EPTUC Davis Protesters Pepper Sprayed - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FirmTofu
United States1956 Posts
| ||
|
CurLy[]
United States759 Posts
| ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On November 22 2011 10:14 FirmTofu wrote: Finally got back home to update the pictures. I will add more details on what was discussed at the rally. Great op and thanks for keeping it updated. I think your opinion is a very good one as well. | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
On November 21 2011 14:46 Probasaur wrote: Tell em Cap'n ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CprQ3.jpg) Truth is on the side of people actively trying to make the world a better place. | ||
|
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
I love cops (my hometown police are the bravest, most awesome guys I know. They know that a teenager doing 55 in a 45 isn't worth a ticket, because at least the teenager wasn't high on heroin, as is so common in the town. I was speeding one night, cop saw me, flicked his lights on and off just to let me know. Since he just saved me ~$200 in a speeding ticket, I went and bought him coffee and doughnuts. And I also don't speed there anymore. Good cops = people follow laws.) but what these guys did is wrong and illegal. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is. What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On November 22 2011 11:44 OsoVega wrote: What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question. Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On November 22 2011 13:36 ZeaL. wrote: Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf. If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 22 2011 14:20 Dark_Chill wrote: If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them. The problem is not that action was taken to remove the protesters. News flash, protesters protest. Their whole modus operandi is non-compliance. Saying that they should just comply is great but pointless. The issue is this They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly . I think most people feel that they were not punished accordingly. The punishment far outweighed the crime. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On November 22 2011 11:40 Honeybadger wrote: didn't read the thread, but the laws concerning the police officers' use of pepper spray very, VERY clearly states that they are ONLY permitted to do so when presented with the possibility of personal harm. The first cop to spray someone stepped easily over the line of teenagers SITTING in a circle around him, and a couple minutes earlier, was seen patting a student protester on the back. I love cops (my hometown police are the bravest, most awesome guys I know. They know that a teenager doing 55 in a 45 isn't worth a ticket, because at least the teenager wasn't high on heroin, as is so common in the town. I was speeding one night, cop saw me, flicked his lights on and off just to let me know. Since he just saved me ~$200 in a speeding ticket, I went and bought him coffee and doughnuts. And I also don't speed there anymore. Good cops = people follow laws.) but what these guys did is wrong and illegal. Yea I was about to say a similar thing. If you can show me that the students were the ones who initiated the violence then I'll gladly swap my opinion around and say it was justified. As far as I can tell the students, while maybe violating a law, were still "peaceful" and non-aggressive. I just can't support the use of pepper spray on any one who is not acting in a threatening manner. These aren't genuine criminals, they aren't going to resist the officers arrest, how can you not think of a less violent means of breaking up this protest... And how were they on someone elses property? Weren't they on their campus which they pay to attend? | ||
|
Yamoth
United States315 Posts
On November 22 2011 14:20 Dark_Chill wrote: If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them. For fuck sakes people, get your story right. >Police were called in to remove tent. >Protester park their ass on the ground and linked around to create a human wall around tent. >Police now have a hard time removing tent and ordered protesters to gtfo. >Protester ignore police order and continue to parked their ass on the group linked arm and not responding. >Police start arresting people 1 at a time like they were supposed to. >Someone called surrounding student to come and help shout off the cop. >Mob gathered >Mob surrounded police. >Police responded by macing protester who still parked their ass on the group and didn't moved since instead of the shouting mobs. (I will assume this was to make an example of for other and to expedite the process) I think myself and I would like to say the majority of reasonable people on this forum would agree with the police all the way to the part where they decided to mace the non-violent, hell non-mobile protester. Now for some stupid redundant argument. 1)Pepper Spray Prevent other more serious physical harm. Non of the protester who got arrested were putting up any kind of a fight other than linking arms; refusing to unlink them; and being dead weight to gives the officer a hard time. There were no kicking or any sign of aggression toward to police what so ever. Therefore the amount of physical damage done to the protester is solely at the police digression. Second, I've been maced by a crazy ex before, have the feeling that your face is peeling off, choking, and pretty much having the absolute worse time of my life ever is not a small thing. Hell, I got in car accident, broken bones, crack my head open, and god knows how many other stupid things that I've done. Nothing compare to the suffering I have to endure through the pepper spray, and that without having someone shoving the pepper spray down my throat. Until you experience the amount of pain and suffering caused by having that much mace sprayed at you, please shut the fuck up about how it is preferred over other treatment. 2) We live in a lawful society where there is a certain level of expectation from everyone in it. When you break a law, you get arrested. We you resist, a necessary amount of force will be taken to subdue you. When you act violent, more extreme force will be taken to subdue you. When you pull out a weapon that could endanger people around you, police have the authority and duty to shoot the crap out of you. Officer are only supposed to use necessary force to defuse and control the situation. Any more and it will and should be considered excessive for and brutality. You can't bash a criminal head on the ground and beat the living crap out of them once they lay down and surrender. You can't shoot a suspect in the back when they are running away. You can't mace a bunch of peaceful student performing civil disobedience just because they are making your job harder. Anyone argue that macing peaceful protester is okay is either retarded, ignorant, bias, or simple being a horrible human being. Furthermore, those action need to be targeted toward the responsible party. For example, the officer can't mace or electrocute love one for your violent action. Just because the police feels threaten by the surround mob doesn't mean they can take it out on the non-violent protester and use them as an example. If a threat is previewed, use force against those who are threatening you. Not on those who you feels would be best to make an example of. