|
On November 21 2011 18:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 16:28 Yamoth wrote:On November 21 2011 16:19 ObliviousNA wrote:On November 21 2011 16:09 Yamoth wrote:On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote:
I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause. Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method. If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot. I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality. My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary. Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten. Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods. The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual. Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
Actually, I sympathize with the officers quite a bit. As I stated earlier, I think the situation was the way it is because the officers feels like they where threaten and react poorly to it. Second, even if it is a powder-keg situation, nothing is stopping them from retreating and wait for more reinforcement. Hell, I would even find it more reasonable for the officer walk around macing the mob that was screaming and yelling at the officer. What was unacceptable is for them for mace people who only form of resisting was to park your ass at a spot and don't move.
|
On November 21 2011 23:07 fluidin wrote:
I think this is a good point.
"What happens when the Police loses all authority because they have no means available to break up situations like this without being called out in the media, and people get more and more obnoxious because they know the police cant do anything ?"
I think as normal citizens we need to review what are the suitable venues of action when facing higher authority. I feel there is a misconception that the average individual can get away with anything as long as it does not constitute violence or outright crime.
This is wrong. Know your place.
They could have tried to move the protestors first. Or arrest them. The first method that guy used was pepper spray from about 2 feet away, when it is supposed to be used at a minimum of 15 feet. He also sprayed for much longer than intended. Also some things like cuffing too tight causing nerve damage in peoples hands. Aiming pepper spray down peoples throat. Pepper spraying whilst holding someone down, and stopping them from covering their face so they can spray them. That's gone too far.
If they are violent, spray the shit out of them by all means. Not only did they resort to the most extreme method available to them straight away, apart from "defending" themselves with batons, but they didn't even do it by the book. They fucked up.
|
On November 21 2011 18:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 16:28 Yamoth wrote:On November 21 2011 16:19 ObliviousNA wrote:On November 21 2011 16:09 Yamoth wrote:On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote:
I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause. Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method. If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot. I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality. My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary. Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten. Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods. The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual. Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
i've read almost every post in this thread including what i believe to be all of yours. first of all, you clearly have some sort of police bias. i'm not sure why, but this is completely irrational behavior by police and if you actually had any idea what you were talking about it would be obvious. any properly trained police officer who doesn't have an erection for their own authority would be disgusted by how this was dealt.
the issue: non-campus protesters are joining protesters. these protesters, not being paid students are very reasonably a cause for concern when they are camping over night in what is basically intrusion. they are not necessarily suspicious because of that given the context, but they are nonetheless breaking school policy.
logical solution: evict non-campus protesters and invite them to join again when non-campus protesters are allowed on grounds by means of local campus security peacefully in compliance with the fact that the demonstration is an otherwise scheduled peaceful protest.
actual solution: call the police requesting a riot squad and demanding no specific direction, resulting in illegal (supreme court ruling on the subject already posted, find it like i did) misconduct of authority as well as several injuries via unethical use of riot equipment (especially when there was not even a riot), physical abuse and assault of random protesters whether allowed on campus or otherwise.
again, if you actually bothered to figure out what was going on, watched the video, read the statements made by witnesses, etc. you would realize that they prevented no hostilities, they WERE the hostilities. the spray was not a substitution to physical detainment, and it was not a substitution for force because they grossly misused it despite its illegality in the situation in the first place. it's as illegal as shooting a culprit who has put their hands up and shows no weapon. you are completely misusing a weapon you've been trusted with to assault people you are trying to protect.
they hauled people off with reckless force in ways such as (people witnessed) dragging by the hair and forceful kneeling on people's backs to pin them down when there was little to no resistance directly; only via linked arms which is a common and valid form of insisting on civil disobedience.
and no, the actions taken by police didn't do shit. the mere presence of intentionally forceful police measures were the only instigator of violent riots, and the irrational use of force by them would be the only thing that could ever incite riot. you inability to understand the amazing logical leaps you are taking is impressive to me.
|
They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray..
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 22 2011 00:08 KobyKat wrote:
They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray..
This isn't how it is supposed to work. The use of force has very strict and limited use. The fact that people think there's nothing wrong here scares the shit out of me.
|
holy fucking shit people are fucked up
|
American people seem to be too used to violence, so they think oh pepper spray, they didn't get shot, thank God.
|
On November 22 2011 00:00 youngminii wrote:
You people in this thread, stop fucking commenting without watching the videos/reading the appropriate articles. Did you even see what happened?
The police acted disgustingly and the chancellor should definitely resign.
I just don't know sometimes 
|
On November 22 2011 00:10 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 00:08 KobyKat wrote:
They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray.. This isn't how it is supposed to work. The use of force has very strict and limited use. The fact that people think there's nothing wrong here scares the shit out of me.
Same here. People find nothing disturbing about our own law enforcement pepper spraying students?? I really don't care that they were breaking the law, arrest them, that's perfectly reasonable. But to use such violence and force against peacefully protesting students? I don't see how this could be defined as anything but excessive and unnecessary. The police were in no danger and clearly mishandled the situation.
|
100% appropriate.
This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
|
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote:
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Who's being a public nuisance? A group of 10 people sitting in a line, or a division of riot police, in riot gear, pepper spraying them?
|
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote:
100% appropriate.
This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
|
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote:
100% appropriate.
This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
|
On November 22 2011 00:12 Reaper9 wrote:
American people seem to be too used to violence, so they think oh pepper spray, they didn't get shot, thank God.
Reminds me off... "Waterboarding is not torture"... Disgusting.
|
On November 22 2011 00:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote:
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up. Who's being a public nuisance? A group of 10 people sitting in a line, or a division of riot police, in riot gear, pepper spraying them?
unless u are referring to some different pictures, there was definitely more than 10 ppl there. the use of pepper spray i think was acceptable as they are all refusing arrest by locking their arms together like that. there is only so much cops can do by asking nicely, if you're too stupid to follow the rules, then i dont really care what happens to you.
|
FFS Pepper spray is one of the last things a cop should use... They could just have "dragged" them away (like it's normally done with peaceful protesters).
But some asshole cops needed to play Dirty Harry.
|
That guy definitely needs to resign, if I were in his position I would never resort to calling the police on my own students... Especially during a peaceful protest.
|
This honestly makes me feel sick, and those saying "follow the law" make me feel even more sick.
A peaceful protest, by students, at a school, and they are phoning the cops and macing them?
Is this not the very idealist, non-violent spirit we've tried to instill in these students from birth? And for them showing some initiative, we mace, then violently arrest them?
My goodness America, look what is happening to you. Do your people have no sense anymore? Even people here, on team liquid feel that what was done was right? That truly scares me.
|
Agreed. There should be very clear rules about the escalation of force.
Put your hands on them first, and try to arrest them. If they violently resist or people become threatening, THEN you have every right to use pepper spray. I really wonder what moron in the chain of command gave this order the go ahead. Chances are he won't have his job for long.
At the same time, let's not go over board and suggest these kids were brutalized. I've experienced pepper spray, and CS gas which is much worse than pepper spray. It's really not that horrible, just a little stinging and coughing.
|
On November 22 2011 00:55 zev318 wrote:
unless u are referring to some different pictures, there was definitely more than 10 ppl there. the use of pepper spray i think was acceptable as they are all refusing arrest by locking their arms together like that. there is only so much cops can do by asking nicely
Grab them, one at a time, and pull them apart. They are not being violent. You don't need to baton them, tazer them, or pepper spray them to make an arrest.
But according to
f you're too stupid to follow the rules, then i dont really care what happens to you.
I guess you'd be fine with the cop just shooting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
