Students on the march
Egged on by the cherry picked snippets of video posted to that bastion of civic responsibility website Barstool Sports (who thought last year's event was "fun"), the march will most likely get far less participation from students than did the Blarney Blowout.
Unless of course they serve free beer.
Another bastion of civic responsibility website:
RT if you think #UMASS Amherst #police used excessive force during the #blarney blowout.
— Smack College (@SMACKCOLLEGE) March 10, 2014
Comments posted to Ch 22 TV story about upcoming protest:
42 comments:
How are the students "cherry picked snippets" any different then your "cherry picked snippets"
I 'm highly trained and a lot more experienced.
And sober (going on two years now).
Just because you spend you days writing from your personal blog, does not mean you are by anyway "highly trained." Chances are, most of these students are just as experienced in journalistic writing. Not to mention, while you were getting your information over a police scanner, these students were the ones there experiencing this first-hand.
Actually I was there.
Some other Cowardly Anon Nitwit was complaining the police allowed me into their formation at the main riot scene.
Truth to be said, I thought it was the safest place (especially since Chief Livingstone was right there).
These students are just as stupid sober as they are drunk. They are hanging their hat on the video of the kid standing there, getting sprayed and arrested as an example of brutality.
But in reality, it is a legal, perfectly executed piece of police work. What you have is a person refusing a lawful order to disperse. At that point in time he is breaking the law, and subject to arrest, regardless of whether or not he was part of the Blowout or visiting a friend as claimed. The officer, under no obligation to endanger himself any more than necessary, then uses minimal, non-lethal force to place him in custody. The use of chemical agent was absolutely legal, as he had already refused other lawful orders, therefore the officer had every right to assume he would continue to resist. Case closed, won't make it to a civil court, won't nullify his charges.
Cry all you want, march, chant, whatever. Do anything except take responsibility for your actions. Disgusting. Richard Marsh
where were you trained?
Umass, of course.
I'm probably the only journo alive who can say they took courses from the founder of the department, Howard Ziff, and the only person who has run it since, Karen List.
The comparison between Occupy protesters and Blarney participants is repulsive. It is beyond my comprehension that they are even attempting it.
The kid in the Blarney video should have gone inside or done what the officer had asked. As you can see in the video, he clearly did not, and he faced the consequences.
As a reminder, the kid in the Occupy video was at a non-violent political demonstration (not a booze-fueled and destructive/violent episode of anarchy), and the person was truly not resisting. It's a bull***t comparison, which is why the Blarney video is being pushed by Barstool (which everyone knows is an esteemed journalistic institution), while the Occupy video was on all the major networks that night. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see this.
The propagation of this police brutality narrative in the wake of this indefensible episode of drunken unruliness will only serve to further hurt the university's reputation.
The kids are also incredibly stupid in their timing. When the town is still mopping up vomit and broken bottles from the sidewalks, the courts are still processing arrests, and the smell of tear gas hasn't quite faded is NOT the time to start claiming the sacred mantle of holy Victimhood.
Wait until nice weather when you can attract a bigger crowd, and the University community's reflexive leftism has a few weeks to override common sense again, and you'll have a much more successful protest.
what are your opinions on the video of pepper balls being shot into a 3rd floor window? Clearly students who dispersed as they were told to
My opinion is it's easy to Monday morning quarterback.
after Every comment on this that asks you about a valid example of police brutality or questions you being biased toward the situation you come back with something that does not answer the question at all.
At least I always capitalize the start of a sentence.
In your opinion what was more successful Blarney 2013 or 2014? And neither one was successful is not an answer
To borrow from slick Willy, It depends on how you define, err, "successful."
Which was bigger and more problematic? 2014. Without a doubt.
60% of arrests were non UMass students....
My opinion is that the police were telling everyone to go home and disperse. The people in that third floor balcony were ordered to leave the area, in this case go inside. That is a legal order. You see, in an exigent circumstance, such as the events those kids were filming, the police have the right to secure the area for themselves and the public. They were moving a line, and didn't want threats (i.e. drunk people throwing stuff) behind them or from balconies. They didn't go inside (which they should have, immediately). The police responded accordingly and were entirely in their rights. Personally, I would have gone inside as I was told, because that's what you do when you are told to go inside by the police in a situation like that. They didn't, and the police responded in a predictable and legal manner.
