Militant Beliefs Are the Enemy of Logic

The title says it all, we've really gotten into a bind in this country. There are just way too many close minded people with an agenda. I've always said if you look at the right then the left and you can define them then look in the middle where the truth is and ignore both. Militant beliefs are unreasonable and have no place in an intelligent society. I know I'm going to lose facebook friends because of this article but to that I say don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Being open minded is how you learn and progress. We are way too divided on alot of issues. Let's look at some recent militant behavior and how harmful it can be.

Occupy vs The Police

Now most of this of course is internet trolls and the like that have been the biggest pain in the ass but lets look at bad examples on both sides. Now on both sides of this issue and believe me this could be a series of articles just on it's own. Both sides have intelligent people but those people aren't the problem. Now anyone who has a credit card knows how crooked Bank of America and Chase have become. They are disgusting and something needs to be done. So in the beginning Occupy was a great idea. The problem is they went about most things the wrong way. To a recap in New York they took a wheelchair bound lady hostage because she spoke out against them. In Washington they openly supported terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Al Quaeda even waving their flags in the streets. At UC Davis they had members attack police then blocked public roads and threatened police. When they were sprayed for doing so they edited videos to post on youtube and facebook to make it look like police attacked peaceful protestors. They defecated in public on police cars and assaults on each other a cases of rape were rampant. The fact is there were almost 500 separate incidents of violence committed by Occupy members in a very short time and they continue to do so. But anytime one of these videos gets posted you can't tell an internet troll that Occupy isn't peaceful. These trolls are gonna bash the police no matter what you say and they don't care about facts. You give them facts and they still deny them. The fact is Occupy had no structure so they couldn't police themselves. Some of these protestors were really good and intelligent people that had legitimate things to say but alot of that will be buried by idiots. On the other end of the spectrum to say there was no police brutality at occupy encampments is naive and delusional. Sometimes it was police brutality and some it wasn't. As a DT instructor I work hand in hand with police on training issues. I know that when the crappy training they get fails they revert back to thug tactics and that's were brutality soon followed by litigation comes in. I went on a police site recently and was watching a video where it looked like a cop in Oakland shot someone at an Occupy thing with a rubber bullet for no apparent reason. Now he may have had a reason but you couldn't tell it by the video and neither could anyone else on that site. Several officers were on a tirade on the site talking about how the guy deserved to get shot and how more should be shot like that. Even how all the protestors should be shot. Ummm this is the attitude they use to bash you. If you go out on the street with this you have become the very thing internet trolls say that you are. Don't be that the only thing you have to do is your job correctly. You have to remember to not personalize everything when you put on that uniform you disappear and instead your the face of your department and how the public views police. You can't allow yourself to be baited and suckered in to giving these people what they want don't be that way. Just do your job correctly and realize it isn't about you.

The Gay Marriage Issue

Honestly this isn't one of my issues I could care less but more and more when I turn on the tv I have to see something about it. It's getting run into the ground by the media and so I feel compelled to speak on it. I'll start with the militants against it that raise total hell about it. Now I'm not addressing the intelligent people who have a problem with it I'm only talking to the militants who are going over the line. First of all marriage is not a religious ceremony. It can be if you make it but in function it isn't generally. If it were it would have to be done in a church by a minister but a justice of the peace can do it. Even a ship captain can do it. If an atheist can do it( which they can) then it has nothing to actually do with religion in practice. So that argument doesn't really fly.  Outside of love it's about tax breaks and joint accounts, etc. Another point is that it's illegal in the US to pass a law giving any kind of preference to a specific religion. When you have a country passing laws solely based on their religious belief then somewhere your going to have the Taliban waving a finger saying," See I told you they were no different than us they're hypocrites." No one wants that I hate the Taliban. Yet here comes another point. Now me I'm heterosexual but the only difference between me and some gay guy is he prefers to do something different with his junk than what I do with mine. Since I'm not gay I don't do gay things and never really think about it. Now you have militants going around spending all their free time worried about what some man does with his own penis. My question is why are you sitting around thinking about some guy's penis? My inclination with common sense would be to say if your sitting around with your free time and doing this....your gay. So grab a sign and run right out there and protest against yourself. Now on the other side of the issue you have gays setting themselves back about a hundred years. I'm going to use something else as an example to prove my point. Now me myself I don't like sour cream. When I go into a restaurant if I order a baked potato or something like that I make sure to tell them not to put sour cream on it because I don't really like sour cream. Now I know people that really like sour cream and they can eat it if they want to but I don't like it so I'm not going to eat it. I don't have a problem with them eating it. Now what if I went to someone's house and they were wearing a shirt saying sour cream is the dream and flipped out screaming at me about how they got sour cream in the fridge and they were going to eat it and I couldn't stop them. I should accept the sour cream and deal with it. They were gonna put it on my plate and make me look at it no matter if I liked it or not. Well.. that would piss me off. It sounds silly but this is what alot in the gay community do and it damages gay people over all. In the United States we are a defiant people as it is if you push us we are going to push you back harder. This is the nature of our society. When gays do this stuff they become the very stereotype the others are fighting against. To me the person that has helped gay people the most in this country in Ellen Degeneres. Yes she's gay but everyone likes her. Why is she accepted and others aren't? Because she appears normal she isn't the stereotype she isn't trying to bash your head in with her gayness. She's just trying to live her life. Now Hollywood is very liberal in the media it will always appear as if the nation supports it but in the southeast and middle america we know that the majority doesn't support homosexuality. The best way for gay people to help themselves and their issues is to not be the stereotype. People in these parts of the country have to see that you aren't different from them. If you can accomplish that then you will progress miles and miles instead of small steps. Follow the example of Ellen Degeneres.

The Abortion Issue

I want to say a couple things first. Roe vs Wade will never be overturned. It was passed for very good reason. Back a long time ago when doctors weren't doing abortions girls were using coat hangers in back alleys to do it themselves and were dying. So the abortions were getting done regardless. Now some militants would say the girls got what they deserved. Well there's a flaw in that argument. Your pro life right? Then why do you care about the unborn but apparently don't give a damn about the born? When they come out of the womb it doesn't matter if they die? That's pretty inconsistent. You shouldn't call people murderers simply because they belief life begins at a different time than you believe. It just makes you look like a wing nut. I'm not saying they are right but they do have reasons they believe it. I'll give you a couple. Years ago a doctor named Bruce Lipton was doing experiments on cells at Standford. He basically proved we are a community of organisms not just an organism ourselves. Basically every cell in our body feels pain and possibly even has emotions. They react to stimulus. Just like a fetus. In other words, technically every time you get a hair cut by pro life standards you are committing murder. Every cell in your hair feels the same pain as a fetus. So this is why they consider a fetus a part of a woman's body and think she has a choice not because they like to kill babies. So you need to understand that. I mean you can only go so far with that propaganda where do you end it? Is masturbation murder too? It kills the seed of life. How about arresting everyone for murder during last call at a bar? Sure they aren't killing anyone yet but they have the intent. You see how silly this can get? If nothing more stop throwing around the word murderer like a frisbee. Now on the other end I think partial birth abortions are over the line that is disgusting. That is a fully formed human by then and to me yes it's murder. The pro choice militants to me have gone too far in that area and crossed a line. Pro choice militants also need to understand not every pro lifer is a religious fanatic it's an insulting stereotype. One of the best proponents of the pro life movement is Ron Paul. He's actually good for alot of things I like Ron Paul alot but he had a great take on it. As a doctor if a pregnant woman came into his office and he did something wrong and that baby died then he's responsible. He'll be sued for that. However if she just goes down the road and gets it done then it's ok. When Scott Peterson killed Lacy Peterson he went down for a double murder because he also stabbed the unborn baby. Now if Lacy Peterson just went down the road to a clinic and had an abortion she wouldn't bee charged with murder. He's got a great point there's a huge inconsistency with the laws in this regard. You may not agree with him but you have to respect what he's saying because it's not a militant perspective it's logical and intelligent.

