Agreed, even more so wouldn't protesting (non peacefully maybe) whilst being pregnant be a little bit of Darwinism at work? As in, "hey I know I'm pregnant, but let's do something that could (more so than usual goings on day by day) be a threat to my unborn child's health."
At the very least, she's endangered the life of an unborn child by knowingly going into a situation where physical harm is likely to occur. This by no means abrogates what was done, and I'm looking at it from a conceptual point of view. If it wasn't the police, there's a number of things that could have caused this to happen even if the protest hadn't turned violent. An aggressive jostle or pushing and shoving, or falling over, can all cause a miscarriage. Sure, that can happen anywhere; but it's more likely to happen at something like a protest. It's hard hearted to say, but it's still true: she had no business being there. Her right to protest does not outweigh her duty to her unborn child. And if such an event is used as any sort of traction to promote a cause, that's utterly despicable.
What difference does it make that she was pregnant? Your argument could just as easily be used to discredit any claim of police brutality. "Well, you went to an event where you knew that physical harm could occur, what did you expect?" As if the police were nothing more than blind baton-swinging machines. And for that matter; she was pregnant, not handicapped. She can't just wrap herself in bubble wrap and lie in bed for nine months, or are we going to start blaming every woman who's had a miscarriage for not doing so?
The question is: what are the reasonable expectations of a nonviolent protester? To be told to go the hell away, maybe even arrested? Ok, fine. To get kicked in the stomach and pepper-sprayed, after identifying yourself as pregnant? No, that's unacceptable. As a police officer, or a human fucking being, when you see a pregnant woman in trouble, you protect her as best you can. Remember, these are peaceful protests. If she is shown to be chunking rocks at the police, then it would be a situation that warranted that kind of response. I think a lot of these protesters are being stereotyped as lazy, over-educated young people. They organize and report using mediums that many middle-aged adults can't comprehend, (Tumblr, Twitter, etc.) and because their objections are so numerous and hard to discuss objectively(some of them sound ridiculous to everyone), it's just easier to dismiss them with a "get a job, you lazy hippie". This, to me, demonstrates a huge reluctance to even have a conversation about what they are upset about and it's pervasive on the "Dumb" news channels in the US (FoxNews, etc.). Also, I think these protests would be better handled by National Guardsmen and active military than the local police forces. The local PD's have no experience dealing with restrictive ROE's, hostile, but unarmed civilians they are not supposed to beat, and appear simply inept at handling things in a way that doesn't make the papers. I think the Army guys would stand a better chance of keeping themselves calm and reacting in a responsible way. One question: Why does a California University campus police station even HAVE riot gear? Does UC Davis have some history of violent protests?
So as long as a pregnant woman identifies herself as pregnant she gets free reign? Should pregnant women get to get into fights and left to do as they please because they are pregnant? You're saying she can use it as a crutch, and any woman who uses pregnancy as a crutch for this type of thing probably isn't smart enough to care for a child in the first place. Maybe that's not what you meant, but I'm drunk and that's what it seems. Just trying to understand.
Are...you...arguing...that people shouldn't be upset that someone hit a pregnant lady in the stomach...?
Backroom, how exactly was she given "free rein"? Exercising the very first of the rights explicitly outlined within our constitution is somehow extraordinary behavior? Is she given free rein by being allowed to vote, or own a firearm, or not be tortured? She went to a non-violent protest. The police turned it violent. How exactly is that her fault? Funny thing, that'd actually complicate pregnancy and childbirth. OBGYNs want you active and living life as close to normal as possible right up until labor. So, although pepper spray and police brutality isn't what the doctor ordered, a stroll on campus commons certainly would be OK. Moot point now, though. Y'know, the whole "baton to the uterus" thing might possibly have caused some issues.
Matt Taibbi explains the grievance of OWS in a single paragraph. If you don't get it after reading it, you never will:
Kids, don't post drunk about this sort of shit. Pregnant lady who was apparently peacefully participating in a peaceful protest. Identified herself as pregnant, and then took two shots in the stomach and a dose of pepper spray. That's fucked up, there's no way around it. The more of the story comes up, the more fucked up it gets. I'd have been more ok with the cops hitting her in the face after she identified herself as pregnant. Two gut shots knowing she was pregnant? That cop deserves an accidental transfer into general population when he gets to jail.
You've got to be kidding. Think about it for a second. I couldn't give two shits about what happened to her personally; she's an adult and she can choose to put herself into harm's way. But as a parent (and if you want to debate that, I'd wager this isn't the place to derail a thread), she has a responsibility for the care and provision of that child. The only exception is, perhaps, if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. In that case, the outcome was the same. What if she was in the same situation holding a newborn in her arms? Would you still consider her to be a responsible person? I'm not suggesting pregnant women be wrapped in bubble wrap - that's a plainly facetious argument. However, there's a distinct difference between normal, everyday activities and going to the front lines of a protest that has the distinct possibility of erupting into physical violence. There's a number of situations that I think would be reasonably considered stupid for a pregnant woman to put herself in: including mosh pits, bungee jumping, rollercoasters, aerobatic flying and so on. In fact, don't most of these activities preclude pregnant women?
