Mass Arrests, Tear Gas, Sound Weapons used Against West Illinois University Students

reply to post by Xcathdra


OK my friend,

good debate and info as usual....

i'm not sure about a star just yet.

well..................OK

star 4u...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

This is absolutely correct that the United States Inc is registered in Delaware as a Not For Profit Religious Corporation no less.

So too is the CIA, IRS, and the Social Security Administration.

Amazingly the CIA and Social Security Administration are registered as for profit corporations.

The IRS registered back in 1914 is also registered as a Not For Profit Religious Corporation.

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 2004409 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 03/09/1983
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

Actually the cia and irs appear to be FOR PROFIT corporations, technically called general corporations, while USA Inc is a "non-profit" RELIGIOUS corporation as is the Federal Reserve.

So in essence either they are *for profit* or they are *religious* in nature. Ever wonder why you see the *order out of chaos* illuminatti pyramid on the one dollar bill? Yes everything has to do with rome subverting christianity and the pope controlling this PSEUDO-religion. Christianity started out as an elohim project but rome rulled by the nephelim(reptillian giants) got controll and absolutely destroyed it. They banned books such as the book of enoch, book of giants and many others. It all started with the holy crusades and the knights templar "defending" christianity from the muslims. Later on when the knights templar became too powerful do to banking, the european nobles chased them out of europe and the fled to scotland. From there they found freemasonry, the appendage bodies and all the *rites of passage*.

It is THESE PEOPLE that control ALL the secret societies that the general mass of humans are so ignorant about as well as capitalism and certainly banking. They believe in private ownership of the means of production, private ownership of banking, private ownership of "citizens", private ownership of states, etc. ONLY THESE PEOPLE ARE TRUELY SOVEREIGN and perhaps the nobles as well. This is the true bourgouise class of the world that Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky so vigorously hated. This the reason for the french and russian revolution. The proletariat(we the masses) fighting against the bourgouise! Why do you think most liberals hate secret socities eventhough many do not admit it? I believe JFK was trying to expose this tyranny and got shot by some mafia henchman, which was employed by the CIA Inc.

Further Delaware has the most liberal incorporation laws in the nation, and is the preferred state to hide the ownership of US Corporations by Foreign Shell Corporations.

The shell corporations are used for money laundering and are usually based offshore for the purpose of reduced taxation and annonymity. The capital is then used to help develop substandard economies of switzerland, lichenstien, luxembourge, bahamas, british virgin islands, etc. The money gets put to "good use" it seems.

So we don't actually know for certain who owns the United States Inc, though we have some strong circumstantial evidence compiled in my massive All Roads Lead to Rome thread that it is owned by a consortium of London Banks acting as agents for the Vatican, and an assortment of European Nobles and Lords.

YES I remember that thread! It was massive, enjoyful and enlightening. I believe you are definitely on the correct track and I admire your patience and persistance in the matter. Most people would not go to such great lengths to expose the corruption as you do. Kudos!!!

The bottom line, as I have figured it out, is Capitalism + Religion = Conspiracy

reply to post by poet1b

God forbid that today's kids get a chance to blow off some steam, and act their age.

Over 200 people cheering while setting things on fire right next to a street and throwing a stop-sign on top of it is considered "acting their age?"

Then deciding to say "# the police!" when told to knock that # off?

Just when, exactly, is that kind of behavior no longer considered acting appropriate for their age?

As if college age kids haven't been doing this since before the day of the first fraternity back in ancient Greece.

You know... when we have parties around here - we often have a bon-fire going on. It's made of trees, we call the local fire department and let them know what's up - and there is often drinking and other such tom-foolery going on.

We don't take stop signs and throw them on the fire. We don't take each others' stuff and throw it on the fire (not without promptly getting his/her ass kicked by the people who know that # ain't cool) - and we generally do not say "# the police!" and start throwing beer bottles at them. The people of that mentality generally do that every day of the week and don't have a large following.

Now - I'm sure college kids have participated in disruptive and destructive behavior in the history of man. -When- has it ever been considered acceptable behavior?

Why is it that this Wheeler Block Party has been fairly popular in the past, and these antics only arise this year? The Riot police aren't new (to the area) - the police aren't new (to the event) - even the police actions leading up to the 'riot' are not new... the only thing that's new is, suddenly, these kids thought it would be a great idea to start harassing EMS attempting to do their job, set things on fire, and tear up road-signs.

