CRIMINAL TRESPASS- THEY DONT NEED AN ID! Do not let them trick you@

Carolina, you asked: “What could they do differently if they are in that position [being trespassed from a public place].” Unfortunately, as discouraging as this is, a person has to be willing to possibly go to jail and take the incident to court. They know that people are ‘nearly always’ not prepared to do that or that they do not have the knowledge or resources to successfully legally challenge the officer’s violations in the courts, and because of that, they realize they can behave as tyrants and get away with it over 99.9% of the time – and even when challenged legally, they have some protection of qualified immunity. However, in some cases, and it is rare, their qualified immunity can be challenged and lost leaving them personally accountable for violating your civil/constitutional rights.
For those who have these essential five things:
  1. the will,
  2. opportunity,
  3. temperament,
  4. legal knowledge
  5. and resources

to go down this road, it is my opinion that you have a noble and important civil obligation to challenge this kind of tyrant behavior (by standing up for, and preserving, the constitutional rights on behalf of all our fellow citizens). So in these situations, you should not leave on your own power if you know you have a right to be where you are in public. Don’t resist, but do not collaborate with them removing you (for example, go limp, don’t ID, don’t answer questions, etc.). When you are carried outside (if it comes to that), when you have the opportunity, go back inside peacefully and without force or initiating contact, and repeat. You will either get to stay because you called their bluff, or more likely, they will remove you again or arrest you. It is very important to capture all of your activity, and their activity, as fully as you can, because this will be compelling evidence to convict you, or to exonerate you, and to have the evidence you need to file suit for the damages if you are exonerated. You should realize that there are no guarantees because just like there are tyrant law enforcement officials, there are also tyrant judges who willing to ignore the law because they also know that being overturned is rare. Police may, and are sometimes very skillful at, doing everything they can to

  • get under your skin,
  • manipulate you,
  • dominate you,
  • use pain compliance techniques,
  • talk over you, and the like,

in an effort to get you to act out or react angrily at them. This plays into their hand, looks bad and in their reported descriptions of your behavior/demeanor, or prejudices your interests in court, and it greatly increases the risk of you making a mistake they can legitimately arrest you or charge you for. While it takes a lot of discipline, refrain from the immediate gratification of calling them out verbally for the pieces of shit tyrants that they are, but to remain civil, professional and even respectful because this will help you tremendously if your video, or theirs, is introduced in court as evidence. And if you sue for damages, you are far more likely to increase your awarded damages by a jury or judge.

Carolina that cop said to you about something you said to 1 of his employees, the cop can’t be the victim, especially for freedom of speech. They can’t give you a verbal. Somebody has to ask you to leave and you have to have a chance to leave.
The cops won’t write a trespass because they know it’s not legal

What trivial knowledge might save your life one day?

If you’re about to be attacked, pretend you know them. This may sound silly, but it worked for me. It saved my life.

When I was 16 years old, I was walking alone through a town centre at 1am, towards a bus stop after a party. I was slightly tipsy, however my cognition was mostly fine.

The air was cold and nippy; I regretted wearing a short skirt. I began feeling confused when I realised a dark figure was walking directly towards me. They were looking directly at me, as if they were stalking their prey. They started picking up their pace. I knew I was in danger.

My slightly tipsy brain made a strange decision. I pretended that I knew them.

“Omg! I haven’t seen you in so long! How are you?”, I yelled to the figure.

“Uh, what?”, he replied, flabbergasted.

“You look so different, tell your mum I said hi!”, I replied.

“Have we met?”, he asked.

“How could you forget? Anyway, I’ve got to go. Catch up soon”, I replied before speeding away.

As I walked away, I turned around briefly to see if he was gone. He was walking in the opposite direction, and I noticed a handle poking out of his back pocket. A knife.

The next day, out of curiosity, I googled the correct way to deal with an attacker, and this is actually a legitimate way. Obviously this won’t work if the attacker has already began hurting you. But yes, this technique confuses and distracts the attacker, whilst also humanising you – so that you’re less likely to be hurt.

