|
I am sure some of you saw this in the news a couple weeks back...
"Last night at the entrance to the University of California Santa Cruz over two hundred students gathered to discuss the direction higher education has taken has taken in recent years. In defiance of the orders of the university administration the gathering had reached consensus that they would continue the event in a respectful and orderly fashion past the 8 pm curfew imposed on "Free Speech Zone". The university leadership, headed by newly purchased chancellor Denice D. Denton, resorted to physical violence at about 10 pm to terminate the peaceful assembly.The show of force by local authorities was impressive in both its violence and calculated callousness. Interesting also was the obvious control of local police forces which was demonstrated by the UC. While this morning's press release misrepresented the administration's concern for its students in stating the the police were called off over fears of saftey the ommited truth is that student leaders of the event negotiated a cease to the attack by the cops at which point the university called them off. Despite police claims of illegal activity at the site they had no qualms about leaving the scene of the crime once the U hit the off button. "
Here is a link to videos of what happened. I personally could not watch the entirety of most of the videos and they are certainly not for the faint hearted: Videos of The Police Brutality
It should also be noted that most of the cops were called in from Berkeley, which is about 1 hour and 30 minutes away from Santa Cruz. Another important note, not really sure about the validity of it, is that the organizers of the protest became somewhat disenchanted with the direction it was taking before the police showed up, and that the police somewhat effectively put an end to what was suppose to be a large protest over the course of a week, turning it into a much smaller and less focused protest.
More Links: A Photo Essay Of That Day Web Home of The Protest Summary of Events On That Day
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Sounds crazy. Going to the videos now :O
Hmm... was that absolutely neccessary? I mean they knocked out every single person and pried them out just to get enforce a little cerfew? Seems excessive.
|
United States12235 Posts
That was dumb. That video was so heavily edited that it didn't show what the protesters did to provoke the police. The police don't just run in and start beating on people like you claim. Those students were idiots, too. They were screaming "you're strangling him!" when it's obviously just a sleeper pinch. Come the fuck on, man. You and the rest of these insane doped-up hippies are so paranoid of "the establishment" that it's sickening. Police were not "physically violent" towards people.
This is directly reminiscent of when an alumni of my high school came to show us video and reports of "police brutality" of a protest he visited in Seattle. His video was also heavily edited. What he failed to report was the protesters throwing rocks at the blue line and preventing passersby from entering local businesses. There are always two sides to a story. Talk about petty distortion of fact.
|
they get pretty rough in Cali, when it comes to police wanting things done their way.
|
|
|
lmao that was hardly police brutality
the police were just enforcing the law, namely, getting those fucking deadbeat hippies to get the hell off of university properly after they had already been told to do so, subduing the particularly unruly ones with sleeper pinches
unless the cops blast into the crowd and start blackjacking hippies until their knees break, don't go crying about "police brutality"
|
Excal you are a fucking idiot. They were fucking sitting their not moving to a proposed site inside of campus that served no purpose for their protest. Out of an estimated 200 people, the cops arrested 19 of them, and they were all peacefully protesting, I do not think one cop got hurt in the entire incident. And I never claimed the police ran in and beat on people, but I think it is clear that the force they used was entirely unnecessary, do you really need to knock out a bunch of students who are camping on university grounds, in a supposed free speach zone (where free speach ends at 8 pm) just to make them move to a place that serves very little purpose for their protest. Unfortunately the university, the chancellor, and the police were somewhat successful in derailing the protest, because of the horrific actions that took place that night.
|
I hate stupid hippies who think they can do whatever they want, and whine whenever action is taken against them. That isn't brutality, it's called enforcing the law, and it wasn't even that harsh.
|
Santa Cruz is a smaller island within Catalina?
|
On April 30 2005 10:35 lil.sis wrote:
lmao that was hardly police brutality
the police were just enforcing the law, namely, getting those fucking deadbeat hippies to get the hell off of university properly after they had already been told to do so, subduing the particularly unruly ones with sleeper pinches
unless the cops blast into the crowd and start blackjacking hippies until their knees break, don't go crying about "police brutality"
They forced them to move somewhere else on university property... they arrested 19 out of 200 in a couple of hours, and then were forced to stop by the university. The "unruly" ones simply formed a human chain, and the police used excessive force. None of the people arrested were charged with anything.
|
" None of the people arrested were charged with anything."
that's too bad
|
Stupid protestors should shutup and live with whatever is imposed on them. That's the American way.
|
On April 30 2005 10:38 ihatett wrote:
I hate stupid hippies who think they can do whatever they want, and whine whenever action is taken against them. That isn't brutality, it's called enforcing the law, and it wasn't even that harsh.
... do you people even know who/what are hippies? There certainly were hippies at the protest, but the majority of the protestors were not hippies, including the people who set the whole thing up. I do not know how many protests you have ever been too, if any, but I think it is clear that a line was crossed that did not need to be.
|
they pinched a bunch of people....you want police brutality? watch the martin luther king video....
|
United States12235 Posts
Your links are suspect Solsito. All of them are notoriously and flagrantly anti-police and anti-military. Especially take a look at "-UCSC students successfully kick military recruiters off campus using direct action. See pictures part 1 and 2." Yeah, real peaceful, right? Charging into a designated area for military VOLUNTEER recruitment and forcibly kicking them out?
|
On April 30 2005 10:40 danmooj1 wrote:
Santa Cruz is a smaller island within Catalina?
In this case it is a city on the central coast of California, south of San Francisco and west of San Jose
|
On April 30 2005 10:49 ronhaak wrote:
they pinched a bunch of people....you want police brutality? watch the martin luther king video....
lol you mean rodney king?
edit:
On April 30 2005 10:47 SoLsiTO wrote:
....I think it is clear that a line was crossed that did not need to be.
dude if the university wanted them off of the property, and the people protesting did not comply, how else are they supposed to get them off? i'm sure the police didn't resort to physical contact immediately.
|
oh god. not another counterculture movement please.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 30 2005 10:49 ronhaak wrote:
they pinched a bunch of people....you want police brutality? watch the martin luther king video....
I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked.
I think you guys are missing the big picture here. You treat the police and the military like they are soulless killing machines. They are just average Joes like you and me. They have a very stressful job that you could never hope to do. They gamble with their lives daily because you never know when a person will turn violent. I'll turn your attention to the story in SF where a white cop was shot in the neck and killed by two black 17-year-olds as they were robbing a bank. The officer yelled at them to stop and they just fired. The police code forces the officer to set aside his survival instincts and open fire, and instead gamble on the actions of an unstable mind.
|
On April 30 2005 10:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Your links are suspect Solsito. All of them are notoriously and flagrantly anti-police and anti-military. Especially take a look at "-UCSC students successfully kick military recruiters off campus using direct action. See pictures part 1 and 2." Yeah, real peaceful, right? Charging into a designated area for military VOLUNTEER recruitment and forcibly kicking them out?
Let me make my position clear, I do not necessarily agree with the protestors. I think there are a lot better things they could be doing/protesting and actually be somewhat productive when doing them. However, the police crossed a line that did not need to be crossed, the protestors in this case were entirely peaceful.
About the other protest you mentioned, I believe in that case the protesters were at fault. They should not have kicked the Marines out of the job fair, if there are people who are interested in joining the marines they should be allowed to do so, the protesters in that case were entirely antiproductive to their cause and beliefs and were entirely stupid (they were following a precedence set by other schools, and kicked them out under the pretense of the military not being an equal opportunity employer).
|
On April 30 2005 10:51 lil.sis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 10:49 ronhaak wrote:
they pinched a bunch of people....you want police brutality? watch the martin luther king video.... lol you mean rodney king? edit: Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 10:47 SoLsiTO wrote:
....I think it is clear that a line was crossed that did not need to be.
dude if the university wanted them off of the property, and the people protesting did not comply, how else are they supposed to get them off? i'm sure the police didn't resort to physical contact immediately.
They did not try anything else... and again the protest was moved to another, less visible, site on university property.
|
I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked.