As if this generation doesn't have the right to do what all other generations of the past have done.

This is, certainly, a persuasive argument. I'll keep my right to use derogatory racial and ethnic slurs and keep my wife barefoot and pregnant.

Not really - I don't care for such things, anyway - but you should have gotten the point.

As if the buggers who ordered this crackdown didn't do the same thing in their youth, and wouldn't treat their own kids this way.

I have never acted in such a manner. And - once my child is 'out on his own' - and decides to pull such a bone-head stunt... he'll sit in jail. I'm not bailing him out, nor am I going to pay for him to retake missed or failed classes.

If he was A) irresponsible enough to be there and B) irrational enough to start saying "# the police!" while being unequipped to handle such a task and C) stupid enough to hang around to get caught... the little # could use a good hard dose of reality.

Because he obviously wouldn't have learned a damned thing from me.

If any generation of kids have a right to blow off steam, it would be this generation.

They are putting themselves heavily into debt, for a piss poor education, just to be eligible to get a job, that will have far more applicants than is reasonable, because the boomer generation has bankrupted our country, and left a fine mess for future generations to clean up.

That means we have no time to be dicking around getting drunk and instigating police action.

That's the same crap these 'tards from the 70s thought was cool and justified with "we deserve to blow off steam - nuclear war could wipe us out at any minute!"

Everyone has problems - every generation has its issues to face. I'd appreciate it if the members of my generation would keep what few brain-cells they were born with in-tact so that they can cease screwing things up for the succeeding generations.

Here's the reality:

"Rights" and "wills" are established and enacted by those with both the power and the ability to enact them. These kids are not going to change a damned thing by standing up and saying "# the police!" and throwing beer bottles at them. They do not have the power or ability to do what it was they wanted to do - which was whatever they damned well please.

Likewise - I don't really agree with the tax system in America. I will speak out against it, and push for legislation to correct it - attempting to rally and support others so that we, collectively, have the power and ability to enact the will of changing the tax system.

I, however, will not stand up and say: "# your taxes!" and start refusing to pay them unless I have the ability to render the attempts to collect taxes (or otherwise penalize me) null.

In short: "when you tell someone "# you" or "I'm gong to # you up" - you'd better be ready and able to actually do that - or you deserve whatever befalls you."

reply to post by Aim64C


Those parties in the past didn't have police showing up at the beginning and hassling everyone at every opportunity, thus the reason people started doing things that they would not have normally done.

They didn't have the police spraying pepper spray at every opportunity, and using loud sirens to harass people.

Starting a bonfire on the grass, is not on the street, and it wasn't two hundred kids standing around this bonfire.

Yeah, college kids do this stuff, and they have been for a lot longer than the 70ties.

And the police deserved the chant.

Burning a street sign did not justify the police actions, no matter how much you want to believe it did.

Getting rowdy and a little crazy is a long college tradition. Just because you are stick in the mud, doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be allowed to have a little fun. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support your control freak needs. They spent far more money on police overtime harassing college kids at a party, than that stop sign cost.

Oh, and chanting "f---k the cops" is not the same as saying "I'm going to f---k you up". There is a huge difference.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

What a crappy town that must be, known for police brutality and crooked public officials.

I second this. Ironically WIU is known for its criminal justice program and producing some bad ass cops, and probably many of its graduates were on wheeler street beating up on future cops. LOL...seems like West Point freshmen going through "hell week" by senior alumni.

Sorry, I had to point this out.....

This kind of crap has been happening on college campuses for at least 40 years. It's nothing new at all.

A bunch of college students gather for parties in a popular neighborhood, drinking, music, partying.

Police show up in riot gear.

Students are hammered, and they know, and the cops know the kids know, that the kids are not going ANYWHERE.

So it's an excuse for the Police Department to justify their numbers (budget, personnel, special gear, etc.) to the city counsel.

In short, it's politics. It's not the NWO, it's politics.

reply to post by poet1b

Those parties in the past didn't have police showing up at the beginning and hassling everyone at every opportunity, thus the reason people started doing things that they would not have normally done.

The police have been present in the past.

They didn't have the police spraying pepper spray at every opportunity, and using loud sirens to harass people.

