It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PrimalRed
reply to post by DrNotforhire
I guess it would be funny if it turned out she was never even pepper sprayed, time will tell
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
the cops still have no right to treat citizens as guilty off the bat. Constitution, remember?
By your logic, pregnant women who leave their houses are putting their kids at risk, given the amount of crime and violence. Pregnant women driving are unecessarily putting their babies at risk. Is that simple enough?
It's not up to the potential human being, it's up to the person whose body said potential human being is currently living in (and off of for that matter). This is not a hard concept to understand, other than to those irrational enough to compare an abortion to someone attacking a pregnant woman.
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
So, the baby didn't consent to the pepper spray, but aborted babies consent to being aborted? Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by technical difficulties
Not the same thing, considering that one is done consesually and (usually) in a safe environment. Clearly this wasn't done without consent, or with any safety measures for that matter. You might as well be comparing rape to having consensual sex because that makes just as much sense as what you're saying.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
She announced she was pregnant and asked to leave before the round up began. I want badges handed over and cops in jail for murder.
And you honestly think the police can hear every shout from every person???
I'm still lauging at these claims of murder...but I bet all of you would be fine with her having an abortion...right???
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
She didn't deserve it, but she should have had more common sense to attend such an aggressive scene!
Prohibited conduct may include: Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons or groups solely because they are involved in constitutionally protected activity. Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons or groups solely because of the content of their speech (e.g., if there is no reasonable law enforcement purpose, such as criminal conduct advocated or planned or threat to public safety). Investigating and collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information regarding persons’ or groups’ exercise of their First Amendment rights for a purpose unrelated to the event. Instructing the debriefing of or questioning witnesses, event participants, or arrestees regarding their social, political, or religious views unless specifically related to criminal conduct and then only as necessary to achieve the clearly stated objective in the Pre-Event Work Plan. Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information that is outside the scope of the stated objectives of the investigation unless exigent circumstances justify modification of those objectives. Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information without evaluating it and marking it for source reliability and content validity prior to maintaining, using, or sharing it. Collecting, maintaining, using, or sharing information (such as names) in political petitions, mailing lists, organizational memberships, or writings espousing a particular view that is protected by the First Amendment. Investigating persons or groups solely because of: Advocating a position in their speech or writings that an officer finds to be offensive or disagreeable. Support for unpopular causes. Ethnic background, race, or national origin. Religion or religious affiliations. Noncriminal personal habits. Associations with persons that are not of a criminal nature. Association with or being related to persons belonging to an organization espousing views protected by the First Amendment. Investigating, disrupting, interfering with, or harassing any person for the purpose of: Preventing the person from engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment. Retaliating against the person for engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment. Discriminating against the person on the basis of conduct protected by the First Amendment.
Originally posted by OneisOne
I also found a TV news interview, she plans to sue for 10 or 25 million.
Originally posted by PrimalRed
Originally posted by AnonymousVan
I wouldn't let my pregnant wife got to an occupy protest.
Excuse me, not to sound rude, but womens have rights.
The police have to protects its citizens, , even the protesters
Oh i know women have rights but to say this is murder of an unborn child is also to say that the mother has the right to put her child in harms way so long as it politically aligns with what she wants. To say that the cops murdered anyone in this event is also to call the mother an accessory, you can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by Equidae
Originally posted by PrimalRed
Originally posted by AnonymousVan
I wouldn't let my pregnant wife got to an occupy protest.
Excuse me, not to sound rude, but womens have rights.
The police have to protects its citizens, , even the protesters
Oh i know women have rights but to say this is murder of an unborn child is also to say that the mother has the right to put her child in harms way so long as it politically aligns with what she wants. To say that the cops murdered anyone in this event is also to call the mother an accessory, you can't have it both ways.
If that was the case then you'd have to prevent pregnant women from driving since that also is statistically high risk She could have easily been somewhere else, and been hit by a car. A demonstration in and of itself does not have to be dangerous.
It's just an all around tragic situation for the parents who lost their unborn child, and the police officer that has to live with causing it, however inadvertently. I've only had some crowd control/disbursement training (thankfully never had to use it), but it seems like there was a failure in training or personnel employment. Being one of a handful of policemen trying to control such a large crowd which could turn hostile at any moment definitely has to be scary.
Originally posted by Jessica6
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
She didn't deserve it, but she should have had more common sense to attend such an aggressive scene!
While I agree nobody deserves to miscarry if she had common sense she wouldn't have been pregnant and homeless to begin with either...
Something about the story just doesn't ring true though.