You are one amazing individual.
|
wait wait hold up so you honestly think that the police showed up, and without saying a word, started ripping up tents and putting people in sleeper holds? give me a break.
|
On April 30 2005 10:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote +I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked. You are one amazing individual.
you didn't see the whole thing then
|
it looked like all the police were doing was trying to drop students with a squeeze on the jugular. This usually takes about 5 seconds or so and just makes you pass out. Although i did see some head snaring.. all of it totally unnecessary of course, but passing out isnt that big of a deal.
|
On April 30 2005 11:00 lil.sis wrote:
wait wait hold up so you honestly think that the police showed up, and without saying a word, started ripping up tents and putting people in sleeper holds? give me a break.
no, they flexed their muscle, threatened them, and then proceeded to rip up tents and put people in sleeper holds (isn't that a fucking wrestling move?). They never tried fines, or any number of other measures they could have taken.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 30 2005 10:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote +I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked. You are one amazing individual.
I think you need to watch more than the 5-second buzz clip that circulated throughout the media. That event took over 20 minutes and only the last 5 seconds were ever shown. First an officer goes up to Rodney King, but he is belligerent. He doesn't get out of his truck. Suspecting something, the officer calls for backup. Rodney King is still in his car, quite obviously intoxicated. Remember the officers still don't know if he has a weapon. They continue to yell at him to get out of the truck but he keeps refusing. So then they quickly open the door and drag him out before he can get to a weapon (they assume he has one) and they subdue him with some rough physical force. He keeps resisting so the officers keep hitting him. So what would YOU do in the cops' situation? The constant beating wasn't necessarily a good thing, but remember what I said before about how stressful being a cop is. If you're pulled over and a cop tells you to get out of the car, you better get out of the car and keep things friendly.
Cops aren't allowed to be that violent anymore though. That event really threw the ranks into chaos.
|
we all know that if the police wouldnt have put a stop to this it would have ended in another hippy music festival
|
On April 30 2005 11:09 imRadu wrote:
we all know that if the police wouldnt have put a stop to this it would have ended in another hippy music festival
drum circles and everything...
|
Should have just tear gassed them like they did here in East Lansing. 
|
students should create a situation in which the police feel it is not worth it to pursue any further. Like covering themselves in urine and feces. Tear gassing themselves to cause authorities to disperse without their masks ready. Anything that isnt done directly to the police, but rather to themselves in which the police must be a part of.
|
On April 30 2005 11:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 10:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote:I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked. You are one amazing individual. I think you need to watch more than the 5-second buzz clip that circulated throughout the media. That event took over 20 minutes and only the last 5 seconds were ever shown. First an officer goes up to Rodney King, but he is belligerent. He doesn't get out of his truck. Suspecting something, the officer calls for backup. Rodney King is still in his car, quite obviously intoxicated. Remember the officers still don't know if he has a weapon. They continue to yell at him to get out of the truck but he keeps refusing. So then they quickly open the door and drag him out before he can get to a weapon (they assume he has one) and they subdue him with some rough physical force. He keeps resisting so the officers keep hitting him. So what would YOU do in the cops' situation? The constant beating wasn't necessarily a good thing, but remember what I said before about how stressful being a cop is. If you're pulled over and a cop tells you to get out of the car, you better get out of the car and keep things friendly. Cops aren't allowed to be that violent anymore though. That event really threw the ranks into chaos. If he's only the ground with police over what threat does he pose?
|
United States12235 Posts
Eniram, he was still trying to resist even when he was on the ground, attempting to push his way back up onto his feet.
|
I remember seeing the whole video, which is different than the anti-cop 7 second clip. If you haven't seen it, you should.
|
uh...so an 8pm curfew was placed on protesting, and the hippies decided to violate this and protest after 8? because of the violation of the curfew, the police had to break it up and use force? sounds about right, no one died did they? hippies are pretty damned lucky they weren't charged with resisting arrest.
|
Seems like a bunch of kids broke curfew and daddy had to come give a spanking (a very light spanking at that!).
If whatever they are protesting is serious enough, there would be more protests and more shit like this would happen until some law gets changed.
BUT, the issue they are protesting is probably NOT significant at all... these college students will find another hobby.
I mean we arn't talking about something on the terms of black rights protests where sitin's were hosed out....
|
wow that video was seriously edited so much too the point that i can laugh about it. too me it seemed like a class or two of kids walking around and then taping as much video of police holding the kids while they just sit there and goof off. does seem that big of a deal since their just couple of hippy kids that didnt do jack. police being brutal? i didnt see any blood or fleash ripping. they even used gloves please.....
|
What were the protests about? Ie why were they protesting?
The videos are hilarious.
Anyone have a link to the Rodney King Beating? (ie a long one)
|
On April 30 2005 11:06 SoLsiTO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 11:00 lil.sis wrote:
wait wait hold up so you honestly think that the police showed up, and without saying a word, started ripping up tents and putting people in sleeper holds? give me a break. no, they flexed their muscle, threatened them, and then proceeded to rip up tents and put people in sleeper holds (isn't that a fucking wrestling move?). They never tried fines, or any number of other measures they could have taken.
sounds like the cops showed up, were like we are going to have to ask you to leave, they said no, the cops said if you do not leave we will have to make you leave by force, the protestors retorted, and, as promised, the cops made them leave by force
in other words, they asked for it
|
something about the displacement of higher education, and a variety of other issues.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Quoted from http://dmedia.ucsc.edu/~afrojas/TU/story.html :
I had told myself that I was fully committed to occupying the space as ours, because the obvious exertion of power both by not allowing us to do it in the first place, and the presence of police at a totally non-violent peaceful gathering was unacceptable to me and counter to what I think TU is about.
Oh no, police at a totally non-violent peaceful gathering?! Of course the police are going to show up! What, are the university's staff members going to head out there to force the students off themselves? What a stupid way to react to the situation. Does he think that he can do whatever he wants so long as it is non-violent and peaceful? Being non-violent doesn't justify breaking the law in any way.
Instead of being courteous and gently moving the equipment, they simply tore the structures down. Many had been staked to the ground, and many were physically ripped from the ground, causing the material to tear and effectively destroyed. Now it is important to realize that it wasn’t like we (the lockdowned SITTING people) were going anywhere. There was no need to hurry, it wasn’t a dangerous or threatening situation in any way. So the logic for such brute force can’t really be rationalized in that way.
Well the protesters certainly weren't being very courteous by leaving their tents in the way, were they? Why should the police be forced to go to the extra effort of taking the tents apart? That's not very rational, is it?
It wasn’t too long before the first person was violently taken from their peaceful and non-violent community. Like the others that would soon follow, I could not completely see what was happening because it was directly behind me, but I could hear it, and it was intense. The amount of sound that was created as the first one was pried away from their circle was consuming. People were feeling all sorts of different emotions, and it could be hear in their different yells and screams and cries. But collectively we expressed the pain over such an ignorant, cruel, calculated and misguided action.
Again, what did he/she expect the police to do? The protesters were not supposed to be there in the first place. The police asked them more than once to move, but they did not. So the only option left was for the police to move in and physically remove them. Given the intentions of the protesters -- the intent to resist movement by forming these circles -- why is it so shocking that violence would be necessary to remove an individual from his/her circle? We all know that one way or another, the police would have to make the protesters suffer to some extent in order to uproot them. So I guess they decided to not waste any time and just pull them out physically without permanently harming them.
Granted I haven't seen the video yet, but I don't expect it to be shocking or appalling. The protesters resisted by not complying with the verbal command to move, and they also showed that they were ready to physically resist movement by forming their human circles. So the police did what we all know would have been necessary to make them move. Of course the force used was probably a little more than sufficient for some of the protesters while being necessary for others. But what do you expect? They're not just going to sit there patiently and slowly increase the amount of suffering they inflict: that's just stupid, as it's largely a waste of time. So I'm guessing that they compromised between using ridiculous force and being ridiculously slow and patient. Police have lives and jobs to get on with as well: it's not neither their job nor their obligation to sit patiently and gradually coax every single protester into moving.