Since you are clearly suffering from acute temporal displacement syndrome - I'll go ahead and perform my community service for the day and assist the impaired: the police only showed up and began using 'pepper spray' after the party-goers decided it would be a good idea to set things on fire and start tearing up road-signs while cheering. When standard police said "hey, knock it off" - the response "# the police" was given... then the riot-police were deployed.

Starting a bonfire on the grass, is not on the street, and it wasn't two hundred kids standing around this bonfire.

From two angles.

That's right next to the street (way closer to the street than you are allowed to burn things, here) - and at least 200 people right there in the immediate "mob" - which is several times larger than the other clusters of about 20-30 people hanging out in front of yards or traveling together.

Burning a street sign did not justify the police actions, no matter how much you want to believe it did.

Yes, it did. The "party" turned into an unregistered demonstration coupled with the destruction of property and gestures of violence toward law enforcement after they were requested that the crowd that had gathered dispersed.

The entire party was not shut down. Nor was the entire party asked to be shut down.

Getting rowdy and a little crazy is a long college tradition. Just because you are stick in the mud, doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be allowed to have a little fun. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support your control freak needs. They spent far more money on police overtime harassing college kids at a party, than that stop sign cost.

Whether you think I am a control freak or not is irrelevant. Laws were being broken and a mob was being formed prior to police involvement. Further - this same group was interfering with the function of EMS attempting to treat critical levels of alcohol intoxication that are life-threatening.

Part of the function of responsible adults is not letting dumb, drunk teenagers kill and hurt each other.

The situation was clearly beyond "a little fun" and needed to be addressed.

Oh, and chanting "f---k the cops" is not the same as saying "I'm going to f---k you up". There is a huge difference.

No, there really isn't. It is just that we use the term "# you" to express the desire.

reply to post by Aim64C


Watch the original video.

3 or 4 students did the fire with the stop sign, cops watched them do it and did nothing. Then others came to watch.

Rather than dealing with the few trouble makers, as they were supposed to do, they brought in the riot police and went crazy.

Others reported that the police were harassing students all day.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
This kind of crap has been happening on college campuses for at least 40 years. It's nothing new at all.

A bunch of college students gather for parties in a popular neighborhood, drinking, music, partying.

Police show up in riot gear.

Students are hammered, and they know, and the cops know the kids know, that the kids are not going ANYWHERE.

So it's an excuse for the Police Department to justify their numbers (budget, personnel, special gear, etc.) to the city counsel.

In short, it's politics. It's not the NWO, it's politics.

Maybe its a little bit of both?

I guess 9-11 was "necessary" to increase the size of government and its tyranical grip over the population. New draconian laws and new agencies formed as a direct result of a false flag operation or at the very least allowing al-queda to pull the disaster off. I guess thats the reason they took 10 years to kill bin laden rather than capture him within one year and bring him to trial in the states or the hague, if indeed he was responsible for the london and madrid bombings as well. Now that he is dead and the white house REFUSES to give us pictures, I might as well assume they "killed" some imposture of bin laden rather than the real bin laden.

How much money was made IN HIS NAME and the PHONEY "war on terror"? Americans and europeans have been FLEECED by the military-industrial complex thanks again to capitalism, uncontrolled spending on behalf of our satanic leadership and an extremely ignorant populace who believes EVERYTHING he/she is told by mainstream media, while ignoring most conspiracy theories and even conspiracy facts. Lots of posters quit posting on the 9-11 board thanks to persistant disinfo by government agencies and hired marketing firms.

And its not just money either. Money is a tool of control and not much else. The "elite" may have a depopulation agenda in store for "the masses". All you have to do is listen to Rand Inc suggest the best way to fix this global recession is to introduce WW3 "to stimulate" the economy or read about Albert Pike and the planned three world wars.

Something is in the mix and I don't really like it! Neither should anyone else!

reply to post by poet1b

Watch the original video.

I've watched about a dozen unique videos of the incident.

3 or 4 students did the fire with the stop sign, cops watched them do it and did nothing. Then others came to watch.

There were several -at any given time- contributing to the fire while the crowd of over 200 cheered and obviously endorsed such action - and were obviously even more pleased by the up-rooting of a stop-sign.

As for the police - I though they were new to this whole deal... now they were there and did nothing? Isn't it that their interference caused this behavior?

You're so trapped in your own delusion you can't make heads or 'tales' of reality.