You see, these individuals who were "brutalized" all had very simple decisions to make. They could do as they were told, or they could not. When they did not, they faced the consequences. To defend these individuals who made the wrong decision when faced with a very simple question by accusing police brutality is a poor argument.
Another argument that I'm sure your mulling Anon 10:02 is that the kids were in their house/balcony, and that the police unjustly blah blah blah. True, but those are apartments with actual people in them (not just partying students), be it students who are responsible, or local residents and families. In addition, most leases include a clause for peaceful enjoyment, which guarantees everyone in that building has the right to enjoy their space without nuisance from others. To reiterate my point, they should have gone inside like adults instead of inviting the consequences that they ultimately were rendered.
What was being thrown out of the 3rd floor windows before the police responded?
The point of blarney for students isn't to be problematic, its to have fun for a day when it finally is getting nice out. Blarney 2013 war far more "successful" for both students and police. The Students were allowed to have fun in the townhouse condominiums without causing problems for the residents of Amherst. Then at around 4:30 after the crowd began to die down, the police peacefully came through the complex removing everyone without excessive force and only 7 arrests were made.
Solution #1: Let it happen at the townhouses so it doesn't interfere with residents of Amherst.
Solution #2:Allow kegs so there is no problem with thrown bottles. A solo cup never hurt anyone.
Solution #3:Police supervision like that at the tailgates.
Solution #4: Don't cut off buses so no one attempts to drunk drive
Why was 2014 more problematic? Judging by videos from last year and this year, both seem to be "booze-fueled and destructive/violent episode of anarchy". So then why was there only 6 arrests last year? Maybe since it wasn't confined into the quad but I don't know , I'm very surprised at the disparity of the number of arrests.
Nothing was thrown out of that window. It was barely open wide enough for the person recording to record beneath it. Then the window was shot through.
There is a difference between what is legally permissible and what is politically problematic and morally repulsive -- and I think you will find that the police actions last Saturday were all three.
I think we should all commend the students for taking the action they are and not something along the lines of what I feared they would -- not that they still won't.
And Larry, it's Tuesday now -- you'd think one ought to be able to resolve the gravestone destruction rumor by now, wouldn't you?
I thought these kids went to college to learn something.
These parents are wasting a lot of there hard earned money on these NITWITS.
OR, the apple does not fall far from the the TREE.
See the first-hand account in the column from Montague resident on today's Gazette editorial page. The drunken children were a frightening spectacle.
There are some things that cannot be explained away by blaming the police.
As a parent of someone from this Blowout generation, I'm wondering where we collectively went wrong.
Is this any different from what happened 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago? Not that I condone any of these kids actions, but all your comments that degrade this generation saying these kids are entitled and have had everything handed to them was probably said about your own generation back when you were in school. I'm sorry but I see videos of the Red Sox riots from 2003 and 2004 where they are throwing bricks at statie's cars and uprooting of signs all up and down North Pleasant Street, not just one stop sign. Back when the drinking age was 18 there was kegs on every floor of the dorms and kids were passed out wherever they could find a spot, even if it meant outside. How many students used to die from elevator surfing in the towers? The only difference between now and the past is the media exposure. About five or so years ago Phillips Street looked like that every weekend, not just once a year. All I'm trying to say is that although maybe you never drank or got rowdy in your late teens/early twenties, most people your age were so lets not act like these actions are all of a sudden barbaric.
Another standard rationalization: "we're just doing what you guys did".
The scale, the ferocity, the property damage, and, most importantly, the squaring off with police is different from 35-40 years ago.
Another difference: much more of the drinking was legal.
UMass employee arrested:
Kyle C. Kielbasa, 28, Belchertown and charged him with disorderly conduct, being intoxicated and carrying a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, leaving a firearm in a vehicle.