Besides, other than the first few people to be uprooted, I'm guessing that everyone else still had the chance to get up and leave before the cops used force on them too? Or did the cops get violent with anyone who chose to walk away peacefully as well? If not, then other than the first few unlucky protesters, everyone else knew what was going to happen to them and decided to sit still and take it anyway.
|
There are other methods, besides violence or the 'sleeper hold,' that can be used to try and make people move that were not tried. Would those methods have worked? Maybe, but the police were eventually forced to stop by the university itself (although this point is contested, as some say a deal was made for the students to stay at that place for the night and then move somewhere else on campus).
|
what other methods?
btw, <3 bill
|
Threaten to fine, or actually fine people who decided to stay there. Actually speak to the representitives of the protest and make a deal with them, which is arguably what they did after they used the cops to scare the shit out of the protesters... just a few suggestions. I am sure that either the police and the chancellor or deans could have come up with something.
|
On April 30 2005 14:01 SoLsiTO wrote:
Threaten to fine, or actually fine people who decided to stay there. Actually speak to the representitives of the protest and make a deal with them, which is arguably what they did after they used the cops to scare the shit out of the protesters.
1.) So, keep saying "I'll fine you if you don't move, I'll fine you if you don't move"? Do you think they would give you ID or anything else that would allow you to actually enforce the fine? Are you just going to wait there until they all decide to leave? That is unreasonable to force someone to do that when there are people on their property against their consent.
2.) You shouldn't have to negotiate with someone who won't remove him/herself from your property.
|
Again it was not entirely against the universities consent, I believe it was the visibility of the actual protest that concerned the chancellor. And they never tried to do that, I am sure the leaders of the protest were easily identifiable and more than willing to negotiate something. Violence of any form, from either side was unnecessary.
|
If someone will not obey the law and move to you non-violent demands, then either violence or the threat of it is needed.
Those people knew it was coming, but chose to break the law anyways. Also, when they saw what the police were doing, they still didn't remove themselves from the situation.
How can you feel any sympathy for them?
|
|
|
It was only sleeper pitch? Well..=\
|
On April 30 2005 14:21 ihatett wrote:
If someone will not obey the law and move to you non-violent demands, then either violence or the threat of it is needed.
Those people knew it was coming, but chose to break the law anyways. Also, when they saw what the police were doing, they still didn't remove themselves from the situation.
How can you feel any sympathy for them?
I feel sympathy for them because they were not harming anyone. It was clearly unnecessary force, and I believe the university has acknowledged as much.
|
On April 30 2005 14:43 SoLsiTO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 14:21 ihatett wrote:
If someone will not obey the law and move to you non-violent demands, then either violence or the threat of it is needed.
Those people knew it was coming, but chose to break the law anyways. Also, when they saw what the police were doing, they still didn't remove themselves from the situation.
How can you feel any sympathy for them? I feel sympathy for them because they were not harming anyone. It was clearly unnecessary force, and I believe the university has acknowledged as much.
What would be "necessary" force in your opinion? What should the cops have done physically to disband the protestors?
|
Why did they have to be 'physically disbanded' in the first place? They did end up sleeping there that night, minues 19 people... I am honestly surprised that the police went that far.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
I need more info on these protests to form a complete opinion of it. What part of 'displacement of higher education' where they protesting? What other issues? Why was there a curfew in the first place? What property were the protestors on? Was it private property? When did the University call the police in? Did the people who represented the protest try to engage in discussional meetings with the school (before hand)?
|
ah, threads like these make me so glad im not born in the usa
|
Sharkey:
I will answer as best I can, as I said before I did not entirely support this protest, or even think it was a good idea. One of the main issues being protested was that students have very little say in matters of university policy, something many students feel should be their right, especially considering the recent hikes in tuition. Furthermore, UC Santa Cruz is set up in a way that students in certain colleges/dorms and disciplines are somewhat cut off from others, making necessary communication more difficult then it needs to be. "Tent University" was suppose to give students, for a week, a place that they could gather and communicate upon ways to improve the university and their education. Moreover, some teachers had agreed to hold classes and lectures at the site, open to whom ever would like to listen or join in. Unfortunately, this part of the event got somewhat diluted with students and alum, what some would call hippies, who were more into drum circles and socializing then actual protesting or getting involved in some of the discussions. All of this was to take place at the most visible entrance to the campus, on university grounds (it is a public university, I am unclear on whether the land itself is considered public as well), and this is where the videos took place.
I am also unclear about the curfew, supposedly this particular location is only a free speach zone untill 8 pm; however, a few days before this protest happened there was a labor strike who protested in that location untill 11 pm. In addition to that, currently there is a fundraiser with people staying on a teeter-totter (sp?) for 48 hours straight in the exact same location, so it seems that it is up to the University's discretion as to who can and cannot be there. The University knew for weeks that this event was being planned, and at the last minute offered the protesters a location on campus where they would be able to camp and hold events, but was entirely less visible and less useful for the protest. So I am guessing at around 10 pm the cops (many from Berkeley, which is 1.5 hours away) came and attempted to disperse the crowd.
Ultimately, the actions of the cops, the University, and to some extent the "hippies," successfully ruined the protest. On that night there were 200 people there and they slept in the same location, for the following week there was on average about 50 people there, and they slept in a different location.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
Most of these students do, the professors call us trustfund babies 
|
On April 30 2005 11:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So then they quickly open the door and drag him out before he can get to a weapon (they assume he has one) and they subdue him with some rough physical force. He keeps resisting so the officers keep hitting him. So what would YOU do in the cops' situation? The constant beating wasn't necessarily a good thing, but remember what I said before about how stressful being a cop is.
Do you really believe what you just said.
Honestly.
|
and solsito
you sound incredibly biased :-(
|
i am, who isn't? i remind you that i did/do not really support the protest. i was not that upset about what happened untill i saw a few clips of what happened. there are other videos besides the ones on that site, many of which have been shown in a few of my classes.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
On April 30 2005 10:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Your links are suspect Solsito. All of them are notoriously and flagrantly anti-police and anti-military. Especially take a look at "-UCSC students successfully kick military recruiters off campus using direct action. See pictures part 1 and 2." Yeah, real peaceful, right? Charging into a designated area for military VOLUNTEER recruitment and forcibly kicking them out?
They have their bias and you have yours, whats the difference..you're not a know it all Ex, get over yourself.
|
That's too bad. Not sure tenting out was the way to go, but atleast the students were trying to send out a message about something that is important.
Anyone attending a UC right now knows that tuition is getting ridiculously out of hand. Scholarships are scarce, and if you're out of state you're basically shit out of luck. UC schools actually cost as much or more than private schools if you're from out of state now.
Basically, you're fucked unless your parents are pulling in 120k+ or you came straight out of the projects. Anyone inbetween is facing 20-35k tuition a year without much hope of scholarship support. Yeah community colleges are, and will always be dirt cheap. But if you have the ability you shouldn't have to be relegated to schools that will limit your future because your parents are average Americans.
Still though, anyone badmouthing these people for being hippies and for "just being in a sleeper pinch" are really out of line. They're just kids, and being grabbed by the neck by men in full riot gear in the middle of the night is not a comfortable situation.
|
On April 30 2005 11:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Eniram, he was still trying to resist even when he was on the ground, attempting to push his way back up onto his feet.
Wow big threat, he was trying to stand up.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 30 2005 18:22 Eniram wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 11:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Eniram, he was still trying to resist even when he was on the ground, attempting to push his way back up onto his feet. Wow big threat, he was trying to stand up.
You know what I mean. There's a difference between pushing yourself up by force (showing intent to fight) and standing up.
|
If you have seen the video you wouldn't be arguing against this. The guy is huge... it's hard to explain, but you have to watch it. I'm not saying what the cops did was great, but it isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
|
damn hippies
bash their brains in a few that'll learn em
|
suffeli
Finland772 Posts
fuck democracy, beat some sense to those whiny hippies!
|
suffeli
Finland772 Posts
i mean what has these assholes hippies contributed to this world? nothing.
|
|
|
On April 30 2005 18:54 suffeli wrote:
fuck democracy, beat some sense to those whiny hippies!
