the violence at the G20 summit
 

one protester dead after being pushed over by the rozzers. others being whaked around etc. anyone care to discuss?

FUCK THA POLICE

My official stance.

Shouty McHeadwound Man!!!!!!

Don't take this as me condoning the police beating people, but I get a bit fed up with people screaming "smash the system" and using violence against the police, and then making official complaints when the police don't adopt a totally zen buddhist attitude towards that. If people protested peacefully, then I think you'd probably find that the police would police peacefully.

And, yeah, I know the guy who died after being assaulted by a copper wasn't even involved in the protest, and I hope that the copper who did the assault gets what's coming to him (which he will, because the people at the top will make to make sure that the public sees that bad cops aren't tolerated), but using that incident as a basis for a theory that all cops are pigs is no better than the police using violence on the part of a few protestors as a basis for saying that all protestors are anarchists.

Sadly, not what happened after Italy's G8.
Which, by the way, was a totally different story on many levels, better not to start talking about that.

this.

Here here!

yeh but the police where smacking around people from all angles. its crazy because the news crews where just waiting for something to happen and when one person smashes a window then thats the front page. where as thousands of people where there totaly peacfully. not that i am siding with the ultra left because they are as annoying as the right wingers too.

oh yeah, the media pays attention to peaceful protest. YOU HAVE TO TAKE POWER and if that means violence then so it will be. The pigs, who might be ok on a one on one situation, are lapdogs to the ruling elite and basically a gang unto themselves. Its funny it seems blunderbuss has a real problem with people yelling their anger - that is not peaceful - but its ok for the pigs to kill people. I get the impression blunderbuss wants everyone in their suits to sit quietly and pick flowers.

I think it's too grey a situation to take a definite stance on. There was provocation on both sides, with some protesters eager to see things escalate into a full-scale riot as well as sections within the police keen to enforce the law in a way that wasn't exactly law-abiding.

What I find particularly saddening is that the violence that ensued inevitably overshadowed any actual point that might have been made by the protesters. As such, the debate becomes one centred on the actions of the police rather than the grievances of the demonstrators. This is far easier for the media to discuss, especially given the fact that I suspect the majority of the public are quietly sympathetic towards the police acting in what has been widely reported as an 'impossible' situation.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Peaceful protests tend to mean that the protesters' actual message never hits the media, while violent protest only means that the message is obscured by subsequent discussions about violence.

and there is no chance at all, none whatsoever, the violence could be started by agitators planted in the crowds or over-eager police

I think the conspiracy theorists planted the idea in the above's head. IF IN FACT HE'S REAL AT ALL!