OK Larry, will you join me in demanding that he be dealt with as harshly and accorded no more due process than the students who were arrested of far less serious offenses? Union be damned -- he be summarily fired?
If not, why not?
Your difference between last year's Townhouse event and this year is that last year was unforeseen and the police had 7 of their 45 on duty. Many people were brought to the hospital for head injuries before the police arrived with enough borrowed help to empty it. This year the police were prepared, thus more arrests.
And will the APD be paying for the windows they broke?
Just wondering -- there is footage circulating of them *breaking* them...
Larry -- you or any of your cop buddies want to justify this?!?!?!?!
Will the Town of Amherst be paying to replace the window that one of their officers broke (you can hear it shattering in the background)? And do you see beer bottles being thrown -- or kids trying to quietly watch what is going on?
I think that an APD officer needs to be facing criminal charges for this -- reckless endangerment, destruction of property, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO8Msu9wTWM
This is what gives everyone in a blue uniform a bad name.
Ed, you can clearly see bottles thrown at the cops, I see no reason for them to face any charges.
You are as childish as the kids who are protesting the cops. You all need to grow up and realize the police are doing exactly what is expected. I commend the police. I also attended very blowout in the past five years as I graduated last year, just for your reference. These kids need to learn to not act like animals. As stated before, you don't see tailgates getting out of hand like this when the football team was in town
Actually Ed, you CAN see the beer bottles landing near the cops and hear them shatter. Can't say much about what the kids lurking in the window are doing since the camera isn't on them.
Ed: watch AND listen to that video closely. At first you can see (what appears to be) the shade drawn as the cops lead 2 arrested people away. The camera jerks to the right before you hear ANY police response...but WATCH the ground near the police. You can see a bottle hit the ground and bounce away and smask next to the cops. Two of them in fact..THEN the police respond with non-lethal force (OC pellets not tear gas, which they do not use). These bottles come from a high vantage point. The cop responded to where the source of the bottles came from. Watch it over and over until you get it right.
Anonymous March 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM said...
As a parent of someone from this Blowout generation, I'm wondering where we collectively went wrong.
You went wrong about the time you put the Baby on Board sign in the window of your car and gave your kid a trophy just for showing up at youth soccer.
Kids of every generation have weaknesses. The weakness of this generation is a sense of entitlement and a beleif that they can do what they want, when the want. When repercussions happen they are appalled, APPALLED, because their whole life they've been told how great they are.
This is not to say that the Amherst Police punching a young person in the face, dragging another through the mud, and apparently spraying pepper spray in someone's face without provocation are justified.
It explains why students managed to put themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, despite numerous warnings and then are outraged when they get caught in the crossfire.
As an undergraduate student of UMass Amherst, I am disgusted by the actions of my fellow students. I cannot fathom the amount of disrespect some of my peers have for the authority of the police, nor the audacity they have to then protest the actions taken. Four police officers were injured in breaking up your shenanigans. Take some responsibility for your own actions and stop hiding behind nonexistent "police brutality."
Sorry Larry, I'm still laughing at the fact that you call yourself a journalist. You blog is nothing but bias, hate-fueled words targeting the UMass campus and it's students. Without the school you wouldn't even have this 'job' (if you can call it that.)
Actually I find plenty to write about in the summer when UMass is not in session (and the summer school kids seem to be well behaved).
Can I just point out the obvious and state that the name Kyle Kielbasa has to be one of the funniest and most unfortunate names ever given to a person?
how about the judiciary meting out the maximum penalty for all convicted lawbreakers. UMass can expel them w/ no appeal. Unfortunately, any fines will be paid by daddy, so the monetary fines are merely a farce.
The town should simply ban ALL alcohol sales for the month of March next year. Let the package-store owners and bar owners sit there paying rent and property tax without taking in any revenue, while they think about the wisdom of encouraging this kind of nonsense.
And UMass students should be informed that anyone SEEN participating in the "Blarney Blowout" will be expelled. This would have the useful side-effect of improving the school's average IQ by a considerable amount.
Post a Comment