Yeah, what has democracy and the exercise of free speech done for anyone, ever.
|
rofl at hippys chanting "student power" while they're getting KOed 1 by 1 with sleeper pinches lol
|
suffeli
Finland772 Posts
yeah, those weaklings don't stand a chance when the shit hits the fan. thats what i'm talking about!!
|
I am surprised how many people on here are taking the side of people applying choke-holds over people peacefully demonstrating for affordable education.
Sure, what the police did was legal, but that's true of pretty much any police breaking up any protest over the course of history, and I would imagine that even the most hardcore authoritarians (Excal) would have to agree that some of those protests were just and led to a betterment of the human condition.
Also, if your argument FOR the actions of the police in any way rests on the fact that the people getting choked were annoying, whiny, hippies, etc., then you lose immediately. Go directly to jail, do NOT collect $200. If police are allowed to use arguments like that while doing their job, we all lose.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On April 30 2005 19:13 L!MP wrote:
rofl at hippys chanting "student power" while they're getting KOed 1 by 1 with sleeper pinches lol
For some reason you made me laugh haha...
|
They coulda just used pepper spray or something 
|
On April 30 2005 10:57 SoLsiTO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 10:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Your links are suspect Solsito. All of them are notoriously and flagrantly anti-police and anti-military. Especially take a look at "-UCSC students successfully kick military recruiters off campus using direct action. See pictures part 1 and 2." Yeah, real peaceful, right? Charging into a designated area for military VOLUNTEER recruitment and forcibly kicking them out? Let me make my position clear, I do not necessarily agree with the protestors. I think there are a lot better things they could be doing/protesting and actually be somewhat productive when doing them. However, the police crossed a line that did not need to be crossed, the protestors in this case were entirely peaceful. About the other protest you mentioned, I believe in that case the protesters were at fault. They should not have kicked the Marines out of the job fair, if there are people who are interested in joining the marines they should be allowed to do so, the protesters in that case were entirely antiproductive to their cause and beliefs and were entirely stupid (they were following a precedence set by other schools, and kicked them out under the pretense of the military not being an equal opportunity employer).
You COMPLETELY miss the point. The people weren't supposed to be there. They were probably told to move. They didn't move. The cops start tearing their shit down. The people form a chain, and refuse to move. The cops can't move them unless they are unconscious, because a human is incredibly difficult to move when their muscles are clinched up. They apply a sleeper grab to them, which is not incredibly painful (Yes, I've had it done to me). It's also released once consciousness is taken from said person.
It wasn't brutality, it was them doing their job, and getting the dipshits off the grounds they weren't allowed on. Brutality would have been beating the shit out of them with their knightsticks, because they wouldn't move.
Here is a link to videos of what happened. I personally could not watch the entirety of most of the videos and they are certainly not for the faint hearted: Videos of The Police Brutality
You pussy. There's nothing even the faintest of heart couldn't handle.
|
On April 30 2005 19:16 Clutch3 wrote:
I am surprised how many people on here are taking the side of people applying choke-holds over people peacefully demonstrating for affordable education.
Sure, what the police did was legal, but that's true of pretty much any police breaking up any protest over the course of history, and I would imagine that even the most hardcore authoritarians (Excal) would have to agree that some of those protests were just and led to a betterment of the human condition.
Also, if your argument FOR the actions of the police in any way rests on the fact that the people getting choked were annoying, whiny, hippies, etc., then you lose immediately. Go directly to jail, do NOT collect $200. If police are allowed to use arguments like that while doing their job, we all lose.
non-liberal does not mean authoritarian, buddy
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 30 2005 19:16 Clutch3 wrote:
I am surprised how many people on here are taking the side of people applying choke-holds over people peacefully demonstrating for affordable education.
Sure, what the police did was legal, but that's true of pretty much any police breaking up any protest over the course of history, and I would imagine that even the most hardcore authoritarians (Excal) would have to agree that some of those protests were just and led to a betterment of the human condition.
Also, if your argument FOR the actions of the police in any way rests on the fact that the people getting choked were annoying, whiny, hippies, etc., then you lose immediately. Go directly to jail, do NOT collect $200. If police are allowed to use arguments like that while doing their job, we all lose.
BRING IT ALL DOWN, MAN! FIGHT THE POWER!
|
I agree that other than the tent shredding most of the cops seemed to be conducting themselves respectfully if they absolutely -had- to move the students.
What I don't understand though is how the campus administration can arbitrarily set up a known and common grounds with a curfew.
This tactic could be used to legally disrupt and end any peaceful and worthwhile demonstration.
Also, I read a few outside news articles and it said that the police broke up the protest in part due to noise. And if you've ever been to UCSC you'll also find this strange, because it's in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. There is no way in hell they were disturbing anybody.
My primary complaint is that this was a really worthy protest (I explained a little about this on the last page), seemed peaceful, and did not need to be disrupted.
Alot of people here are talking about how these hippies were on property they shouldn't have been on. Well, it is after all property they are paying 20-35 thousand dollars a year for, and the administrative argument was that they were staying there after their arbitrary designated curfew, 8 p.m.
I don't think it is acceptable for an organization that is sapping thousands of dollars every year, to stop a protest in favor of reducing tuition money by setting up an arbitrarily early curfew and force the policemen to use arguably violent measures to move them.
If tax/tuition paying students can't voice their opinions about their financial standing on campus where the people in charge can see it, where can they go? Form a human chain along the interstate? The cops did their job, but the people in charge did not. Because of this the violence was totally uncalled for.
|
If the contract the hippies signed when enrolling says they will follow the rules, then you can't come in and say "I don't think they should".
|
On April 30 2005 18:31 ihatett wrote:
If you have seen the video you wouldn't be arguing against this. The guy is huge... it's hard to explain, but you have to watch it. I'm not saying what the cops did was great, but it isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
Not to mention the fucker was on PCP. Guys have been smacked in the head with bats and turned around and kicked the shit out of the guy while on PCP. People have walked right through big doors, and walls while on PCP. The guy was not going to go down peacefully.
Also to whoever was talking about how they don't understand how the university can apply a curfew to certain grounds: it's their property. They can apply whatever curfew they want to it. It's like putting up a sign saying, "no solicitors," or "no trespassing." It's your property, you have the right to not allow people on at all, or during certain times.
|
On April 30 2005 19:29 SickofLife wrote:
You COMPLETELY miss the point. The people weren't supposed to be there. They were probably told to move. They didn't move. The cops start tearing their shit down. The people form a chain, and refuse to move. The cops can't move them unless they are unconscious, because a human is incredibly difficult to move when their muscles are clinched up. They apply a sleeper grab to them, which is not incredibly painful (Yes, I've had it done to me). It's also released once consciousness is taken from said person.
It wasn't brutality, it was them doing their job, and getting the dipshits off the grounds they weren't allowed on. Brutality would have been beating the shit out of them with their knightsticks, because they wouldn't move.
I believe I have reiterated the point that they were not suppose to be there numerous times, but the actions of the police were unnecessary. Even the university, which called the police, and share just as much if not more blame than the police, have said that they crossed the line... I really do not see how the actions of the police can be justified, as I said before there have been protests there before, past the curfew time, in which the police were not involved at all.
You pussy. There's nothing even the faintest of heart couldn't handle.
wow, isn't your dick big.
|
On April 30 2005 19:47 ihatett wrote:
If the contract the hippies signed when enrolling says they will follow the rules, then you can't come in and say "I don't think they should".
I don't know what to say to this other than that you might feel differently if you were subjected to these very high tuitions and you and your parents were just average Americans.
I believe average American Joe not making 120 thousand dollars a year and not coming from a crack addicted mother deserves to be able to affordably go to a school they gain admission to in California.
I also don't think anywhere in their forms did they sign their name under "I relinquish my right to free speech, even if the school administration finds a way to legally kick me off property my parents broke their backs for 20 years to pay for."
|
If people knowingly break the rules, and then see what the cops are doing and still stay, you can't feel sorry for them at all unless you have some other motive. The blame is purely on the students here.
