UC Davis Protesters Pepper Sprayed - Page 11

On November 22 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:


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 00:49 SupLilSon wrote:


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 01:55 slappy wrote:
ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.

I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign

On November 22 2011 01:58 Mr Showtime wrote:


My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.

On November 22 2011 02:01 Mr Showtime wrote:


The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.

On November 22 2011 02:10 liberal wrote:

The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.

On November 21 2011 16:04 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote:


Clearly a bunch of unarmed 20 year olds should have expected to have pepper spray shot down their throats.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

Here is an example of this happening before, and a case where support of the protestors was pretty much unanimous. I know you're trying to be edgy by disagreeing with everybody, but you're wrong on pretty much every level imaginable.

On November 22 2011 02:03 Craton wrote:

You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.

Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.

On November 22 2011 02:29 Ungrateful wrote:


Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?

On November 22 2011 02:37 slappy wrote:


the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws

READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING

On November 21 2011 19:47 Falling wrote:
@The Toast
While it's great that the system works for many people, the fact that there is low voter turn-out in addition to protests, it seems that people are unhappy with how the system functions. Furthermore, you may not see the immediate use of protests, but I certainly see them at the very least as an important safety valve. Without it, you are pushing a lot of the issues underground and when they do arise, the outpouring could be far more violent. Violently suppressing it and Gingerich's derisive 'let them eat cake/ go home and take a bath' just makes things worse.

Protests do push the public discourse to start speaking about what the protests are about, even it is a negation of the protest. But at best, consistent protests can push politicians to ammend positions. Perhaps not enough for the protestors, but enough to stem it.

But what I don't understand is how people wish for protests do be this quiet little thing that when that government says stand, they stand; when the government says sit, they sit; and when the government says go home, they all go home. Protests are by their nature disruptive. And if it's peaceful disruption, there is no cause to escalate it to violent disruption with asymmetrical use of force. Remove them from where they are being disruptive and let's not have this 'they deserve to be pepper sprayed.' That's crowd control and there was nothing that needed controlling at the time- just removal.

On November 22 2011 02:38 Ungrateful wrote:


WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?

On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote:
I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth

On November 22 2011 02:45 TheToast wrote:


I'm not necessarily criticizing the act of protesting and rallying, they can be useful political tools in certain circumstances. My point is about the Occupy Wallstreet group and the additional movements that have been spawned out of it.

Protesting and camping out is by itself not going to achieve political goals. Yes, protests like these do gain public attention, however much of the media attention given to the Wallstreet protest has been generally negative. There have been dozens of stories in the media about drugs, sex, crime, and disorderly behavior at Zucotti park. Obviously, these people only represent one element of the protest and is not representative of all the people there. You can say this is unfair, but politics is all about controlling the rhetoric and controlling the message. A movement such as this has no means of controlling it's message, yes these Occupy movements have spokes people, but they are in no way able to control what the people on the ground are saying and doing. It's like a ship in a storm with no one at the helm.

Inevitably, I have run into people trying to compare these movements with the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. However this movement was inherently different. With the Civil Rights movement you had a strong central leader who was able to control the rhetoric, and perhaps more importantly had such respect that he could control the actions of the people on the ground. The Occupy movement has no one like this.

The Civil Rights protests also were part of a larger overall campaign. The protestors wanted to get beaten up by the police as the footage of this would inevitably end up on television in the northern half of the country; creating a sympathy with the Civil Rights movement that lead to votes, money, and manpower. This allowed the movement to fund legal battles, run stronger grassroots campaigns, and put more resources into future protests. The protests were only one part of the movement, an integral one yes, but only only one aspect to the political movement.

In some ways the tea party uses this same format, and one of the reasons they have been so successful. Three years ago I went to the tax day tea party rally in Madison WI, which at the time turned out to be one of the largest such rallies in the country. The rally was not too different from a protest like we have seen on Wallstreet, a series of presenters and speakers hyping people up through sensationalist rhetoric. But what was really interesting, is when the rally concluded a group of volunteers went through the crowd handing out information packets with links to resources on how to run as a candidate, how to form a tea party group, and most importantly where to send money. The rally was used as a conduit to get people together and invested in the larger political movement. There's a reason the tea party is on the verge of surpassing the Republican National Committee in terms of fund raising and why so many very conservative candidates have been appearing on election ballets.

Earlier this year I attended another tea party rally in Madison, this time Sarah Palin was the "headliner". While she is not the leader of the tea party (no one really is) she does qualify as a figure head for sure. She definetly has the respect of the people on the ground and is able to at the very least sway and influence the rhetoric of the movement in a certain direction. The Occupy movement has no one like this, again back to the ship lost in the storm analogy.

Essentially, my point is that in the US system, if your actions are not raising money or supporting a candidate in some way, you are participating in a pointless activity. I realize some of these protests can help people deal with their frusteration and make them feel like they are "making a difference" but they are not. Imagine the impact of all the Occupy Wallstreet protesters had spent the last few weeks going door to door soliciting monetary donations or support for a candidate. They could get someone elected to Congress with that kind of time and man power. Protests can be an important political tool, but to make a real difference they have to be used withing the framework of a movement that can control the rhetoric and capitalize on public support. If not, they it is a waste of time.

On November 22 2011 02:47 hifriend wrote:

The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.

On November 22 2011 02:03 Craton wrote:

You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.

Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.

On November 22 2011 02:50 Ungrateful wrote:


They are not peaceful and harmless if they are breaking the law. They were told to move and didn't so reasonable force was used

On November 22 2011 02:57 Skullflower wrote:


UC Davis is an immense campus so they really weren't preventing people from getting anywhere.