In conclusion, militant speech is pointless speech that does nothing but serve the ego of the speaker and inflame the ignorant. It's only through intelligent and informed discussion that we can learn, grow, and progress as a society. An intelligent person will have a mutual respect for someone with a different belief that presents themselves in an intelligent way. Two militants on opposite ends have no reason to speak to each other because nothing will come of it. If people aren't communicating then things will only get worse. This is why militant beliefs are the enemy of logic.

A Lesson From The Past

    I was thinking the other day about the importance of feedback and listening to it if nothing more. Sometimes feedback can be crap and sometimes it's legitimate and can help your programs. Sometimes we get tunnel vision on something and an outside eye can bring new light. A good program is always developing and adapting. Being humble and dropping the ego will help alot too. This led to alot of other things to think about as well. It got me thinking about an incident years ago that I want to recount with you.
    Several years ago I was the Special Projects Director for the International Combatives Self Defense Association. I worked with the board and mainly the Director of Operations. I was teaching at a conference in Chicago I can't remember if it was Tinley Park  or Oak Forest (yeah I'm having a senior moment). Alot of the board and state reps were there as well alot of them heavy hitters  in their field. Hell we even had guys from Spain there.  My friend Fernan Vargas who was the Director of Operations told me hang around at lunch there was this guy that wanted to test to be an instructor with the organization he had this system he wanted to demonstrate.  I'd actually met the guy the night before and he was really cocky but he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. We all sat down at lunch and watched him do his thing. He was so sure of himself he basically phoned it in and thought we would be dazzled. When it came to the interview portion he found out otherwise. His program was basically someone attacks and you move in penetrating then cause injury. Alot of it depended on pressure points which he referred to as an electrical knockout. He was VERY arrogant and dismissive and disrespectful during the interview. He actually thought his ideas were innovative.
    First of all when asked to explain an electric knockout it was obvious he didn't really know what he was talking about it. For those that don't completely understand a pressure point is where at least two nerves intersect in the body and striking them sends the stimulus to the brain along more than one nerve channel hence it's more painful. How they are hit affects the outcome it has to be a specific way. Some have to be a certain time of day. When on drugs some never feel them and some never feel them regardless or only in certain areas. In other words a successful outcome is marginal at best and it takes alot of training to pull it off therefore it isn't a good fit for combatives.
    Second of all it was one of these systems that's overly simplistic. You move in and do something to a guy and he reacts a specific way that he's told to react to your attack so it works every time. Ummm...no. Different people react differently to different stimulus. You have to be able to adapt this is why overly simplistic courses don't work. Just because you kicked a guy in the nuts doesn't mean he's always going to bend forward. I've seen people fall backwards. I've seen people fall down. I've even seen some become even more pissed off and fight harder. This guy saw a video of a silly system then went and trained in it and thought he could be an instructor and we were just a bunch of goobers. You need experience to do that. You need to know how to put together an adaptive system and to do that you need research. Even experience though you need to have it isn't enough because you can't experience something for someone else. So this guy got brutalized by us and if he wasn't so arrogant  I'd have felt bad about it.  This guy wrote something later acting as if we didn't get it. Oh we got it! Then he GOT it!  My point is this guy's system will never improve it will always suck. He was too arrogant to think he could actually be wrong about something. If your training under someone and they don't listen to you my advise is to get the hell out of there because if their system isn't outdated then it will be shortly. You've got to listen to your people and drop the ego or pay the price for it.

The Structure of Learning

   As a training officer often when I speak with administrators on the phone I get asked similar questions. The main question I get asked in talking about our programs is how is my program different from others. It's definitely a legitimate question and needs to be addressed. Often in looking at what's available out there it all looks the same in one way or another so I can definitely understand why one of these officers would just say screw it they are all the same. I've already addressed problems with tactics in other articles I want to talk about a different issue today. I want to talk about learning and retention of knowledge. Though I'm still relatively young at age 38 I've actually been teaching for 17 years. I've ran public Dojos. I've taught at various conferences all over the United States and will soon be headed to Europe. This isn't about my bio my point is with teaching at all these conferences I've gotten to see alot of programs and with these administrators I've seen alot of the same problems.
    People sometimes think our programs don't have a structure yet nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a different structure than what they are used to seeing. You see the way most programs are set up you may start it at 8 am in the morning and work a module til 10 am. Then your going to take a short break and come back and work on something else until lunch. By 5 pm you've pretty much forgotten half of what you learned at 8 am. Your on to the next thing. You get your certificate and the end of class and the instructor hops on the next bus out and your left with a piece of paper and nothing more. This is all too common. It's important that everything flow together. When we start a program in the morning even when we move onto another section we'll come back to what we learned that morning to show how it flows with the rest of the course. This is important not only for just muscle memory but people need to see how everything works together. They need to see how everything is relevant to everything. Otherwise all you have is a bunch of random tactics you'll never be able to remember under stress. There's police programs out there that teach 160 tactics in 5 days. Some of those tactics may be good but it doesn't matter because the program is useless. The officer is never going to remember all 160 and they certainly will not be able to recall each individual tactic to use under stress when the frontal lobe of the brain shuts down during an adrenaline dump. The more options you have to make a single choice the longer it will take you to make that choice. That's just common sense.
     Another problem is going to be static training. Anything can work on a compliant subject walking through something. This is caused due to a lack of pressure testing.  Pressure testing is basically when you test something to see how it works under pressure. It would be one thing for me to tell you how to get to the store and demonstrated it. It's a different thing when you walk to the store a bunch of times and see for yourself. My directions could be wrong. You might find a shorter way to get there. There might be construction I didn't know about. This is a research problem. Most DT courses are martial arts based. This means there was an agenda to promote a specific ideal when the program was put together. That means it was tested just enough for the developer to prove in his or her own mind that it worked without properly testing it under actual circumstances. What happens during static training your memorizing tactics you aren't learning them and that is a huge difference. This leads me to another problem related to lack of pressure testing and learning. You see the fact is everything works sometimes and nothing is going to work everytime.
When you do static training you miss alot of angles. What if something goes wrong or the guys just gets the jump on you. No situation is perfect. A person would have to be pretty arrogant and dumb to think they have tactics in a program that will work 100% of the time. It ain't happening. The students need to know this and they need to hear it from the instructor. Follow ups and failsafes need to be taught. The officers need to see these things from every angle and practice them dynamically so they are actually learning and not memorizing. Get in those positions now so you know your next move so it doesn't happen on the street or if it does then you at least know what needs to be done.
    Another thing that gets done at alot of these things is there's a test at the end. I went through this whole thing in martial arts as well. I understand the whole right of passage thing and that's fine but it most instances it's just another way of getting extra money out of the students. I mean if you see these people training everyday you know if they have it down or not. If you don't then you aren't paying enough attention. In a shorter version this is problematic for police courses as well for one of the same reasons I mentioned above. It basically forces the officer to memorize instead of learn. They get so wrapped up in not wanted to flunk that test and have to go back and tell the boss they flunked and cost the department money for nothing that they go into memorize mode and the learning can stop.
    As educators this is our responsibility. The way things have been in the past can't continue and departments need to wake of and be aware of this and stop supporting these programs. The officers need to come first and you need to be aware of the environment that supports learning. It doesn't matter if the tactics are good if the officer can't retain them when they leave the course. If your a civilian it's the same thing this structure applies to you as well. Just memorizing muscular techniques isn't going to help you and it isn't going to be engrained when you need them. This is something I felt needed to be brought to light. Time changes and we need to changes with it and if we can offer something differently in a way to make the public safer we need to do everything in our power to make that happen. For the ones that don't make these changes they are destined to become a museum piece serving no purpose but their own