And the topic is misleading... this isn't brutality.
|
On April 30 2005 19:51 SoLsiTO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 19:29 SickofLife wrote:
You COMPLETELY miss the point. The people weren't supposed to be there. They were probably told to move. They didn't move. The cops start tearing their shit down. The people form a chain, and refuse to move. The cops can't move them unless they are unconscious, because a human is incredibly difficult to move when their muscles are clinched up. They apply a sleeper grab to them, which is not incredibly painful (Yes, I've had it done to me). It's also released once consciousness is taken from said person.
It wasn't brutality, it was them doing their job, and getting the dipshits off the grounds they weren't allowed on. Brutality would have been beating the shit out of them with their knightsticks, because they wouldn't move. I believe I have reiterated the point that they were not suppose to be there numerous times, but the actions of the police were unnecessary. Even the university, which called the police, and share just as much if not more blame than the police, have said that they crossed the line... I really do not see how the actions of the police can be justified, as I said before there have been protests there before, past the curfew time, in which the police were not involved at all.
How can their actions be justified? They told them to get the fuck out of there. They didn't, instead, they grouped together, and sat down, forming a human chain. The cops moved them. They couldn't be moved while conscious, so they were knocked unconscious. There was nothing brutal about it, either. I don't know if you've ever had that done to you, but it doesn't hurt. In fact, it's probably the most peaceful, and non-painful way to be knocked out. The cops did what they had to do in order to remove the people. Then the school sniffed lawsuit, and told them to stop.
I fail to see what you don't understand. But, I don't have time to argue it with you any longer. I'm off to bed. 'Night.
You pussy. There's nothing even the faintest of heart couldn't handle. wow, isn't your dick big.[/QUOTE]
Penis size has nothing to do with that not being graphic. It's simply not. There's nothing to be scared of, or bothered by. If you're bothered by it, join the club of the world's biggest pussies.
|
On April 30 2005 19:49 SickofLife wrote:
Also to whoever was talking about how they don't understand how the university can apply a curfew to certain grounds: it's their property.
Yeah, I get how it's legally feasible and how you might see it that way. But we're not talking about my front lawn or anything. These people are paying 20-35 thousand dollars a year for this property.
And the curfew wasn't about trespassing, it was a tactical measure to disrupt their protest. I don't think the university -really- cares whether or not kids pitch tents at place called "Tent University" past 8 p.m.
It's like if your boss told you to get off his property if you wanted to negotiate your benefits. But this analogy fails because, you AREN't paying him 35 thousand dollars a year.
|
On April 30 2005 19:54 ihatett wrote:
If people knowingly break the rules, and then see what the cops are doing and still stay, you can't feel sorry for them at all unless you have some other motive. The blame is purely on the students here.
And the topic is misleading... this isn't brutality.
I feel sorry for them because I know where they're coming from and I know many of them have no other way of telling the administration they can't afford their education. I also stated I don't completely agree this is police brutality, but even if you don't agree with whatever points have been made here, I think it's reasonable to say some attention needs to be brought to the situation.
Like I said, I think the cops did exactly what they were told to do, but the administration went too far to disrupt something that was totally harmless and that had a worthy cause. They bent the rules in a way they are totally alleviated of blame to silence tax/tuition paying citizens. I can't say that's fair at all.
|
On April 30 2005 19:29 SickofLife wrote:
You pussy. There's nothing even the faintest of heart couldn't handle.
Grow up, not everyone is completely desensitized.
|
On April 30 2005 19:57 SickofLife wrote:
How can their actions be justified? They told them to get the fuck out of there. They didn't, instead, they grouped together, and sat down, forming a human chain. The cops moved them. They couldn't be moved while conscious, so they were knocked unconscious. There was nothing brutal about it, either. I don't know if you've ever had that done to you, but it doesn't hurt. In fact, it's probably the most peaceful, and non-painful way to be knocked out. The cops did what they had to do in order to remove the people. Then the school sniffed lawsuit, and told them to stop.
Good, the next time I want to knock someone out peacefully I will simply apply some sort of wrestling move that denies blood to his brain, causing him to pass out. That could never cause any kind of permenant damage could it?
By the way, check out A Continuum of Police Use of Force, probably not completely accurate but interesting none the less.
Penis size has nothing to do with that not being graphic. It's simply not. There's nothing to be scared of, or bothered by. If you're bothered by it, join the club of the world's biggest pussies.
I really do not know how to respond to this, seriously, what the fuck is your problem? I am sorry I am bothered by something that you are not, most likely there is something that bothers you that does not bother me, does that make you a pussy? I was disturbed by it, some other people may be also, it is better to put a warning on it and let them know before they watch it.
|
Because you think this is a worthy cause, they should be allowed to break private property laws? If the tuition is too high they shouldn't have joined.
|
On April 30 2005 20:24 ihatett wrote:
Because you think this is a worthy cause, they should be allowed to break private property laws? If the tuition is too high they shouldn't have joined.
Like I said, this is a grey area in private property because they are in fact, paying for this properties existence. And of course people can't go roaming wherever they want, but the adminstrations power was abused to keep the paying people from speaking out about how they have to pay way too much.
And the tuition was not always so high, as the University of California system is a public system meant to give people not sitting on a million dollar inheritance a good shot at education. Only within the last year or two have tuitions began a steady incline into totally out of reach.
If these institutions of affordable (I'm not saying cheap here, I mean literally within the realm of doing everything possible to pay for it) nature no longer exist, people that are qualified but not extremely rich or extremely poor have absolutely no where to turn. They will have to go to Junior colleges, which is by no means terrible, but less than what they deserve because the only reason why they couldn't go to a higher learning facility is because their parents simultaneously make too much to be in an arbitrary bracket, and too little to realistically pay for their kids future.
|
Like I said, this is a grey area in private property because they are in fact, paying for this properties existence. And of course people can't go roaming wherever they want, but the adminstrations power was abused to keep the paying people from speaking out about how they have to pay way too much.
You can't buy something, sign a contract, and then protest it.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
ihatett, it's more like this; You are renting an apartment but every few months, the price is jumping up in staggering amounts and soon, you won't be able to afford it. You need the apartment, just like the students need the education.
It is in the interest in both parties to reach some compromise, so a protest is justified to let the administration know how serious they are.
|
On April 30 2005 20:45 ihatett wrote:Show nested quote +Like I said, this is a grey area in private property because they are in fact, paying for this properties existence. And of course people can't go roaming wherever they want, but the adminstrations power was abused to keep the paying people from speaking out about how they have to pay way too much. You can't buy something, sign a contract, and then protest it.
As stated previously many started their college careers before the price increase. You don't think they have the right to be upset when half way through their education they can no longer finance it's completion?
And so, what if, hypothetically, they decide to terminate their contract, leave their classes, friends, belongings-life behind and go elsewhere because they're fed up and can't pay, where do people go to get educated?
These are public schools we're talking about. This is as cheap as it gets if you don't count community colleges or Devry.
Look, you might not like "hippies" or protestors but lets be serious, you can't really be promoting the inability for the average american to get a decent education because they can't squeeze into a certain tax bracket are you?
And if you don't support this, then how can you blame a few hundred people trying to make a stand to say, "No, even though we can't do much yet, we will not stand idlely by and get fucked in the ass, because we DO deserve to have a shot at a decent education."
|
If the college reserved the right to raise tuition at any time, the students have no right to protest. Tell me, where do they derive the right from?
|
MURICA15980 Posts
First Amendment - right of assembly...
Like I said, it's in everybody's interest for the students to continue their education. Let them have a protest... They don't have the RIGHT to DEMAND change as in taking the thing to court, but surely they have the right to complain.
|
On April 30 2005 20:59 ihatett wrote:
If the college reserved the right to raise tuition at any time, the students have no right to protest. Tell me, where do they derive the right from?
Hey, we aren't talking legality here.
I can't cite for you a certain section or legal code that says "The University of California system cannot increase prices out of the reach of the common American" but that doesn't make it right.
