"Grenier hasn't proven in my eyes that he has enough credibility for his account to be considered an accurate representation of what happened."
Hmm. I find the account neither more nor less credible than, say, Grenier's account of showing his parents the tourist sights of Seattle (http://davidgrenier.weblogger.com/2001/08/15), or your account of finding a bag of white powder in the office (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?itemid=9388510), or most other journal entries by folks I don't know in real life.
Is there any reason you are particularly scheptical of Grenier's account? Do you believe that anarchists are particularly prone to lying? Do you think that police behaving in the way described would be so unlikely and extrordinary as to require extraordinary evidence?
My only problem (and I may have missed it on first reading) is that I don't see him negating the police's claims that store property was smashed. Not that I'm saying demonstrat^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstreet-partiers all smash windows. But, often when a large gathering to make a statement about how business owns the world and our rights are subverted because of McDonald's blah blah blah (which I generally agree with) there's a couple bad eggs who like to smash it up. No, I don't think this means the police should have taken on the kindly folks on the streets or sidewalks the way they did, but if he is to paint an accurate picture, no facts should be admitted and any wrongs on "his side" should be acknowledged, rather than professing complete innocence on the part of the good guys.
I have to take his motivation for writing the piece into consideration.
Does he have an agenda which would be advanced by casting police in a negative light? It's pretty clear he does. He wants people to join his cause. What's my agenda for telling a story about a bag of powder at the office? I don't really have one, unless you think I'm leading a crusade against SAs who play pranks.
I agree with him on one point, though -- from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, these "parties without permits" are most decidedly not worth the risk. That kind of behavior also affects people who aren't protesters or policemen, and that was something that wasn't really addressed in the log entry.
Call me a dupe of the State if you will, but when given equally credible statements from someone who identifies themself as a "police officer", and someone who identifies themself as a "revolutionary", I am much more inclined to believe the police officer.
Hmmm, I doubt an anarchist would need to create fiction to find reasons to dislike the government. I suspect plenty of material could be found in history books or the newspapers.
If you have any questions about what Grenier wrote, I imagine you could ask in his LiveJournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/davidgrenier/) or the comment books linked at the bottom of his article (http://davidgrenier.weblogger.com/2001/08/27).
I wish we had a society where I could find Grenier's account of police behavior as incredible as you apparently do. I fear this is the type of thing that can happen when police are given or take on roles (such as defending political or social status-quo) other than acting only to protect citizens' persons and property.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2001-08-29 03:44 pm (UTC)Hmm. I find the account neither more nor less credible than, say, Grenier's account of showing his parents the tourist sights of Seattle (http://davidgrenier.weblogger.com/2001/08/15), or your account of finding a bag of white powder in the office (http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?itemid=9388510), or most other journal entries by folks I don't know in real life.
Is there any reason you are particularly scheptical of Grenier's account? Do you believe that anarchists are particularly prone to lying? Do you think that police behaving in the way described would be so unlikely and extrordinary as to require extraordinary evidence?
Wondering simply,
Your Cyber-Pal Froggy
no subject
Date: 2001-08-30 01:11 am (UTC)IMHO, of course.
no subject
Date: 2001-08-30 08:20 am (UTC)Does he have an agenda which would be advanced by casting police in a negative light? It's pretty clear he does. He wants people to join his cause. What's my agenda for telling a story about a bag of powder at the office? I don't really have one, unless you think I'm leading a crusade against SAs who play pranks.
I agree with him on one point, though -- from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, these "parties without permits" are most decidedly not worth the risk. That kind of behavior also affects people who aren't protesters or policemen, and that was something that wasn't really addressed in the log entry.
Call me a dupe of the State if you will, but when given equally credible statements from someone who identifies themself as a "police officer", and someone who identifies themself as a "revolutionary", I am much more inclined to believe the police officer.
your fwenh
Poot
no subject
Date: 2001-08-30 02:37 pm (UTC)If you have any questions about what Grenier wrote, I imagine you could ask in his LiveJournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/davidgrenier/) or the comment books linked at the bottom of his article (http://davidgrenier.weblogger.com/2001/08/27).
I wish we had a society where I could find Grenier's account of police behavior as incredible as you apparently do. I fear this is the type of thing that can happen when police are given or take on roles (such as defending political or social status-quo) other than acting only to protect citizens' persons and property.