Instructor Courses: Are You Forgetting Someone?

   You know I teach alot of instructor courses for police departments and we always have things we say to make sure these guys are in the right frame of mind and have the correct approach. However, it wasn't until I taught a course last week that I realized I'd never written about the subject. It's a pretty important one too. Since departments for a long time didn't put alot of priority on unarmed training some of the officers went out on their own and got it. Some got good training and others got really bad training that didn't fit what they do. Some are even lifelong martial artists. So what does that have to do with being able to teach a defensive tactics course at their department? The answer is...nothing.
   Growing up in martial arts myself I'd always been taught that when you go to someone's dojo that teaches a different system the knowledge you have should stay at the door. You do things the way they tell you because it's disrespectful to say things like...oh well at my dojo we do it like this or that. The thing is you aren't at your dojo your supposed to be learning something from someone else. So you should come in as if you know nothing.
  Now alot of these officers go to instructor courses for training. Their bosses think it's a good idea because these guys are active and may understand it better. The problem is when these dojo trained officers go to an instructor course they tend to forget all the decorum they learned as part of their training and become disrespectful by trying to work in their own slant during the course. This will not only annoy the instructor but it could put the lives of other officers in danger.
  Now obviously when any officer goes to training that is still working the streets they need to know what works for them. There's nothing wrong with integrating it into their over all defense to make themselves better. If they can take one of my courses and work their super ninja kung fu panantukan death blow into it and it works for them then I think that's just fine. However, they shouldn't be doing that during the course because how can you integrate something that you don't  even understand  and can't establish proficiency. You see martial arts classes aren't designed to teach you something that works in a short time span. They are designed for you to learn techniques that you have to develop over long periods of time to become proficient. My point is a department is like a chain. It's only as strong as it's weakest link. Maybe you spent years training to develop certain tactics that work for you. The problem is not everyone in your department has spent the same time working on the same tactics and you. What works for you may not work for them at all.
  Officers when your at an instructor course you need to understand it isn't about you. Your there to learn a skillset so that you can teach it to someone else. It isn't about you and you shouldn't be the focus. The lives of all your officers are important. If she's a female officer about 5'2 she needs to be able to defend herself as well as a male officer 6'4. That's why good courses are conceptual because tactics based courses just flat out will not work for every officer in your department. So your big super judo throw might fit fine for your own personal defense but you need to be thinking about others that don't have the experience that you do. Every course I teach I have this same problem. Officers try to add their own little spin on the tactics for themselves forgetting that they don't understand the course material yet and at the end it never fails. At the end they aren't proficient and the other officers that took it with them from that department that had no prior experience can kick their asses and do it blindfolded. I've been letting it slide because I knew they had other instructors on the force that were proficient and could get them up to speed. That day is ending however. If these guys can't get over themselves and listen like an adult in class and put their officer's safety first then I'm going to fix it for them.
   I want to say this to every officer that will be taking a class from me. You will be tested for proficiency at the end of this class. If you screwed off and didn't do what I asked you will flunk that test. I will personally see to it that you fail. After that you will not be given an instructor certification and I will personally call your supervisor and tell them why. When your department finds out that they wasted that money sending you to a class and you couldn't be an adult and failed leaving them with nothing but a loss in the budget I think you will have some growing up to do. Remember the universe doesn't revolve around you and you need to put the safety of every officer first not just yourself.

I Was Never A Forensic Investigator In New York

    I want to talk with you all today about something that's been on my mind for awhile. I kept it close to my vest for months holding it in and it took a good blog rant by a friend of mine to push me over the edge. I'm a police trainer with a long background in private security and personal protection. I take pride in the fact that I help protect the people that protect the people. I have also worked most of my martial arts career on exposing greed and fraud in martial arts by people only in it for the money. Well in way those two things have clashed now. What the public is seeing is an illusion that needs to be exposed. There needs to be a dose of common sense brought into this arguement. There are former police and military people out there misleading the public about the facts and I feel that to protect the public and get the right training out there I must speak on it. If I have to be the person to fall on the grenade then so be it. So here we go.