And if you don't wan't to discuss possibilities outside of the existing legal code, we don't have anything more to say. I just hope you're parents or yourself are already bringing in major cash and you don't have to worry about not getting the education you earned. Good luck man, seriously. I know how hard it can be otherwise. Peace.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
It's easy to see that the university is very much at fault. The police, on the other hand, were simply doing their jobs, which were given to them by the university. The police can't choose to negotiate with the students: the university has to do it. And if the university chooses not to, then it would be nonsensical for the police to do it in their place. Fines are a pretty dumb idea too. If the university tells the police to remove the students from the area, then the police can't just slap a fine on them and leave them there. And I don't think that the threat of a fine was going to be sufficient to move the majority of the protesters.
So complain about the university's behaviour as much as you like: chances are you're in the right. But don't start crying out "police brutality" as if they should have handled the situation differently. The university told the police to move the students, an action which the university was entitled to take, thus the police had to follow through. And like I said, these students -- the majority of them -- were not going to move unless they were made to suffer in some way. Judging from the other posts in this topic, the students didn't suffer very much at all. Tear gas or pepper spray would probably have been much more agonizing than a brief "sleeper pinch". It was probably less harmful than a fine as well. I'm not saying it's totally harmless, but if you have to move someone then it sounds like a relatively harmless way to do it. Frankly, I think I'd rather have that done to me than having to endure tear gas, pepper spray, a large fine, or being physically hit.
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The first amemndment was not infringed.
|
On April 30 2005 21:20 Bill307 wrote:
It's easy to see that the university is very much at fault. The police, on the other hand, were simply doing their jobs, which were given to them by the university. The police can't choose to negotiate with the students: the university has to do it. And if the university chooses not to, then it would be nonsensical for the police to do it in their place. Fines are a pretty dumb idea too. If the university tells the police to remove the students from the area, then the police can't just slap a fine on them and leave them there. And I don't think that the threat of a fine was going to be sufficient to move the majority of the protesters.
So complain about the university's behaviour as much as you like: chances are you're in the right. But don't start crying out "police brutality" as if they should have handled the situation differently. The university told the police to move the students, an action which the university was entitled to take, thus the police had to follow through. And like I said, these students -- the majority of them -- were not going to move unless they were made to suffer in some way. Judging from the other posts in this topic, the students didn't suffer very much at all. Tear gas or pepper spray would probably have been much more agonizing than a brief "sleeper pinch". It was probably less harmful than a fine as well. I'm not saying it's totally harmless, but if you have to move someone then it sounds like a relatively harmless way to do it. Frankly, I think I'd rather have that done to me than having to endure tear gas, pepper spray, a large fine, or being physically hit.
Right, Bill. I think it stands to be repeated that though there are definite cases of police brutality, the phrase needs to be reserved for more blatant instances. It seemed from the video, that most of the police officers were "non aggressive" in that they were respectful in carrying out their job, which was to move the students as mandated to do by the University.
I still, however, believe that because this mandate from the University was unjust the violence itself was unnecessary and uncalled for and is therefore in some form a type of "brutality".
|
On April 30 2005 21:24 ihatett wrote:Show nested quote + Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The first amemndment was not infringed.
In the most technical sense, maybe their freedom of speech was not infringed. But the University found a way to legally have the tax payers broken up and silenced and therefore, albeit legally, " [abridged] [their] freedom of speech."
I think you'd have to be incredibly dense to believe that the University was completely innocent in setting up this curfew. Constitutional or not, it's reasonable to say that the adminstrators limited their ability to speak on campus, which is basically to say they did not let the people speak at all--which understood in those terms is exactly what an infringement of the First Amendment is.
|
The first ammendment doesn't say "an organization can't keep people from protesting on their property", it says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
That wasn't broken. By the way, this discussion is getting nowhere.
|
To those that say it's uncommon: I WAS A VICTIM OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN CALIFORNIA!! It's true, cops here get hard on power. Their power-hards are second only to their sense of judicial righteousness.
True story: (San Diego, California: Early 2000)
Me and a friend were stopped by a biker cop (we were on skateboards coming home from school). He informed us that we had J-walked, because crossing the intersection when the hand starts flashing (analogous to the yellow traffic light) means you can no longer cross, but that if you were in the middle of the street, you need to hurry up. He made us sit on the curb as he wrote up tickets. OK, I'm a well-behaved whiteboy, so I'm not used to being victimized by profiling. But this cop did not like "punk skaters", as was evident by the fact that my friend and I were 2 out of 10 people that had crossed together (we were singled out of the crowd by the officer) and by his remarks about our appearances.
I asked him why he let the others keep walking, and he said he wasn't concerned about this. I said, "That's not fair." He said, "Life's not fucking fair. What do you expect when you go walking around with green hair, like you're looking for trouble."
WTF!!!! I can't believe he just said this to me. A glimpse of real world prejudice flashed in front of my juvinile eyes. I pointed out that kids were J-walking right in front of him, and he said "Well, I\'m busy with you. Why don't you go stop him." I knew he was being sarcastic, but I got up and started walking across the street towards the group, yelling at them to stop. I think the officer knew I was going to run about a second before I did. I had about a 20 foot gain on him, so I initiated a full run for the motel complex across the street. He hoped on his motorcyle and chased me, as hid around the corner of a Denny's dumpster. As the bike went by, he saw me and jerked to the right, which made him fall off his bike (going about 10 mph) which really pissed him off. I then hopped a couple fences, but couldn't find cover in the wide open parking lot of a motel. It had only been about 1 minute since I started to run, but I saw at least 5 cop cars roll up into the parking lot. OK, I was caught. It was embarressing; the first time they actually caught me out of several successful attempts at running. They pointed guns at me (!!) and told me to put my skateboard down, because it was a weapon. I tossed it away immediately and put my hands up.
As 5 officers advanced from the front, the original biker cop had snuck up behind me. He punched me hard in the back of the head, sending me to the floor. I was cuffed immediately and then dragged across the gravel to a patch of dry grass, where they grated my face for a good 20 seconds, while delivering some well-placed body blows (the kind that dont leave obvious marks, these are professional you know). Looking up, I could see that 2 officers were pinning me (despite zero fight-back) while the biker cop took out his anger on me, undoubtedly pissed about falling off his motorcycle. The spectacle drew quite an audience from the run-down motel clients, who watched as I was handily beaten. I couldn't believe nobody yelled at them to stop, or tried to help me. I was 16 years old. But they were police officers. I was brought down to the station, where they made me clean the blood off my face before taking the booking picture for my file. I have a 3/4 inch permanent scratch/scar below and to the right of my nose.
Yeah, I know I did something wrong, but I didnt deserve that. It was a horrible thing to experience but I'm glad it happened, because otherwise I might've grown up thinking that police brutality stories are bullshit. In fact, kids that grew up thinking that might say I deserved what I got. Such people are stupid, unable to empathize, and have no grasp on the distinction between police officers and the judicial branch of the government.
Sorry for the tangent, but I really wanted to relate that story for those who don't live in California.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On April 30 2005 21:24 ihatett wrote:Show nested quote + Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The first amemndment was not infringed.
You missed the point of me pointing at the first amendment... because you stated "the students have no right to protest." I was saying that technically, they do. In which manner is up to them and the validity of the protest may vary, but they have every right to protest. So enough of this.
|
On April 30 2005 21:45 ihatett wrote:
The first ammendment doesn't say "an organization can't keep people from protesting on their property", it says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
That wasn't broken. By the way, this discussion is getting nowhere.
edit: my last post in this thread, you get the last word
|
HeadBangaa,
i think it's good that you shared that. i live in california too and even though i've never been beat up by the cops i have definitely run into them when they were on extreme power trips and have seen them be unncessarily forceful with friends of mine.
clearly, this isn't to degrade all police officers because many do their jobs with extreme bravery and valor. but this needs to be said to dispel the too common belief that things like this never actually happen here, or anywhere else.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On April 30 2005 22:04 ihatett wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 21:45 ihatett wrote:
The first ammendment doesn't say "an organization can't keep people from protesting on their property", it says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the right of the people peaceably to assemble". That wasn't broken. By the way, this discussion is getting nowhere.