Rather than dealing with the few trouble makers, as they were supposed to do, they brought in the riot police and went crazy.

They did attempt to do something about it. The response was "# you" and to throw beer bottles at them.

That's when the riot police came out, since, obviously, the group was not going to listen to your garden-variety police officer.

Others reported that the police were harassing students all day.

Police were checking IDs to try and curb under-age drinking. This was part of the proactive effort your ilk has proclaimed would prevent such nonsense from happening in the first place.

Many also reported that this same group was interfering with EMS attempting to respond to people in need of medical attention. Many of these were from people who were there (or, at least, claim to be - about as valid as the people who claim to have been there and try to say no one was doing anything wrong).



While in no particular chronological order - that video shows a bit more of the events regarding officers during the day.

And another angle I haven't seen before:



And a better scope of what was going on before all of the excitement with the riot police:



- if you watch from about the 13 minute mark - you see the incident with the bike on top of the stop-sign. The crowd is rather small - and you can clearly see the street where the police later have several standard cops set up and then eventually bring in the riot police as the camera-man walks up the street.

You'll have to forgive me - this is one of the -few- times here on ATS where YouTube is actually useful.



And, here, we can see some of the general response to law-enforcement. Now - they are not necessarily all that welcome at parties - but at the same time - they were hardly 'harassing.'

Now, you can make the claim that the officers being there was certainly not to the liking of the people in attendance. That's a fair assessment.

Doesn't mean they can set stuff on fire and tear down stop-signs, keep EMS from doing their job, and completely disregard instruction.

Generally, the train of thought many people seem to display here is: "if they are in a group, and at a party - they are just having fun!" What would any other group of kids tearing down a stop-sign be treated like, were they just doing it in the middle of town? What would any other mob screaming "# the police" be treated like?

Being at a party doesn't suddenly make these things okay.

That said - plenty of people were just hanging out and minding their own business, and not really causing trouble. It's unfortunate that the group that was causing problems was so intermixed among the group that wasn't.

We can coulda-shoulda-woulda this to death. If one of those small patrols of officers had been near the group messing with the stop sign near its very inception - they may have said "hey, c'mon, knock it off" - or they may have been a little more hard-nosed and made an arrest or two, and that would have been it.

You are responsible for following laws - at least the obvious and simple ones - at all times. It's not the police officers' fault that they weren't omnipresent and capable of protecting you from your own lapse of judgment. It's not like I can say: "dude... why didn't you stop me when I started?" after I burn down a house, and use that as a valid defense: "well, Judge - the police should have been there to stop me before I actually set fire to the house - rather than show up later and make it worse by giving me someone to shoot at."

You complain about a police state but you want to use a lack of thought-policing as a defense.

Sorry I posted on accident before I was finished. Please reread if you didn't get the recent stuff.

They gathered at that street corner for what appears to be a tradition. Look at this video, it's from 2010. Same stop sign! Notice the bicycle: 2010 "bike toss".

Now, go back and watch whichever video of the fire that you wish and see that there was a bike burning in it.

Now, watch the following video, which is a montage that some third party college video site has obtained. It's just silly stuff, but about 50 secs in, the guy who made the video starts to walk to what appears to be the corner where the event will take place and turns it down the street. His friend asks "What happened?" Other people were chatting and strolling away from the block party with ease. No loud noices other than the various conversations that formed an overall din. This video is basically depicting a bunch of police congregating by what seems to be a portable, before anything has happened.

Keep the "bike toss" in mind from before. Now, the following video is the longest yet (16 minutes) and the guy making it spends most of the first half going back and forth between his neighbors' partying, taking shots indoors and playing beer pong in his front yard with friends.

His video shows people getting stopped by the police for who knows what. One guy for public urination. Irrelevant, these are perhaps normal police, more or less. He walks up the street towards the infamous stopsign before anything had happened, reaching it at 5:16 in. You can tell it's the same stopsign because of the facades of the two homes in the shot (compare with when the fire is burning).

At 5:43, notice how he says "Oh no, it's the bike". Not "Joe on his bike" or "Some bike". Saying "the" implies definiteness. It makes the bike into a metonymy, standing in for some idea as part of a whole. The first video I linked to above shows this. It's something they do, not really that harmful, of course it's illegal. So is putting soap into a campus fountain. So is parking the dean's car on the top of the science building. But there is nothing over the top about forming a tradition with a ruined bike. After sharing a reminiscent laugh with his buddy, our videographer heads back to his group and their festivities.