   Now it's my policy to never name names unless I know the person doesn't mind and the fact is this article isn't about one person so I'm going to use real examples but at the same time stay on point. Now there's this guy from New York that has a pretty popular program out there. What he's doing and saying however is pretty bad. He seems to only want to market to ignorant people who don't know any better. He pushes his big system as the most up to date thing and in every interview what appears under his name? He always puts former NYC forensic investigator. People this is what we call marketing. It's used to mislead the public to believe he knows something that they don't. What he actually teaches looks more like traditional Kempo than anything else. Pretty good Kempo but Kempo nonetheless. I don't know if that's his background or not but he doesn't put that on the screen in his videos. I'm sure you've all seen it. Constantly bashing grappling tactics. He has this one clip where he supposedly proves his arguement by having some guy do a wrestling shoot on a guy with a knife and get stabbed to show that grappling training isn't good for self defense and he should know because he's a former forensic investigator.Then he does another one in an elevator where he has a guy try to grab a knife arm the wrong way without a proper setup to bash grappling again. Well as we all know in any system if you perform a tactic wrong it's probably going to fail. But he knows better because he's a former forensic investigator in New York and he's seen stuff. Then again I'm a 6th Dan in Jujutsu and been doing it 34 years and I've never seen a jujutsu guy do a dumb move like he's saying they do. All it looks to me that he's proven is how ignorant he is about other systems. He doesn't seem to understand body mechanics or how to set up anything. Just because you suck at grappling tactics and can't perform them doesn't mean they are bad. Maybe you just suck. The best way to draw attention away from your flaws is to try to get people to focus on the perceived flaws of others. All throughout WWII capturing the weapon bearing limb was used by tens of thousands of soldiers to save their lives and worked at a huge rate of success. I was once attacked with a knife myself when I walked in on a rape in progress. The first swing nicked the back of my left hand and on the back swing I secured the arm and used grappling tactics for the disarm and to restrain the man until police got there.Then again what do I know I was never a forensic investigator in new york.

   Now as a police trainer I want to give you a little background on how police train. I don't know how it works in other countries I can only speak for the US. In most states you have what is known as a POST( Peace Officer Standards & Training) system. It isn't always called that sometimes it's called something different it may be called  the DCJS( Department of Criminal Justice Services) or something totally off the wall like in Texas with TCLEOSE( Texas Commision on Law Enforcement Standards & Education). The point is almost all states have a version of it. To those that don't know officers have to get so many hours of training credit every year and report it to these state agencies. How many hours can vary from state to state. An instructor can try to get it recognized by the state so officers get their credit or they can get an academy or a department with academy status to host them and they will take care of it. If you can't make arrangements for them to get credit hours departments won't pay for the training and officers most likely will not attend the training.

   Well several months back I was scheduled to teach a public course in New York,NY. I thought well hey I'll call an academy up there and see what the requirements are and do a police seminar while I'm there. Guess wwhat I found out? They do have an accrediting program in New York but depatments are not required to be a part of it. That's right folks they don't have to train at all if they don't want to do it.  Massachusetts along with a few other states is the same way. What that actually means to you is that our awesome forensic investigator may have never had a single ounce of reality based training. It's possible he has less training than your 12 year old child in kid's karate class. On top of that I'd like to add that nationwide unarmed training isn't a priority with most police departments. They tend to focus more on TASER, OC spray, batons,etc. That is slowly starting to change thank God but for right now that's the reality. Now this guy may be a good martial artist. That however doesn't make it ok for him to come on the internet and push a police title to willfully mislead the public into believing he has some knowledge above others. I mean think about what a forensic investigator does. They investigate crime scenes they aren't even on the front lines like the patrolmen. To use his logic the other day I watched a space shuttle launch. I know exactly what happened there's no doubt about it. It even left a trail. I went and looked up propulsion on the internet so I even know how it launched. So that must mean I can get a job with NASA as a rocket scientist tomorrow right? Of course that sounds silly but it's the same logic. Just because you know how a crime happened doesn't mean your an expert on how to stop it from happening to someone else.

   The odd thing is if you look at the training police actually do in defensive tactics it's pretty telling. PPCT and SPEAR are hugely popular programs all over the world. They were founded respectively by Bruce Siddle and Tony Blauer. In a shocker neither of these guys were ever police officers or even security as far as I know. So basically when police want high quality training they pretty much make sure they go to people who were never police officers. Isn't that an odd but true fact? Why would they do that when they could train under a forensic investigator from New York. Maybe they know the same  things your finding out with this article.

   Let's move on to another example and share the fun of sarcasm with others. A few years back I was looking around on the internet because I'm kind of an information junkie I'm always looking for new things. I came across a correspondance course where peope could train in TKD from home. It seemed pretty cool they made people test in person so they wouldn't have some goober in there teaching the public. Back then I was thinking about offering a course that way myself so I wanted to see how they had it set up to get some ideas so I clicked on their link for more info. The crap got neck deep. The whole marketing thing was how they just got back from fighting in Afganistan and how you could learn what they used. Seriously I can't make this stuff up...are you kidding me? If your on the battlefield and you have to fight with your fists all the time the only thing that proves is that your a terrible marksman. You need to requalify with your weapon. Nobody should be able to get  THAT close to you this isn't medieval times. Warfare doesn't really work that way anymore. People stand back and shoot that's how it goes these days it isn't like WWII or Vietnam. I guess these guys were different though. They hopped out of that plane and said," Screw the guns! We're gonna hop through Basra on one leg and kick them all in the head!" The fact is these guys were simply predators preying on an uneducated public. That was their audience people who would see those khakis and be ooooooed and ahhhhed and they could make them some money. I'm sure many people bought into it. I keep waiting on someone to claim they are Spartan and sell a system on how to kick people down a big hole.

  Now the fact is like the other guy they may be great martial artists or not. I'm not even necessarily saying the programs they do aren't good. I haven't seen the entire programs they teach. My problem is they mislead the public for money and that first guy bashes honest people with lies and his own ignorance. Very few people lie about just one thing it's a credibility issue. Some of you may have read my last article Martial Artists vs Black Belts. There was a part in there where I talked about a guy that couldn't get a wrist lock to work so he changed the attack to make a bad lock work instead of changing the lock for a better one. That guy was a former marine and his program sucked. As a matter of fact two of the worst martial arts programs I've ever seen were taught by marines. Now at the same time one of the best MMA coaches I ever had the honor of working with was also a marine. My point is the fact that he's a former marine doesn't make him a great coach. He's great because he goes to Thailand twice a year and he trains really hard with the right people. He did the work and paid the dues to get to where he is and he deserves all of his success. One of my mentors, W Hock Hocheim was in the military and also a police officer. His programs are great because he travelled the world and did years and years of research to make them that way. It isn't because he used to be a cop or in the military.

   Former police and military can be great instructors or really bad ones. People who never done either one can be just as good or better. It's about the individual and the work they put into it. The fact that someone used to be a cop is completely irrelevant and shouldn't matter to you either. If they have a great program then it would've been great regardless because as individuals they made it that way. When someone puts that stuff at the forefront to me they are just looking for prey that doesn't know any better and it's a shame and a disgrace. If you teach Jujutsu, Kempo, Kung Fu, or whatever you teach be honest about it. If you've modified it into a more modern system then that's great too but don't deny where it came from. There is no super secret ninja pressure point. When you take short cuts and your demographic is an unknowing public that doesn't know when your full of crap don't expect your peers to be nice to you. Then again what do I know I was never a forensic investigator in New York.