Dude, I will now proceed with personal insults: you're an idiot. Where did I say it was broken? I didn't. I just said they have the right to protest if they want to but how they do it (if it is peacefuly) and what about is up the them. So if they follow the rules, they can exercise the first amendment by assembling and protesting. Stating this obvious fact does not mean I agree or disagree with the actions of the police. It just means that STUDENTS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST. The only thing in question would be HOW they do it, but if they follow the rules, they do have the right to protest. Moron.
EDIT: I can see you will not reply. Fine. So I'll take back the personal insults.
|
Ive been to this school before, several times. I even know people that go there.
THe entire place stinks like dirty hippies everywhere you go. It permeates the miniture campis and has spread to the town. One hippy can cause a stink over 10s of miles. I dotn live there, but I am sure my opinion is more important and knowledgable than anyone that actually DOES, since they are all hippies.
The 19 people were probably just arrested for smelling so bad. Their pungent attacks were more than good enough reasons to arrest them. Duh?
|
On April 30 2005 10:55 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 10:49 ronhaak wrote:
they pinched a bunch of people....you want police brutality? watch the martin luther king video.... I think you mean the Rodney King video... and even that wasn't unwarranted since the officers were being provoked. I think you guys are missing the big picture here. You treat the police and the military like they are soulless killing machines. They are just average Joes like you and me. They have a very stressful job that you could never hope to do. They gamble with their lives daily because you never know when a person will turn violent. I'll turn your attention to the story in SF where a white cop was shot in the neck and killed by two black 17-year-olds as they were robbing a bank. The officer yelled at them to stop and they just fired. The police code forces the officer to set aside his survival instincts and open fire, and instead gamble on the actions of an unstable mind.
Do you ever stop to think Excal? How the FUCK was a black man WITHERING ON THE GROUND IN PAIN, after being hit SEVENTEEN times with a baton provoking ANYONE.
I dont even support this hippie convention, but saying fucking dumb things like that, when you obviously have no clue WTF happened simply flags you as a conservative jackass with no hold on reality. Rodney King WAS brutalized by the police. He was beaten with batons, these people were nto brutalized. They were incapacitated one at a time by the police as they were trained to operate. No argument there from me.
However, there is no reasons to hold to one "position" simply because that is your political stance. Emerson wrote that such postitions are often the sign of a small mind or an insecure intellect...
|
Bio warfare.
Damn hippies.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
I don't claim to be an expert on the Rodney King case, but I heard that although he was indeed battered and brutalized, that was exactly what the police officers were trained to do. It was text book. In fact, one of the officers involved used to be called a "sissy" for not hitting hard enough with his baton. Obviously the textbook was screwed up, but that's what the officers were trained and told to do. They didn't just want to beat some black man just in spite. So although that case was a perfect example of police brutality, it was the system, not the officers, who were actually at fault.
And I believe this to be the case with the situation at UCSC. Right or wrong, the police were just doing their job.
|
Yes, and that's why the Nazi SS officers should not have been convicted of crimes against humanity in post-WW2. It was their system, not them? Flawed logic, methinks.
|
good point. in the international court of law crimes you are held accountable for you actions regardless of the commands of your "superiors" or if you are guilty of following orders.
That is not so in the US military, you will not be court martialed ever for following the orders of a superior officer. But, if I was told to beat a man well after he had already been subdued, I would not do it. Would I be fired? Maybe, but perhaps morals are a good thing to have after all...
|
MURICA15980 Posts
You can't compare it to war. Why does shooting and killing people (enemy soldiers) make it right just because you are told to by your country? See what I mean? Regardless if innocent or enemy status, it is still killing people. War should be exempt from any further 'logic.' And the Nazi Privates weren't trialed for war crimes (were they?), it was the officers with authority. But yeah, they should have resisted if they truely thought it was wrong, but war gets complicated so it's best not to compare. Those police officers weren't killing anyone. They were doing what they were taught, ordered, and paid to do. It's going to be the person higher up in the bureacracy that's going to take the heat for it.
But overall, you did bring up a good point :O
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On May 01 2005 00:25 maleorderbride wrote:
But, if I was told to beat a man well after he had already been subdued, I would not do it. Would I be fired? Maybe, but perhaps morals are a good thing to have after all...
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. But after years of being told it is the proper way of handling the situation, and after years of training to do it that way, I am left wondering if I would have done the same because "it was by the book." I mean I think I might have been brain washed enough to think it was justified. Because remember, that one officer was ridiculed and called names for not hitting hard enough... that just shows the whole culture of the police system at the time fully encouraged that behavior and thus the little moral nudges we all think they should of had might have been subdued.
|
I didnt bring it up. Head banger did.
And no one is comparing this to war. Instead, we are comparing it to a war crimes trial. there is a difference. In one you kill SOLDIERS, in the other you are held accountable for killing non combatants. That is the difference.
You are right that nazi privates were not tried for war crimes (not to my knowledge also anyways). However, I did not think the exacts of the anaology was what was so important. It was the idea that perhaps people are responsible for their own actions. Remarkable as it may seem to some.
Additionally, I do not think that these police were out of hand. I am sure as what, 40 cops? 50? It would be intimidating as fuck trying to get 200 people to move. And thats the catch, all you are doing is trying to get them to disperse and relocate. You are trying to arrest, subdue or capture anyone. You just want to do the minimum of what is necessary to get people to leave. That is up the officers at the area to decide and make a judgement call on.
19 people were taken into custody and then released, however, the goal was accomplished. No one was permanently injured. Not a single shto was fired, no nerve gas was used. How is that not an accomplishment? Said people were participating in an illegal activity. There were forced to desist with no loss of life, no shots, and no permanent injury. How can it get any better for someone that violates the law?
|
On May 01 2005 00:35 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2005 00:25 maleorderbride wrote:
But, if I was told to beat a man well after he had already been subdued, I would not do it. Would I be fired? Maybe, but perhaps morals are a good thing to have after all... Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. But after years of being told it is the proper way of handling the situation, and after years of training to do it that way, I am left wondering if I would have done the same because "it was by the book." I mean I think I might have been brain washed enough to think it was justified. Because remember, that one officer was ridiculed and called names for not hitting hard enough... that just shows the whole culture of the police system at the time fully encouraged that behavior and thus the little moral nudges we all think they should of had might have been subdued.
It does not matter what the system is. Integrity and morals are something that an individual either posseses or does not.
|
Good counterpoint, Klogon. But the atrocities I was referencing in regard to Nazi SS were performed in concentration camps, where people were herded to gas chambers like cattle to the slaughter. The war was being fought on fronts, not in the prisoner camps. But yes, rules of war are different. But they also apply as to how to treat a prisoner after he is captured (like me Rodney in handcuffs, and the Jews at Auschwitz).
But I used that example just to illustrate how some rules are universal and transcend written laws of government institution.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Yeah, I see what you guys mean. The line between what is legal and what is moral is sometimes very gray, indeed.
|
On April 30 2005 22:46 maleorderbride wrote:
Ive been to this school before, several times. I even know people that go there.
THe entire place stinks like dirty hippies everywhere you go. It permeates the miniture campis and has spread to the town. One hippy can cause a stink over 10s of miles. I dotn live there, but I am sure my opinion is more important and knowledgable than anyone that actually DOES, since they are all hippies.
The 19 people were probably just arrested for smelling so bad. Their pungent attacks were more than good enough reasons to arrest them. Duh?
Unfortunately you are more correct than you realize.
|
ehh hippies piss me off. Especially protesting hippies.
|
Australia3818 Posts
Nothing works better than throwing hippies in an open fire.
|
Norway28665 Posts
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
|
On May 01 2005 03:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
Same reason people support war.
Their logic: When you ask someone to do something, and they won't, you gotta use force to make them...or let them be and do nothing.
The University, as it appears, didn't want to let the protestors be, however peaceful they were.
|
On May 01 2005 03:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what the fucking fuck how are any of you guys supporting police violence!?!?!?