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On November 22 2011 14:20 Dark_Chill wrote: If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them. Protesters protest. Cops generally speaking are trained to deal with it. No ones gives a shit about cops arresting protesters and because most cops arrest nonviolent protesters without macing them in the face, and everyone realizes that what they're doing is illegal. You know why this is news? Because while its in the handbook for dealing with nonviolent protesters, cops pretty much never bring out the pepper spray. I mean following your train of thought, why didn't the cops just taser all of them? "less than lethal" and would make it easier to disentangle them. Or maybe just bomb them with tear gas. I mean, the obvious solution to a bunch of weakass students sitting around in a circle is to punish them with intense pain so that it makes your life easier. And seriously, if cops can't break a circle of nonviolent protesters apart without breaking bones and/or possibly killing people then maybe they shouldn't be there to "protect and serve". | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 22 2011 15:26 MangoTango wrote: The comments in this thread are truly terrifying. Have none of you any idea what civil disobedience to police brutality is? +1. I have no fucking clue how anyone finds it acceptable to pepper spray non-violent protesters, regardless of whatever "illegal activity" they're sitting on a sidewalk constitutes. Go ahead and check my post history. I've been hating on the hippies and the hipsters and the dorm-room humanitarians for as long as I can remember. Up until very recently, student protests ranked right below raw sewage in things that I would like to be immersed in. Nevertheless I find what happened at UC Davis absolutely infuriating. If you think that this is anything but a god damned outrage against your fellow citizens (or human beings, if you live outside the U.S.), I worry, to put it lightly, about the future of political discourse in our fine country. Tolerating non-violent dissent, even if you have to take great pains to do so, is a fucking core democratic value. | ||
|
Mvrio
689 Posts
| ||
|
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
So for the sake of the case lets assume it was not okay for the protesters to be their and needed to leave. What are the police supposed to do? It seems that pepper spray might be one of the only ways to safely disperse a crowd. Pepper spray is one of the safest ways to disperse a protest barring voluntary dispersion. Maybe the police could have done something else but I can't think of anything, and officials and law enforcement didn't have the luxury of having extended time to make the decision. I sympathize with the protesters but i also don't think it was at face value wrong what the police did either. The amount of pepper spray was excessive, some of the protesters appeared as if they had taken a bath in it. tear gas might have been a better option (the effects are acute, but the pain doesn't last as long after leaving). The situation demanded action it seems, the chancellor made a good point that UC davis is not equipped to handle an encampment without safety and health risks. I don't think anyone can make a strong case for one or the other public perception is in favor of the protesters, but that isn't in my opinion the final word on the rightness or wrongness of an action. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7883 Posts
Democracy my ass. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 22 2011 17:13 johngalt90 wrote: I don't think its as clearcut as the media is making it out to be. How do you clear out protesters who have gone beyond their right to exercise freedom of assembly? Camping out to me seems to go beyond that right, though some will disagree with this and I believe their is validity behind their arguments as well. So for the sake of the case lets assume it was not okay for the protesters to be their and needed to leave. What are the police supposed to do? It seems that pepper spray might be one of the only ways to safely disperse a crowd. Pepper spray is one of the safest ways to disperse a protest barring voluntary dispersion. Maybe the police could have done something else but I can't think of anything, and officials and law enforcement didn't have the luxury of having extended time to make the decision. I sympathize with the protesters but i also don't think it was at face value wrong what the police did either. The amount of pepper spray was excessive, some of the protesters appeared as if they had taken a bath in it. tear gas might have been a better option (the effects are acute, but the pain doesn't last as long after leaving). The situation demanded action it seems, the chancellor made a good point that UC davis is not equipped to handle an encampment without safety and health risks. I don't think anyone can make a strong case for one or the other public perception is in favor of the protesters, but that isn't in my opinion the final word on the rightness or wrongness of an action. No, no, no, no, and no. What part of "do not employ violence against non-violent protesters" is so crazy to you? Honestly? "The police were in a tough situation!" Boo-fucking-hoo, man! That's they're fucking job. To serve, to protect, and to handle tough situations with as little violence as possible. So what if the protest made the job of the officers complicated and confusing and frustrating? They are civil servants who are supposed to have been trained to keep their heads in just such a situation. "It seemed like the best idea at the time" is not a valid excuse for pepper spraying a bunch of college kids on the quad. We should expect better of them. We should demand better of them. And when such expectations and demands are not met, well then heads should roll. What happened there was not an understandable infraction on the part of the officers. It was gross misconduct. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10686 Posts
That is also "non-lethal" and would (most likely, just as pepper-spray and/or tasers) leave no long term damage. It also would not have been dangerous because.. Well, the Students were just sitting there so aiming wasn't a problem?... ... Seriously, you don't use that kind of force against people that just sit there, you just don't. You drag them apart and arrest them for the night or something like that... | ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
| ||
| ||