At 12:55 minutes he approaches that same intersection, reaching the stopsign at 12:55, where he says "Ohhhh, the effing bike".

Pause it at 13:11 and notice the group of three guys - one in a lightblue jersey - and a girl in a black A-frame. There's a box of beer on the ground at the foot of the stopsign.

Through the 14th minute the bike falls and the struggle to put it back up.

Then, someone throws a beer bottle. I went slow and it looks like the guy in the white shirt and yellow rimmed sunglasses threw it - Check 14:43 to 14:48 in slow motion.

The guy says good by to some friends and walks back.

His next video starts off calm still. Go here to see the next video.

Watch until 45 secs in, when his friend is standing behind saying "We were just over there."

Now my question is. Why were the police set up that quickly to handle a riot that had pretty much just started? I'm not going to apologize for the group-think mentality, but who started throwing the beer bottles. The fire hadn't started yet and the bike was still hanging when the first beer bottle was chucked.

Granted, it would be nice it was a continuous stream of video, and a guy saying "We were just over there" hardly qualifies us for "real time" concerns. However, in the previous two times the videographer walked to that intersection, it took roughly two minutes.

Not enough time passed to allow for riot gear and an LRAD.

I would say that yes, perhaps it was agents-provocateurs.

Keep in mind, however, this could just be the university's way of ushering out behavior without having to fight student anger at a university tradition being ended. Makes for a great excuse.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



excellent philosophies with hindsight and foresight

the whole Bin Laden deal has always sounded (and looked) at bit "mythical" ever since the 90's.

myths and illusions play a major role in the agendas of TPTB.

we could be "seeing" an alleged "riot" with a mass of police who possibly knew in advance of a "riotous" situation.

I am not sure if the police were "intimidated" by infiltrators ?

one post mentioned that plain cloths officers were "in the crowd".....maybe a deeper "element" was there too ?

and a permit was denied in advance......

this same type of pattern happened in many of the 1960"s "riots".......

reply to post by xuenchen


Because... you know... large groups of people simply cannot get out of control without "TPTB" being the cause.

It's a worse line of thinking than religious zealotry... "when anything happens - convenient, harmful, or otherwise, blame TPTB. If there is a period of time where nothing interesting happens, consult your alphabet soup for clues about the next plan TPTB will enact."

I mean... really, like "the powers that be" really care about a block party in Illinois.

reply to post by Aim64C


That was basically the point of my thread. It needn't be some global conspiracy to be a conspiracy. In all actuality, for a group of college kids to throw beer bottles with the intent of starting something is, in essence, a conspiracy.

However, for the police to have that much presence, ready to go in riot gear with an LRAD just minutes (seemingly) after a kid chucks a beer bottle is a bit extreme as far as preparation goes.

I would argue that there is no need for agents-provocateurs, though certainly we know they exist (ask Gov. Scott Walker about that), the crowd could get out of control on their own.

Whatever the TPTB means to any one person, they are not present at this event. Nevertheless, the foot print of globalization and empire is present in every thing that happened, from university binge drinking and ritualization of consumption through beer pong to the presences of riot police that only end up escalating the scene in the end.

I think you could call it a lose-lose.

reply to post by Aim64C


My friend it seems you have a superficial understanding of how the world operates. Tyranny does not start at the grass roots level and work its way up, the opposite is true. It trickles down from the top! There is no point in developing all this high tech stuff if only special ops in the military can use it because the end does not justify the means.

When congress appropriates billions of dollars to darpa and rand, it is taken for granted that the technology will be used as often as possible. The more sales, the higher the profit margin for the company involved in that specific contract. Sure there may be some ultra high tech stuff such as anti-matter reactors, plasma guns, teleportation devices, etc but that is a niche market for very special occasions and of course always classified.

The sound canons, taser devices, battons, helmets, rubber bullets, pepper spray/mace, and tear gas has a very wide appeal in the mainstream market for law enforcement. If no riots occur, or no riots can be incited, then how does the police and swat justify its presence and annual budget? Not to mention the university of western illinois DID NOT WANT that party to occur because according to them it always had a troubled history. Isn't this a perfect excuse for police action?

