alternative to "tear gas and the like", it's just pixie dust. 

You said previously "I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal." But hope is not a plan. 

dude, read the other article I just linked to.  When I wrote "I hope" I followed it up by finding out more about what the author meant.  And I found it.  You could have done a little reading too, instead of reflexively disagreeing and misrepresenting my comments.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

And btw, the same Lt. Marcou who wrote the Madison Method article also wrote an article on 16 police tactics for crowd control during modern demonstrations.

There are a lot of types of "specialized skill and equipment" that police can use before they would need to escalate to tear gas and SWAT teams.  

And note that the use of armored vehicles or other military style tactics aren't mentioned in his article at all.

Kettling was a typical military tactic used in some cities during BLM protests.  It was definitely used in DC.  And that goes 180 degrees against policing best practices for crowd dispersal which require the police to provide clear egress for crowds to disperse.

Another good link. I like this guy. Directly from the article:

"Trained grenadiers should be present and able to skillfully deliver less than lethal or less lethal munitions to specific targets on suspects in a crowd that pose an imminent threat to officers, and others. These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

I take it you don't disagree with this either?

I don't.  And it's not typically what has been done by police against demonstrators.  Certainly not last year, when they used chemicals indiscriminately on entire crowds, not specific targets, and not following legal protocols.

The number of times that tear gas would have been used agains BLM protestors using those criteria would have been extremely few.  Maybe even none.

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

ml1 said:

dude, read the other article I just linked to. When I wrote "I hope" I followed it up by finding out more about what the author meant. And I found it. You could have done a little reading too, instead of reflexively disagreeing and misrepresenting my comments.

I may have lost track of the articles, but Marcou appears to be discussing crowd control. Crowd dispersal seems like a somewhat different challenge — almost by definition requiring some sort of force — and one maybe closer to what Smedley had in mind.

This part made me smile:

15. REPORT WRITING SKILLS

“Enough said”? Not until you tell me where to report them.

Smedley said:

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

if it's pretty clear that I disagree, how about quoting me where that's the case.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

dude, read the other article I just linked to. When I wrote "I hope" I followed it up by finding out more about what the author meant. And I found it. You could have done a little reading too, instead of reflexively disagreeing and misrepresenting my comments.

I may have lost track of the articles, but Marcou appears to be discussing crowd control. Crowd dispersal seems like a somewhat different challenge — almost by definition requiring some sort of force — and one maybe closer to what Smedley had in mind.

This part made me smile:

15. REPORT WRITING SKILLS

“Enough said”? Not until you tell me where to report them.

well there was this.  The word "disperse" is used:

6. DYNAMIC LOS ANGELES CROSS-BOW TECHNIQUESThese tactics have proven effective against those who would turn a peaceful demonstration into a riot. A trained contingent can explode through a police line to disperse, encircle a group or arrest individuals.

and I haven't said physical force isn't sometimes necessary.  I've been arguing against the indiscriminate use of chemicals, flash grenades, kettling, armored vehicles, etc.  And I've been arguing against using those tactics to disperse demonstrators who are protesting peacefully.  

I don't think it's that hard to draw a line between appropriate and proportional police force and military tactics.  

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

if it's pretty clear that I disagree, how about quoting me where that's the case.

you said: "the police should never be using military type tactics on peaceful protesters....The tactics I'm referring to are officially sanctioned sweeps with armored cops using flash grenades, tear gas, and sometimes using armored vehicles."

MM said: "Trained grenadiers ...need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

Do you know what a grenadier is? It ain't a social worker.

Anyway, if the two statements don't conflict, I don't know what does.   

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

if it's pretty clear that I disagree, how about quoting me where that's the case.

you said: "the police should never be using military type tactics on peaceful protesters....The tactics I'm referring to are officially sanctioned sweeps with armored cops using flash grenades, tear gas, and sometimes using armored vehicles."

MM said: "Trained grenadiers ...need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

Do you know what a grenadier is? It ain't a social worker.

Anyway, if the two statements don't conflict, I don't know what does.   

so you think it's ok to tear gas peaceful protesters?

wow, how very authoritarian of you.

and here are dozens of instances in which tear gas was used on BLM demonstrators, almost certainly NOT following the legal protocol Marcou cited in his article.

Here Are the 100 U.S. Cities Where Protesters Were Tear-Gassed

this is the kind of thing I've been writing about.

terp said:

It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively.   There has been a polar shift in politics. 

Many "working class people" have supported Fascism. Working class people made up much of the membership of the KKK. Working class white people spit on working class Black school children integrating schools.

"I can hire half the working class to shoot the other half"

J.P Morgan

Trump had peaceful protesters disbursed so he could have a photo op.

Imagine a large convoy of trucks blocking the streets of Austin, Texas demanding an end to all restrictions on abortion.

What result?

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

if it's pretty clear that I disagree, how about quoting me where that's the case.

you said: "the police should never be using military type tactics on peaceful protesters....The tactics I'm referring to are officially sanctioned sweeps with armored cops using flash grenades, tear gas, and sometimes using armored vehicles."

MM said: "Trained grenadiers ...need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

Do you know what a grenadier is? It ain't a social worker.

Anyway, if the two statements don't conflict, I don't know what does.   

so you think it's ok to tear gas peaceful protesters?

wow, how very authoritarian of you.

I fully endorse the Madison Method, at least the two links you shared, which I have read in full. I'm sure there's more to the MM but I imagine I would endorse that too, given how spot-on I found the two links that you shared. When I say I fully endorse the MM, that does includes the part where they say police "need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands." 

If that makes me a monster, so be it.  

It's fine if you don't support that part of the Madison Method. People disagree on things. It's less than fine to disagree with part but then claim no disagreement. Which I'm still trying to figure out motivation for. The only thing I can think of is perhaps you didn't fully read the links you shared and don't want to admit that. Tactical debate error, but no biggie. I've done it before. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well whatever, to me you pretty clearly disagree with at least one key provision in each of the MM links you posted, but for some reason you won't acknowledge it.

But for the record, it's good to know that you don't disagree with this:  

"These grenadiers also need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

if it's pretty clear that I disagree, how about quoting me where that's the case.

you said: "the police should never be using military type tactics on peaceful protesters....The tactics I'm referring to are officially sanctioned sweeps with armored cops using flash grenades, tear gas, and sometimes using armored vehicles."

MM said: "Trained grenadiers ...need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands."

Do you know what a grenadier is? It ain't a social worker.

Anyway, if the two statements don't conflict, I don't know what does.   

so you think it's ok to tear gas peaceful protesters?

wow, how very authoritarian of you.

I fully endorse the Madison Method, at least the two links you shared, which I have read in full. I'm sure there's more to the MM but I imagine I would endorse that too, given how spot-on I found the two links that you shared. When I say I fully endorse the MM, that does includes the part where they say police "need to be able to follow legal protocol and utilize chemical munitions to disperse an unlawful assembly that refuses to disperse, after being given lawful commands." 

If that makes me a monster, so be it.  

It's fine if you don't support that part of the Madison Method. People disagree on things. It's

you're really missing my point. The word "peaceful" is an important one in what I wrote.  I didn't see anything in the articles I linked to that suggest it's legal or proper to open fire on peaceful demonstrators.  The fact that you interpret it to mean that it is proper says a lot about your attitude toward peaceful protest.