You made the point that her rights as a protester do not outweigh her obligations as a mother. Morally, you might be right about that, but legally, you are absolutely in the wrong. She still has those rights, and nothing takes those rights away. Should she have been there? Maybe, maybe not, but to borrow from Bertrand Russell, don't extract an is from an ought. If she hadn't been pregnant, nobody would have looked twice at the incident. Now that there was, and there was a rather serious consequence for it, we're looking at the police's actions in a harsher light. This is never a bad thing. The burden must always be on the police: why were they striking that woman in the stomach? Could they see she was pregnant? It shouldn't be blaming the woman for being there in the first place, anymore than we should blame any victim of police brutality for not staying at home.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016829484_occupybaby23m.html Methinks this story just got a bit more interesting. No proof of pregnancy or miscarriage? Riddle me this Batman: How the fuck did she get hit by a bike standing in the middle of a crowd she could not escape? This woman is not a protester. She is homeless, and saw a great opportunity to get free food and "shelter" for the use of her "political view". If I was homeless, you bet your sweet ass I'd be doing the same thing.
Of course not. It's fucked up. But I'm saying that just because she is pregnant doesn't mean we should allow her to do whatever she wants just on the basis that she's pregnant.
In this instance I don't give a shit about the law. There's a difference between being "right" and being "correct", just as there is a major difference between law and justice. You cannot abrogate responsibility simply by a blind adhesion to something such as "I've got a right to protest". Here's a good example of what I mean. I ride a motorbike. Any bike rider should immediately know where I'm going with this. I can have right of way on the road, but in an argument between me and a car over who has the right to that particular patch of road I'm probably going to come off second best. It's better to concede and live, than insist on my rights and become pizza topping. I'm not excusing what the police did, in any degree. I'm simply saying that if she wasn't there, this would not have happened. And it was her choice to be there. This isn't a "that was completely unforeseen event" type of thing. There's already precedent for these things becoming physical. I'm sure she didn't ask to be physically impacted, but she must have necessarily (at some level) made a realisation that it was a possibility and determined that it was an acceptable risk for her. It was that decision that was stupid. The law can say she's in the right all day long, but tell me how the law can give that life back.
This train of thought is exactly why things are so fucked up: that a woman who is attending a non-violent protest on the campus of one of the most liberal colleges in one of the most liberal states, is expected to logically assume that she will encounter violence - is downright repulsive. The American Dream is dead.
This train of thought is exactly why things are so fucked up: that a woman who is attending a non-violent protest on the campus of one of the most liberal colleges in one of the most liberal states, is expected to logically assume that she will encounter violence - is downright repulsive. The American Dream is dead.[/quote] Thanks drama queen. We have an accusation by a homeless woman (whose mother says she "over-exaggerates" everything) who has not produced one medical piece of paper saying she was pregnant or that she miscarried. She latched onto the Occupy movement because of the free food and shelter. She also is claiming that the doctors told her the pepper spray "damaged her baby's heart" despite no medical evidence of this. She has claimed to be 3 months pregnant multiple times in multiple months when confronted by police. We have no proof that she is lying. We have no proof she is telling the truth either.
So exercising Constitutionally Protected Rights (TM) is something that pregnant women shouldn't be ALLOWED to do? Now, I agree with roy jones, we don't know what the real story is with this girl, so we're in hypothetical land. I do disagree with roy to the extent that I don't think sartirious is being a 'drama queen' by saying the American Dream is dead. If we are at a point where the exercise of our rights to protest or speak freely includes having to factor violence into the equation as to whether or not you are going to exercise that right, then sartirious is dead right. Look at Libya, Egypt, Syria, and all over the world. Just speaking out gets people killed. Is this the way we want things to be here too? I don't. As I said, the girl's story needs to be confirmed (she was pepper sprayed) as far as the pregnancy thing goes before we go off on that tangent, but for me, pepper spraying peaceful demonstrators is a horrible way to go (assuming they're not threatening cops or other people).
So, she has a history of lying, and everyone is ready to crucify the cop(s)? At 3 months, NO ONE looks pregnant, and cops get lied to all the time by people they encounter, it's somewhat of an occupational hazard. So, those 2 things coming together as the perfect storm, equals bad juju. Seattle PD has a recent reputation of being heavy handed, whether it's deserved or not. If'n the girl was telling the truth, then the cop should be punished, if not, then she should be arrested for making a false claim. Last time I checked, even cops were innocent until proven guilty.
"Fox said she had three ultrasound pictures of her fetus in her tent, but declined to show them to reporters." "She also said she did not plan to pick up medical records at Harborview Medical Center that could document the miscarriage until after a planned memorial service Saturday, and she declined to sign a waiver allowing reporters to obtain the documents independently. She said the baby was a girl, to be named Miracle" "Stebbins said Fox, whom she parented for 10 years, has a pattern of exaggeration. "My daughter is a compulsive liar," Stebbins said. "She's a wannabe drama queen." "I seriously doubt, that if she is claiming she had a miscarriage, that she was even pregnant," said Nicole Botes, who has known Fox for a decade. "I'd like to see actual medical reports." <a class="postlink" href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016829484_occupybaby23m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... by23m.html</a> I am gonna go ahead and side with the cops.
I made no reference to her pregnancy or economic status, neither of which should matter anyways when it comes to equal treatment under the law and the right to excercise constitutional rights without the fear of reprisal.