Police Use Of Force on "Peaceful Protestors" by Marc MacYoung

Get a cup of coffee, it's a long one. Because like so many other things, it's not a simple issue.
*************


Let me start by saying  I'm not interested in arguing lofty ideals, listening to people squeal in outrage that the world isn't fair, hearing about justifications for civil disobedience and, of course, being told about evil conspiracies meant to oppress us. Us being we who have the highest standard of living in all of human history. The 'why' of the "occupy" protests is not my concern -- and that includes the rationalizations of why breaking the law is 'all right in a noble cause.'


The purpose of this article is to acquaint you with some of the finer points of police use of force and the limits of 'protest.' (That is to say, where it bleeds over into other issues.)


For the record, I'm not against free speech or the right to assemble. And I especially am not against petitioning the government for redress of grievances. While we're at it, I'm not looking at the world through rose-colored, capitalist or conservative glasses.


I will be the first to admit there are beau coup big problems with how things are going in business, the economy, government and society. Things have become systemic in our ways of 'doing business' that are causing these problems. (As an aside, while it is easy to blame 'evil' and greedy corporations, I see money grabbing all over the place -- including under the guise of noble and humanitarian causes.) I will acknowledge all these serious problems -- with a stipulation.


That stipulation is these issues are way more complex and involved than can be solved by pundits, media sound bites, Internet intelligence, blogs and, most importantly, protests.


What I am here to talk about is:
1) The standards of police use of force against people who are refusing lawful orders
2) Why said use of force is both legal and within policy
3) How the 'outrage' certain people express about use of force is out of sync with the way a majority of folks feel.


The first fact you need to know is the "Occupy (Wherever)" protests have done an interesting thing. They have tried to sell us a 'new' definition of protest. It is a definition that has crossed a line and has resulted in police using of force against the protestors. (The irony is this 'version' has been tried before and it was responded to with force back then too.)


The blogsphere is all aflutter over these incidents of brutality, oppression, suppression of free speech and interference with people's 'right' to protest.


But, that is not why the police are using force. It's what people are doing under their 'expanded' definition of protesting that is getting them pepper sprayed, tasered and having the cops kneel on their heads as they are handcuffed.


The second fact directly relates to use of force. There is a big difference between pain and injury. 


This isn't sophism, it is a medical fact. You can have pain without injury, but injury is usually painful. Pain is a sensation. Injury is things getting broken, smashed, cut, crushed or ruptured.


This difference is something most people do not know, much less understand. More than being inexperienced with physical violence, many assume that pain is injury. They hear someone screaming and crying "you're hurting me!" at the police, and they don't recognize there has been no permanent injury done by the officers to the screamer. In fact, that brouhaha is a pretty good indicator that there is no serious injury.


When people are seriously injured, they tend to be quiet. Instead of screaming, they're more invested in rallying their resources to protect the injuries, breathing and basically staying alive. Then there's the whole going into shock thing. The noise to injury ratio isn't always the case, but it's a good rule of thumb -- especially when it comes to arrest and control tactics.


Pain vs. injury is an important component in understanding 'use of force' standards. Actions likely to cause physical injury (broken bones, concussions, internal hemorrhaging, etc.) are considered a higher level of force. Therefore, the use of these levels is more restricted and require the presence of greater danger to the officer (or others). If there is no immediate danger, these tactics are not allowed to be used.


Whereas, inflicting non-damaging pain is deemed a lower level of force.


Third, many  police departments practice 'ask, tell, order' when it comes to verbal tactics. Even though it is 'talking,' these still are integral steps in established 'use of force' policies practiced by law enforcement across the country.


As it was explained to me, ask, tell, order verbalization are a nice bit of  public relations, they keep the peace, articulate what the officer did before taking it to the next level, explain why it went there and set up legally defensible patterns of behavior. The ducks are in a row on this one and you better recognize that.


Let's take ask, tell, order and apply it to someone stopped for suspected drunk driving.
"Could you please step out of the car, sir?" (ask)
"Sir, step out of the car." (tell)
"Step out of the car, NOW!" (order)


The next step is known as 'make.' As in, you've been asked politely, you've been told, you've been ordered, now an officer is going to make you do it.


But for now, let's focus on the talking. Asking is a nice bit of requesting compliance. It's all polite and reasonable to get you to do what the officer wants. It doesn't get your little duck feelings hurt because he's politely asking you to cooperate with him in the execution of his duties. Often this sugar-and-spice approach works very well -- especially when it comes to minor and less dangerous situations.


Having said that: If an officer -- in the execution of his duties -- tells you to do something, it is not a request.


It is what is known as a 'lawful order.' Refusal to follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer (LEO) in the execution of his or her duties is not a right. Failure to comply is breaking the law and legally permits the officer to use a higher level of force in the execution of his duties. 


Many people, who believe they have the 'right' to argue with a cop, find out about this escalation of force the hard way.  I will also tell you if a cop directly tells you "I'm ordering you to..." the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed for what is coming. The word 'order' is one of those keyword you need to be listening for in what an officer is saying.. This includes an announcement over a bullhorn -- especially when there's a bunch of cops in riot gear standing there. Refusal? Well you can do that, but it won't be fun.


I'd like to explain a related point. In one sense, it doesn't matter how you refuse: If you argue. If you just don't do it. If you try to run. If you stand there and scream obscenities at the cop. If you try to punch the cop. If you sit down, cross your arms and hold your breath. If you throw yourself on the ground and kick and scream in a tantrum.


These all constitutes refusing a lawful order from an officer in the execution of her duties. When you do this, your legal footing has just become quicksand. No matter how morally or emotionally justified you feel you are in doing so. 


Fourth, such a refusal kicks it up to the next level. The officer can now use physical force to 'make you.' 


This is where how you refuse a lawful order becomes real important. We'll talk more about that in the next point. But, for right now, know that use of force practices are overwhelmingly about 'compliance.' That is getting someone to either stop doing something or to do something (back to that 'order' thing again). It's also about getting someone into a position to handcuff him or her. 


The first level of force is known in some departments as 'soft hands.' While it doesn't always, it can include, on the part of the officer, joint locks, take downs, arrest, control and cuffing techniques. I can be non-painful or it can be painful. It depends on the level of resistance. But let's be real here, making someone do something they don't want to do often involves some discomfort to the person.


And that brings us to the subject of pain. Pepper spray and tasers, although extremely uncomfortable, are considered to be part of this lower level of force because they aren't likely to cause physical injury. Physical injury is caused by striking or shooting someone. Yes, two hours later your eyes will be red and inflamed after you have been hit with pepper spray, but odds are you won't be in lying in a coma in a hospital. If you've ever caught a fish hook in your finger, you have suffered the physical 'injury' commonly caused by a taser.


Pain, on the other hand, there's a boatload. Being on the receiving end of these items hurts like hell, and they are really good at convincing people to change their mind about not complying. 


