If you know that, it should give you pause to think. ;-)
It does. Trust me.
Because you give so little information that a reasonable answer is impossible.
Maybe you were offline when I posted the event. But the point is, if you comply with a lawful order, you rarely end up being the punching bag. If you do, the authority dishing it, should be punished.
I can get you link if you like.
But you have the right to protest right?
Yep.
I mean if you wanted to, even if it doesn't accomplish anything, you still have the right to, peacefully say what you want to say right?
Yep. But unlawfully evading security, disobeying a lawful order, isn't peaceful protest.
If the police are wrong in suppression of your rights where there is no threat then you have a case against them don't you?
Yep. But she wasn't unlawfully ordered to cease and desist.
Like many of the G20 protesters who are now bringing complaints forward that with the media exposing to the public the details of a number of these arrests, the authority has no reasonable excuse not to investigate and prosecute those police officers.
Agreed.
How can you abide this juxtaposed positions in one head?
I'm a realist and life isn't as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. BTW, they aren't juxtaposed positions. One was sarcasm, the other reality.
But this was not a threat.
We know that now. At the time, you aren't afforded that privilege.
Not a threat by any standard.
By your standard. Mine is completely different.
Other than the standard of the tyrant who quells disagreement with brute force.
Ya, she obviously has a differing opinion then the security personnel. Can you show me where those security officers made their political views known?
A police state is never a safer place to live.
I agree. But neither is a state of anarchy. We have laws for a reason.
Only one occupant and he was obviously never in any danger. Re: the threat concept.
Again, hindsight is always 20/20.
Quite. I still stand by my comment. And the number is countless. I would actually love to see the stats compiled though. But you couldn't post enough video or news articles, that would out number then thousands upon thousands of protesters that go unhindered, un-accosted and otherwise peacefully on their way.
Evade nothing, she was getting close for a picture.
While evading a peace officer, and disobeying direct, lawful orders.
According to you, after the fact. The men on the ground at that time do not have the luxury of second guessing and hindsight. It is their ass, if something goes wrong.
Be thankful it wasn't your job.
No weapon, no assault just what those who are against what she has to say, laying their hands on her without cause.
Again, can you show the security officers opinions on the political issues at play there?
Again, innocent until proven guilty.
What about that do you specifically disagree with?
I do not disagree with it at all.
She was summarily executed, nor was she incarcerated without access to a lawyer. Due process was not hindered in any way. She broke the law, by disobeying a lawful order from a peace officer, she had to be physically restrained and detained. Nothing untoward about that.