I think it's more a case of disliking hippies
|
This event reminds me of one quote:
"And the policeman holding the student with one hand and beating him with a large stick was thinking how he who had such an empty head was beating such a full head. This simple though made him furious and with that rage, he beated the student even more"
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2005 07:59 0x64 wrote:
This event reminds me of one quote:
"And the policeman holding the student with one hand and beating him with a large stick was thinking how he who had such an empty head was beating such a full head. This simple though made him furious and with that rage, he beated the student even more" Haha, where's that one from?
|
Norway28665 Posts
On April 30 2005 16:17 pfff wrote:
ah, threads like these make me so glad im not born in the usa
the scary part really isn't that the police used excessive force. that kind of stuff can happen many places.
the REALLY REALLY REALLY scary part is that a majority of the posters are supporting the police.. I seriously cannot comprehend that.
when you give someone the power to use force legitemately, you should make one hell of an effort to make sure they do not abuse that power. many of you apparently don't mind. that scares me.
nonviolent protesters should never be subject to violence. ever.
|
On May 01 2005 08:18 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Haha, where's that one from?
Not known internationaly. French comedian named Raymond Devos.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 01 2005 08:27 0x64 wrote:Not known internationaly. French comedian named Raymond Devos. Thx ;D Needed a name for my ever growing collection of quotes/similiar shit ;p
Is it an exact quote btw =D?
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 01 2005 08:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
nonviolent protesters should never be subject to violence. ever.
What should the police have done instead? They had to remove the students one way or another.
|
a slayer cd would have been the only alternative
|
Norway28665 Posts
they should rather have done nothing. protesting should always be legal.
|
They had to remove the students one way or another.
This is the most rediculous part of the situation to me. The land of the free has "free speech zones" and an 8 o'clock curfew? One incident of police being overly physical is not as dangerous as an entire culture beginning to think "free speech zones" are acceptable. Democracy should not be a single event isolated to an election booth.
|
Norway28665 Posts
definitely agreed there. 8 o'clock curfew for protesting and free speech zones shocked the hell out of me.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Haha yeah, what the fuck is a free speech zone?
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 01 2005 10:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
they should rather have done nothing. protesting should always be legal.
I guess there is more than one way to interpret defending the police's actions. In my case, I am trying to defend the police as people, which is who the topic creator seems to be attacking with the expression "Police Brutality". But I can't say that I agree with the university having the right to forcibly remove the protesters, which is what I think you are opposing.
|
I am trying to defend the police as people
I think everyone respects the police as individuals, it is police behavoir as a matter of policy and procedure that is the problem.
My mother had a friend of for dinner a few years back, who use to be a correctional officer. He told a story about a time when he was visiting a police station(forget where). A rather large woman had been arrested and was being escorted through the station, when she began to get argumentitive and tried to resist. A group of police officers jumped on the situation to get her under control. My mothers friend said it was the most beautiful text book job he had seen so he asked for a video tape of it to review. He went home, poured a glass of bourbon and started watching the tape. He said when he watched the tape it was the most inhumane thing he had seen, so he quit and joined academia(he's now a criminal justice proff). Point being, cops have a job to do, but that doesn't mean there job is right. No one could doubt the necessity of police officers in any society, but that doesn't mean that we should not question the policies in which they operate.
On a side note, people seem to think protesters should just shut up and go home, as if they did not have right to voice an opinion. Not only is the idea that people should not be voicing an opinion damaging to a healthy culture, ignoring the fact that protesters also have a choice to engage in less that peaceful demonstration is nothing short of stupid. In a time where people are using violence to make political statements, we punish those that use peace?
|
On May 01 2005 10:38 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
I think everyone respects the police as individuals.
fuck the poh-leece
|
Im probably the #1 anti-hippy, but wtf...
First of all, "private property" well thats stupid, its not like they are braking into your house, its the fucking university where you are paying lots of money, when you study, and when you have the fucking right to protest.
Contract mmm.... yeah i guess if they put a chimp as a teacher you cant protest, if you dont like leave it... riiiiiiiiight, morons!.
And if the police HAD to distrupt that protest they could easily just fucking use peper spray, they are not dangerous criminals which you have to neutralize them, you just have to scare them, its fucking stupid.
And so are you ppl who claim about private property -_-
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
whew... if thats not peaceful i dont know what peaceful is then... LOL if they were trying to knock me out that way id bite their fingers off lol come on, they were sitting there hahaha, even with girls thats so fucked up.
|
BTW also its the stupidiest fucking tactic ever....
Brutalize a protest so it goes to the news and the next day you have 10000 pissed off protestesrs outside of your university.
way to go geniuses lol.
|
suffeli
Finland772 Posts
funny analogy in this thread: if you protest peacefully you're a hippy
|
On May 01 2005 11:01 suffeli wrote:
funny analogy in this thread: if you protest peacefully you're a hippy
Well lots of them are hippy actually, look at them
|
On May 01 2005 09:54 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2005 08:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
nonviolent protesters should never be subject to violence. ever. What should the police have done instead? They had to remove the students one way or another.
A lot of people have made this argument. I might have missed something, but why did they have to remove the students one way or another?
And the argument about signing a piece of paper is weak at best. First of all, it's highly unlikely such a piece of paper exists. I've been a student of five universities and never signed anything like it. Even if I had, can you imagine how legally thorny it would be to try to word a statement in a contract saying you "can't protest"? That clause in the contract could cover everything from me writing a letter to the school newspaper to me wearing a "Rage Against the Machine" t-shirt to me VOTING in a local election. In any case, it's a red herring. It's well known that all restaurants can refuse service to "anyone for any reason" and be within the law... yet if I work at Taco Bell and tell a black guy that "we don't serve niggers" I am definitely on the wrong side of the exchange.
P.S. Thank God for Psylo and Drone coming in, I was starting to get scared for the future of the world.
|
On April 30 2005 19:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 19:16 Clutch3 wrote:
I am surprised how many people on here are taking the side of people applying choke-holds over people peacefully demonstrating for affordable education.
Sure, what the police did was legal, but that's true of pretty much any police breaking up any protest over the course of history, and I would imagine that even the most hardcore authoritarians (Excal) would have to agree that some of those protests were just and led to a betterment of the human condition.
Also, if your argument FOR the actions of the police in any way rests on the fact that the people getting choked were annoying, whiny, hippies, etc., then you lose immediately. Go directly to jail, do NOT collect $200. If police are allowed to use arguments like that while doing their job, we all lose.
BRING IT ALL DOWN, MAN! FIGHT THE POWER!
 Is there anyway this isn't trolling? A response like this to a thought out argument is inexcusable even for a five year old. It is to reading what "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is to movies, except with the intent to be stupid and malicious.
|
On May 02 2005 02:46 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2005 19:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 30 2005 19:16 Clutch3 wrote:
I am surprised how many people on here are taking the side of people applying choke-holds over people peacefully demonstrating for affordable education.
Sure, what the police did was legal, but that's true of pretty much any police breaking up any protest over the course of history, and I would imagine that even the most hardcore authoritarians (Excal) would have to agree that some of those protests were just and led to a betterment of the human condition.
Also, if your argument FOR the actions of the police in any way rests on the fact that the people getting choked were annoying, whiny, hippies, etc., then you lose immediately. Go directly to jail, do NOT collect $200. If police are allowed to use arguments like that while doing their job, we all lose.
BRING IT ALL DOWN, MAN! FIGHT THE POWER! Is there anyway this isn't trolling? A response like this to a thought out argument is inexcusable even for a five year old. It is to reading what "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is to movies, except with the intent to be stupid and malicious.
That's ok... I am used to it. Without Excal who would I have to provide fodder for arguments?
|
where is your freedom now, Americans?
|
On May 02 2005 10:38 Feuerbach wrote:
where is your freedom now, Americans?
Feuerbach Out
No seriously, get out dumbass
|
On May 02 2005 10:38 Feuerbach wrote:
where is your freedom now, Americans?
i dont know, why dont we kill the jews to find out? :D
|
all Americans seem to know about Germany is hitler. how would you feel if all we knew about America was Georj W.??? not to insult hitler or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/camoot/059_wat-gedaan-hippies.jpg)