That brings up something else you should know. Use of these items has become more and more popular with law enforcement. That's because going 'hands on' with people always increases the chances of the situation escalating and heightens the chances of injury. This, to both the person and the officer. If people think they can disobey lawful orders, it's a small step from there to physically resisting being touched by the officer.


Physically fight the guy and risk injury or taser him? Guess what? The taser is faster, easier and safer for everybody. After you've been zapped, odds are you're going to let the cop cuff you with no more fuss or bother. Know you are going to encounter this attitude if you choose to resist or disobey a lawful order.


Fifth, there are several versions of resistance to lawful orders.


Let's start with passive resistance. While that includes a drunk sitting down and holding his breath, it also can be a coordinated and intentional strategy. For example, protestors sitting down, locking arms or chaining themselves to something. When dealing with passive resistance, officers are not generally allowed to use levels of force that can cause injury. For instance, they can't beat passive resisters over the heads with clubs.


What is allowed to use is pain to force compliance. That's where pepper spray and tasers can come into play. It is a noninjurious use of force. But, oh boy, do you want to stop doing what you're doing when you're zapped. 


Got a bunch of passive resisters to a lawful order? Hosing them in the face with pepper spray is both legally and departmentally approved use of force. By the time it gets to that point, the whole ask, tell, order policy has run it's course, and there is no doubt that it is willful disobedience to lawful orders.


Passive resistance is one thing. Trying to fight a cop, run away or stop him from cuffing you is what is known as 'active resistance.' While any active resistance is frowned upon, if your active resistance is aggressive, it presents a higher risk to the officer. And attacking the officer is a good way to get injured.


While passive resistance might justify 'soft hands,' active resistance justifies the officer using 'hard hands' (higher level of force). These are actions that can result in physical injury to the actively resisting person. Now we're talking about striking, clubbing and other things that can bust your head.


If people are getting injured by the police, look for active resistance -- if not outright physical attacks on the officer (or someone else). That is the only time police are permitted by both policy and law to use such tactics. Odds are good, those methods will not be used on a 'peaceful' protestor or even a passive resister.


There is another level of force after this and that's lethal. This is a level that an officer can only legally use when his or her life (or someone else's) is in danger. Again, it is based on what the other person is doing to create an immediate threat. This isn't intended to injure or gain compliance, it is designed to stop danger.  And it just so happens to be fatal a lot of the time. Thankfully, these protests haven't gotten to this point yet.


Sixth, protestors are being trained how to exert the highest level of passive resistance without bumping it up to the point where the police would be legally justified to use a higher level of force.


This is why it's important to know the difference between a 'peaceful protest' and passive resistance to a lawful order. One is a legitimate -- and protected -- right. The other is a deliberate act to provoke use of force by the police.


Why? It's public relations (PR). Protestors are quick to exploit any incidents involving the police by claiming they are 'peaceful protestors' being brutalized and oppressed by law enforcement while exercising their rights. And, as the outrage in the blogsphere and social media sites demonstrate, people don't know the difference between peaceful protestors and passive resistance in defiance of lawful orders.


This is where the squeals of 'police brutality against peaceful demonstrators' start. It also is exactly what the protestors want. It engenders sympathy, pity and horror in the public, which they capitalize on to promote their agenda. Basically, knowing that they won't be physically injured (they'll just suffer some discomfort) they actively engage in a behavior they know will result in police use of force against them. Hence, they can claim to be victims.


There is something you need to know about this expanded definition of 'protesting.' The strategy of organized passive resistance is to create as big a bottle neck as possible. This is a deliberate strategy to jam, obstruct and impede others, and cost people time and money. Ideally, it brings the entire environment to a stand still by shutting it down (this is important to the seventh point).


This is a form of passive aggressiveness that not unlike mold on the floor. It creeps farther and farther into other people's space, until there is no option but to step on it or be cornered. When you step on it, the screams of brutality and victimization begin. And these, in turn, are used as 'proof' of the evil and oppressive system.


Passive aggressiveness is a big part of this kind of protest. It is a deliberate interference with the environment that is being justified as 'free speech' and lawful assembly. Not just peaceful assembly, but lawful assembly. While there's a lot of overlap, those are two separate issues.


And that brings us to the seventh point. The issues causing the police to use force do not involve protests. They are about other things.


One of the biggest is camping. More than that, it is camping on public, private and semi-private land. In this expanded version, we are told 'camping, trespassing and creating public safety, health and nuisance issues are legitimate forms of protest.' The protestors are pretending their 'right' to protest extends to squatting on both public and private land.


I cannot stress this point enough: It's not the protest that is getting them pepper sprayed and arrested, it's the camping and refusing lawful orders to remove these illegal camps and tents.


That last point is bigger and deeper than you might think.


The first amendment of our constitution grants us the rights to peacefully assemble and speak freely. At the same time, these 'rights' are balanced with the rights and needs of others -- especially when it comes to safety.


That guarantee of 'rights,' however, has a much more specific and limited meaning than people think it does.


Let's start with the biggest point of ignorance about the 'rights' we assume are ours. I have a favorite 'demotivational poster' that reads: "Bill of Rights. Didn't read. Too long -- but will use half-assed understanding to demand 'freedom' for stupid behavior."


For those of you who fall into the 'Too Long, Didn't Read' clique, we'll keep it short and limit it to only one of the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Here is the First Amendment in ye olde Bill of Rights:
"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."


Notice that first word. It's important. In fact, it's really important. That's because it very specifically identifies that 'congress' cannot pass laws restricting free speech, religion, the press or your right to peacefully assemble. This has since been expanded in conventional opinion to include 'government.'


That amendment clearly states the government can't stop the listed behaviors. In practice, that means the government can't stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie. Nor can it pass laws to keep the Westboro Baptist Church from spreading its religious hate and bigotry. In the same vein, it isn't allowed to say the Occupy (Wherever) or the Tea Party can't hold a rally.


What the government can do, however, is establish parameters for public safety, health and to minimize nuisance during these assemblies. That means there are standards of behavior you can engage in and those that you can't.


This is important for three reasons:
1) it ensures safety
2) it limits damage to private and public property
3)  in a democracy, not everyone is going to agree with (or even be interested in) what those who are assembling have to say


Setting these boundaries is not suppressing the rights of free speech or freedom to assemble. In fact, here's something a lot of people don't know.


Legal protests, rallies, demonstrations and marches are, in fact, helped and supported by the police. More than that, there are accepted public venues that can be used. The city will give you a place to assemble.You file for a permit, and the police coordinate the traffic and parking. And, by the way, the requirement to file a permit to hold a demonstration is not a suppression of free speech. It's a step in getting police support because logistics for an assembly take time and planning. Extra officers, traffic control, routes for marches, public safety and services, all of these need to be organized so you can have your rally. These also are things the city do in order for people to exercise their 'right' to protest. Things that allow everyone to get their needs met, including the rights of people -- who don't agree with the protestors -- not to be bothered by them.