Principles of nonviolence

There are two broad approaches to nonviolence: tactical nonviolence and principled nonviolence. Tactical nonviolence is based on the belief that nonviolence is one tactic or strategy among a range of choices (Bond, 1994; Sharp, 1973a; Zunes, Kurtz, & Asher, 1999). From this perspective:

Nonviolent action is a generic term covering dozens of specific methods of protest, noncooperation and intervention, in all of which the actionists conduct the conflict by doing – or refusing to do – certain things without using physical violence. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent (Sharp, 1973b, p. 64, emphasis in original).

Principled nonviolence is built on a commitment to nonviolence as a philosophy or a way of life, and the belief that nonviolence is morally superior to violence (Burgess & Burgess, 1994; Burrowes, 1994; Moyer, 1999b). Those who adopt a principled approach to nonviolence argue that it “is not simply a matter of abstinence from physical or verbal violence, it is an attitude of mind, an emotional orientation towards loving care and concern” (Curle, 1995, p. 17). From this perspective nonviolence is:

A means of breaking the cycle of violence; it is a moral method of social change which is not passive nor violent; it requires human commitment but not military might; and it seeks to change but not to completely destroy relationships. Employing nonviolence entails breaking from our traditional patterns of resolving conflicts; patterns which distribute power to the strongest and the most violent (Woehrle, 1993, p. 209).

For advocates of principled nonviolence, the issue is not whether or not nonviolence is more effective than violence but rather that, regardless of what other people do, nonviolence is the morally right thing to do (Burgess & Burgess, 1994, pp. 13-14). According to the Feminism and Nonviolence Study Group (1983), nonviolence is “a principle and a technique, a set of ideas about how life should be lived and a strategy for social change” (p. 26).

Here I concentrate on literature discussing principled nonviolence. Due to the broad focus of principled nonviolence, there are problems with the word nonviolence itself since it implies that “we are still thinking in terms of violence” (Starhawk, 2001, p. 2). Mahatma Gandhi was dissatisfied with nonviolence and associated terms (Gandhi, 1987, p. 63) and so, following a search to find a more appropriate description, he decided on satyagraha as an alternative (Gandhi, 1987, p. 35). Its literal meaning is “holding on to Truth and it means, therefore, Truth-force [where] Truth is soul or spirit. It is, therefore, known as soul-force” (Gandhi, 1951, p. 3). Reid (in McAllister, 1982) argues that soul-force “implies a more assertive, positive stand than does nonviolence – that we rely on the strength of truth rather than on physical force” (p. vi). Satyagraha relates particularly to the practice of nonviolent action; the philosophy of nonviolence is more closely related to ahimsa, which is discussed in greater depth below. Like Gandhi, Martin Luther King initially did not describe his guiding principle as nonviolence but as Christian love (King, 1958, p. 84). Later, he spoke more frequently of nonviolence, which he described as “the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community” (King, 1967, p. 184).

Although an alternative is needed that embodies the idea of it being more than the absence of violence, the term nonviolence has a rich tradition, is widely used and, at present, remains the best alternative. Although satyagraha has greater depth of meaning, it has not been adopted in this study because it is strongly linked to nonviolence in the Gandhian tradition and the term has not been widely used in the West. For some writers and activists, the hyphenated non-violence emphasises the absence of violence (Cumming, 1985, p. 9), whereas nonviolence, without the hyphen, refers to the broader philosophy of social change and human relationship (Boulding, 1999; Cumming, 1985; McAllister, 1982). This thesis follows this convention by using nonviolence for the latter broad meaning but non-violence when discussing the absence of violence (for example in discussion of the survey and in-depth interviews) or when using quotes from other sources which retain the hyphen.

Omar Wasow on Useful Idiots, Interview Only

Omar Wasow, assistant professor of politics at Princeton, joins hosts Katie Halper and Matt Taibbi to discuss his paper on protest tactics and ‘Agenda Seeding,’ and the polarized reaction it’s received.