Lets take it one step further. Do you realise that new laws get written up each year and that by itself can be called tyranny? 600,000 USA Codes is an abomination for money AND control. The elite run the show on an international level and pass down their wishes to the national level, state level and finally to the local level. If a one world government is ever to occur, and hopefully it will not, that means there needs to be a gradual and synchronous acception of all these draconian laws. Tyranny does not happen overnight, the people who are pushing for the NWO may have started hundreds of years ago and work at a very slow pace so to make the transition as unnoticeable as possible.

If you think only federal agencies are harsh then you are naive, but yes they ARE the WORST!

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Because... you know... large groups of people simply cannot get out of control without "TPTB" being the cause.

It's a worse line of thinking than religious zealotry... "when anything happens - convenient, harmful, or otherwise, blame TPTB. If there is a period of time where nothing interesting happens, consult your alphabet soup for clues about the next plan TPTB will enact."

I mean... really, like "the powers that be" really care about a block party in Illinois.

well....

it seems that the Illinois State Police were there too.

all that for a few out of hand kids ?

and there WERE undercover police in the crowd......I wonder WHY, for such a small block party ?

and I still don't know WHO the instigators were ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
and a permit was denied in advance......

this same type of pattern happened in many of the 1960"s "riots".......

The fact you need a permit to have a party or a permit to protest is not BY ITSELF tyrannical?

100 years ago did they need a permit?

Pretty soon your gonna need a permit to fart!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by xuenchen
and a permit was denied in advance......

this same type of pattern happened in many of the 1960"s "riots".......

The fact you need a permit to have a party or a permit to protest is not BY ITSELF tyrannical?

100 years ago did they need a permit?

Pretty soon your gonna need a permit to fart!

for sure it is !

"permits" generate revenues and allow advanced notice .... just like our "riot".

the police had ample time to "prepare".

reply to post by Aim64C


Lets review your claim.

Over 200 people cheering while setting things on fire right next to a street and throwing a stop-sign on top of it is considered "acting their age?"

Two hundred people setting things on fire? And this isn't an exaggeration on your part?

You make it sound like a mob running around with torches out to burn down the town.

Two, three, maybe a few more people started a small fire off the side of the road, where for some strange reason they burn a bicycle, then throw a stop sign on top. From the beginning I have wondered how they got that stop sign out of the ground. Typically those things are cemented, and it takes quite a bit of work to get one out of the ground. How did patrolling police not notice that activity.

There aren't 200 people chanting, twenty, thirty tops. Pause the video and count, I get about 19 in the main body of guys chanting f--=k the police, and it sounds like that is about all they are. The rest of the crowd are just standing off in the distance, watching.

Look at the video, they are laughing. Not exactly a vicious bunch of thugs looking to burn down the town the way you want to describe. They are a bunch of drunk college kids trying to act cool, and hoping to get laid later on, not a bunch of thugs looking to bring down death and destruction.

God forbid that the well paid cops, with their job security and extremely generous retirement plans have to actually do their job and deal with a small group of college kids.

You don't think the police in a college town should know how to deal with drunken college students at a college party? That is their job. Those are their customers, and they should be doing their best to keep them happy. Their college loans are what is paying the bills.

There isn't any fighting going on here, no demonstrations of violence at all.

What? Should we be expecting the riot police spraying people down with mace everytime a fight breaks out at a local event?

What the police should have done, let them have their moment, watching from a respectable distance, then when it winds down, walk up and put out the fire, arrest any trouble makers if they hang around.

No, instead they go crazy, break out the riot police, and the noise weapons, and apply copious amount of pepper spray on any students who get within their range.

The police reaction was way overboard.

reply to post by Sphota


Great work, it seems that the whole bike with the stop sign thing is some sort of tradition, probably going back to some incident, at least a few years back. This could be something that has been done for decades, for reasons nobody there has any clue. Now it makes more sense.

I don't see a riot, I see people milling about. Nobody is tearing things up.

The worst thing that I see is bottles being tossed in the direction of the police in riot gear, not directly at them, but anonymously near the police in heavy gear. More criticism than intent to do harm.

The police look like idiots. Boys playing with their new toys, making things far worse then they had been.

The city counsel might want to consider that a whole lot of parents and student are going to look for other places to go to college, after this incident.