Wow, that's pretty neat. You get your rally, protest, demonstration or what have you, while everyone else gets to go about their business with minimal interruption, safety or health concerns. I'm okay with this idea.


A point of interest, though. By using this system, free speech is not free. By that I mean, the city ends up paying for overtime, police presence, rerouting traffic and clean up. This, in turn, means the taxpayers are paying to support your right to peacefully assemble. Still, it's a pretty good deal.


Having said all this, the 'rights' to assembly and free speech do not extend to a whole lot of other things -- including corporations or private property. For example, you do not have the right to 'protest' on private or semi-private property. You can be forcibly removed for trespassing. You do not have the right to block traffic or access. You cannot interfere with or harass those entering or leaving a governmental or business establishment. This is why picketers or those on strike must stay on the sidewalk in front of the business or organization with which they disagree. Not in the street, not on private property and they must keep moving.


Another example of this is the private park where the original Occupy Wall Street started and the UC-Davis campus. These are private properties that allow public access. That is not the same as public property (e.g., a public park). If the owners or trustees of these properties 'allow' the protest, fine. If they say no, that is their 'right.' This includes the right to withdraw permission if a crowd gets out of hand.


An important point about public or government property is where protests are permissible. This comes back to permits. Recently, several  arrests of 'Occupy Denver' folks occurred when protestors decided to take their show to other locations. Then they decided to refuse the lawful order to leave those new areas. The police didn't tell them that they couldn't go back to the park (where they had permits to assemble). The police said, "Okay over there, but you can't protest here without a permit."  Some of the protestors said, "Oh yes we can!" and arrests resulted.


This seems like a small point, but it's a big public safety  and nuisance issue -- especially when protestors start coming up with 'good ideas' as they roam the streets. (Remember the WTO riots in Seattle?) There's a reason permits are location specific.


This brings us to free speech


Let's start with the fact case law has established the 'right to free speech' does not extend to 'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater' (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck vs. United States, 1919).  That point has been pretty well argued and established in the courts.


Beyond that, free speech is a pretty contentious topic, especially when hate speech, fighting words, slander, libel and 'encouraging others to engage in criminal and destructive acts' get thrown into the mix. Just because someone claims what they are saying is 'free speech,' doesn't mean it is. (And yes, you can apply that idea to what constitutes 'peaceful protest,' as well.)


Where people really don't understand that their 'right' to free speech does not extend is to corporations, private businesses or John Q. Public. A newspaper (a company) is not violating your rights if they choose not to publish your ranting manifesto. That is not censorship, that is either an editorial or business decision by the company.


The First Amendment says the 'government' can't stop you from talking, blogging or starting your own newspaper. That doesn't mean, if people don't want to listen to you, your 'rights' are being violated. The government didn't do it, other factors are involved -- including the likelihood that people think you're wrong.


There are actions that have been through the legal system and have been deemed expressions of free speech. Just as there are acts that have been shot down as not being free speech.


For example, in 2007 Elizabeth Book won her appeal regarding protesting topless in Daytona Beach. Her gripe was women were being ticketed for public nudity (and other things) at the annual biker rally for 'showing their tits' (a tradition in the biker community). In 2004, her form of protest was to protest topless. It was a planned event, the media was alerted and, sure enough, she was arrested for public nudity. The court upheld her contention that it was an expression of free speech. Disorderly conduct charges, however, relating to a different incident stood up.


In contrast, to Ms. Book's 'success,' nude sunbathing or just flashing one's boobies (even at Mardi Gras and biker rallies) have consistently been rejected as acts of freedom of expression (free speech). People doing so are regularly cited for public nudity, disorderly conduct and as public nuisances. Whereas, strip clubs -- private property, limited admission and not in public -- have been found to be protected as artistic expression.


Confused yet? Welcome to how complicated the law and 'rights' can get. But it is very important in establishing the standards of free speech.


This is, in part, why the redefinition of camping as part of a protest has caused problems. At this time, camping has not been legally recognized as a valid form of freedom of expression, free speech, or protest. (Oh, BTW, remember I said this redefinition of protest to include camping has been tried before? The 'Bonus Army' tried occupying Washington DC in 1932. It wasn't cops who broke it up, it was the US Army. Turns out camping wasn't accepted as part of a protest back then either.) This failure to be legally recognized means it is not an accepted form of protest that must be tolerated.


That puts us in another realm. In particular, existing health and safety laws.


During this latest round of protests, police in various areas let slide placing sleeping bags and setting up food tables. Actually, those were more political decisions by the powers-that-be. It's one of those technically illegal actions, but enforcement would open a can of worms because of the claim that it is 'part of the protest.' The powers-that-be drew the line at pitching tents, however. At first glance, this might seem arbitrary. It's not.


You cannot legally 'camp' on public property (that's why cops run bums out of the park). While we're at it, you cannot 'block' a public thoroughfare or road -- without permits or for an extended period of time. Again, this is why protestors must keep moving on sidewalks or rally only in designated areas. This allows traffic to flow around them. A person in a sleeping bag can get up and move. Tents don't move easily. The tents became obstructions. Whether they were intentionally set up to be so or that was just the effect, doesn't matter. They were in the way.


There are a lot of people who dismiss the 'inconvenience' the protestors are causing to other in the pursuit of  their rights (an attitude that should make you go 'hmmmmm' about someone else volunteering your time and inconvenience). The same folks also to dismiss health and safety issues as either inconsequential or alarmist.


My position is a little different due to personal experiences. Ever been in a crowd when someone starts shooting a gun? I have. Not fun. Ever been in a crowd when a fire breaks out? Again, I have. And again, way not fun.Ever been caught in a riot? BTDT. Add it to the list of not fun things to do. Ever work events or crowd control? I have. Things can go real bad, real quick in a crowd. And when they do obstructions make them all that much worse. Whenever you get crowds, health and safety IS a big deal.
 
Again the 'dismissers' will claim 'those things won't happen. But speaking as someone who worked crowds professionally, I can assure you they do. Way too often. The only reason 'those things' don't happen more often is because there are people working their asses off to keep it from happening. 


The final point about 'free speech' involves your fellow citizens. Now we're getting into 'my right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nose begins.' (Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard Law Review 932, 957 (1919).  This includes other people being 'inconvenienced' and endangered by self-appointed 'protestors.' 


This isn't a case of a  'protest means whatever I think it means' issue. Nor is it conveniently dismissed by the claim of 'what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone.' We've moved into the realm of cause and effect, safety, health, unintentional consequences and property damage.


For example, a few years ago, protestors in Washington state threw bricks and garbage at passing cars and pushed roll-away trash bins out into traffic. Was this free speech? Was this a legitimate form of protest? Or did it create dangerous and problematic conditions where injury and property damage were likely? Realize that these conditions weren't just created where the dumpsters were being pushed into intersections, but extended miles down the streets and in multiple directions. These actions affected people who never laid eyes on the protestors. Oh yeah, and throwing objects at moving cars? Great way to cause wrecks -- also illegal as hell for endangering other people.


That is more extreme than what this latest batch of protestors are doing, but it illustrates a point. The behaviors of these Occupy folks have become public health and safety issues. People aren't getting pepper sprayed for engaging in peaceful assembly.. People are getting pepper sprayed and arrested for refusing lawful orders to take down their tents and impeding the law enforcement in the execution of their duties as public safety officers (taking the tents down). Some of this resistance is passive, some of it is active. And remember, actions that cause danger to the police or others can be legally and justifiably met with a much higher level of force to put a stop to them.


Keep that in mind when you hear about incidents of 'peaceful' protestors getting injured. You have to ask, what was that person doing that officers -- on the scene -- deemed a level of force likely to cause injury was warranted. (And that's another well established legal precedent a lot of people don't know about. It is the professional assessment of the officer on location that determines if a behavior poses a danger. It is not what the commentator on Youtube or Facebook thinks. To make you feel all warm and fuzzy, this assessment is based on established external standards of known dangers. [It's called 'jeopardy' -- acting in a manner that is known to be dangerous.] So the officer isn't making it up on the spot to justify his or her actions.)


I'm sure by now some apologists are trying to frame an argument about how camping and peaceful protest do not justify police use of force. My point is that is not the issue.


The issues are violating health and safety laws, disobeying lawful orders, passive resistance and the level of force legally allowed against passive resistance. Just as importantly, the level of force allowed when that resistance becomes both active and a danger.


Yet this behavior has it's defenders. A common 'monkey brain' wiggle is how 'breaking the law is okay if it is for a noble and idealistic cause.'


If you try to point out these nuts-and-bolts problems regarding health, safety, disorderly conduct and public nuisance, apologists will immediately jackrabbit off to wax poetic about social injustice and tyranny. If you let them get a head of steam going, they will tell you about their outrage against social inequality. In the meantime, ignoring the facts that a hundred people camped in a park and peeing on trees is neither free speech nor particularly sanitary.


Another common subset of this red herring defense is 'the wrong we're protesting is greater than the wrong we're doing, so that makes it right.'


I actually saw someone try to justify the millions of dollars Occupy Wall Street has cost the New York City by pointing out the supposed trillions that 'big business' had 'stolen.'  What? Really? That's what you call 'logic?' Oh, BTW, the $6 million figure does not include the cost of time of people who work in the area and loss of business local shops and restaurants have suffered because people are avoiding the area. This is the 'inconvenience' that 'dismissers' wave away as inconsequential. It's okay. Those people being inconvenienced are either part of, or supporters of, 'the great evil' the Occupy folks are protesting. So they deserve what they get.


Another red herring is to claim pepper spray and tasers are 'torture.' A friend pointed out it's not. That's because  'You can't make torture stop.' You can, however, stop the pain police are inflicting on you by the simple act of complying to the order you are disobeying and resisting. I thought about this and added that torture is 'involuntary.' You can't stop it from happening to you. People come into your cell and drag you to the torture chamber. On the other hand, you can prevent being pepper sprayed by simply complying with a lawful order.  That's why the 'torture' argument falls down, the pain these folks are undergoing is entirely voluntary. They are in control if it happens and when it stops. (Boy could I run with some BDSM jokes).


Two final points in closing. I've heard people strenuously object to force being used on protestors as though they were 'criminals.' I find this position to be not only ironic, but downright funny in its hypocrisy. To understand why, I first have to tell you a quote I recently heard: In the eyes of the law, all are equal. However, those who apply the law may not do so equally.


That statement acknowledges that things can be handled in a less than perfect way by the authorities. In fact, you can even go so far as to say there can be bias in many cases. Point ceded without argument.


That bias statement, however, is a two-way street. As in, many people are saying, "These protestors should be treated differently for breaking the law because their motives are pure."


Stop and think about that for a second. It is an incredibly elitist, self-serving and arrogant attitude. One you'll see regarding this topic because it's sitting right there in plain sight.


Police are not allowed to exercise judgment and selective enforcement between who is a 'criminal' and who is a 'protestor.' They must react according to the circumstances. This includes the fact the law applies across the board (in the eyes of the law, all are equal). As does enforcement and the responses to refusal of lawful orders and resistance.


Camping and trespassing are prohibited, and it doesn't matter who or WHY someone is breaking these laws. The same goes for blocking thoroughfares and being a public nuisance. The police are duty bound to resolve these issues. If, in executing this duty, they encounter passive and active resistance, these conditions will elicit pre-established and departmentally approved responses. This is how the police treat everyone who actively and willfully disobey lawful orders.


This is where the hypocrisy comes in. When people are squealing about protestors being treated like criminals (being pepper sprayed for passive resistance and refusing a lawful order), what they are objecting to is everyone being treated equally. 


For folks who are protesting the inequality and injustice of our society, they certainly are claiming some special treatment for themselves, dontcha think?


My last point is to ask how much of this is a PR battle?  One that the view from the streets says the Occupy folks may be strong in the blogsphere and certain Facebook circles, but they're losing the bigger battle.


A simple truth is that because these are 'organized protests' (like I said most of them even have permits) the powers-that-be have, by in large, held off doing anything about the protestors and the problems they are causing. Basically, although there have been lots of minor issues, people in authority have told the police not to act. Ordering the police to act is a serious turdburger that government has wisely hesitated to bite into.


When it comes to knowing how to 'play the game,'  however, the powers-that-be aren't stupid. In fact, by letting the protests go on, they've allowed a counter position to grow. A position that really isn't that sympathetic to what the occupiers are doing, how long they've dragged it on and how much money they've cost.


Again, while support is strong in the blogosphere and social media for Occupy (Wherever), that isn't the case with the general public. People either don't care or are getting sick and tired of it. People in coffee shops and progressive areas might be for the occupation and what it stands for, but in truck stops, McDonald's and Black Angus restaurants across the country, there really isn't that much support. 


(Do me a favor 'dismissers,' don't you dare tell me the opinions of these, your fellow citizens, don't count.)


What little support the protestors might have had has waned as the protests drag on and costs mount for the taxpaying public. (This, in addition to the number of incidents where members of the so-called 'peaceful protest' decided to stop passively resisting and engage in active resistance.) While sections of the Internet get all aflutter with news releases and videos of the police using force, there's a lot more folks out there who are shrugging and saying, "About time."


I may be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but even I can see there's a lot more to be considered here than a bunch of protestors claiming they shouldn't get pepper sprayed when they cause health and safety issues, refuse lawful orders and, in some cases, create active threats. Now that you know these things about use of force, you have a much stronger way to explain to the next person, who is all aghast and horrified exactly why the police used force on those sweet, innocent, peaceful protestors.


M
Posted by Marc MacYoung at 2:16 PM