|
On December 05 2011 11:15 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:01 Fishgle wrote:On December 05 2011 09:53 t3tsubo wrote:
Since the chancellor refuses to resign, how would things have to pan out for someone with authority over the chancellor to force her resignation? i'm a UC Davis student, and I have no fucking clue why everyone wants the chancellor to resign. The whole protest is completely aimless, unguided, and disjointed. I actually am thanking the casual pepper spray police officer for somewhat uniting and strengthening the movement, but even now there are still a couple hundred students and staff living in tents all over campus with no clue what their next move is. it's supposed to be about the 80% tuiton hike, and honestly the chancellor has very little control over that. It's not her fault the state is drowning in debt and cutting education funding on a yearly basis. She decided to escalate the situation. Once the police were callled in there was always going to be some form of altercation. The risk of potential harm to the students was much higher because of her actions. The reason she gave for ending the protest was the protesters safety. Here is my post on the same page as yours. Please read. Show nested quote +Just wanted to say thanks to OP for keeping things updated. It happens so rarely  edit:: The gist of what happened (this is the tl;dw version, but please watch the entire thing if you have any qualms with my summary)
students are notified in the previous day to clear the quad of tents -> next day police arrive and give out multiple verbal warnings to those still occupying tents that they will be arrested and incarcerated at the county jail -> police arrest only those who still refused to clear their tents from the quad, not the bystanders -> the students surround the police so they physically cannot move out of the circle, and demand that they release the arrested students -> start chanting shit like "let them free and you can leave" and "fuck the police!" -> verbal warnings issued, students take it as a joke -> last resort pepper spray -> bitchfit ensues
This thread has seriously focused on completely the wrong point  Once the police were called to evict the protesters there was always going to be an escalation. Yes, Pepper Spray was extreme. Keep in mind that some other form of force would have been necessary to remove the students. We have argued back and forth about the use of pepper spray but virtually nothing has been said about why the protesters had to leave at all. Activism is a part of student life. There are protests every single day. This one was clearly more permanent than others and so had greater risks. However the reason the chancellor gave for moving the students was that it was hazardhous to their health to stay. That's right, getting pepper sprayed is healthier than living in a tent. The students` protest was illegal and the chancellor had a choice to remove them. Why would you risk the safety of those protesting by calling in the police. First off, ask them to leave. As has been said, some people were already packing up. Yes you would have your hard core few but by calling in the police you are actively escalating the situation. There is a much higher risk of harm for what benefit? People can now walk freely along a path  Chancelor made a huge mistake and the police are paying for it. People don't want her to resign because of the tuition. They want her to resign because she chose to put the protesters safety at risk. As a chancellor, safety of students should be your first priority. By calling in the police, she escalated the potential for an altercation. Hence the calls for her to resign.
I realize that the reason people are asking for her resignation isn't the tuition. That's the problem. Who cares if people get pepper sprayed? neither me, nor my friends (one of whom got pepper sprayed, btw) care about the pepper spray incident. It was stupid, and the police involved already resigned/were put on leave. End of story.
We had been been going out there to protest for a couple of weeks straight. In fact, students had occupied dutton hall that monday and police were called then as well. Did anything violent happen? nope. the students merely left, and then returned on thursday and set up camp once again.
The pepper spray incident only happened because a couple of high and mighty protestors rallied the crowd, and aggravated the police. If the students there had been headstrong but not loud and obnoxious like they were, the police would have merely left. They couldn't arrest everyone, and the protest would have continued anyway. Their orders were to take down the tents, not to arrest anyone.
By the way, the weather was atrocious that night. High wind and rain. So while student safety was a stupid excuse, and ironic given how the situation panned out, it was somewhat legitimate. Her main reason though was she didn't want non-UC davis affiliated persons on campus during the weekend, when there was no staff around. (there was many a random homeless person in the initial crowd).
so everyone, please shut up about the pepper spray. yes police brutality sucks, but its not what our protests were originally about, and now our original efforts have been overshadowed by a rather aimless protest. Even now there is a large student committee looking into everything, while a few dozen tents dot the campus.
It has, and always will be about the money. We're in constant and close contact with the regents of the UC., yes there is a huge number of problems, but none of them will be solved by firing anyone. Those problems are higher than just here at davis, it's a problem with the state, lobbyists, and economy. For accurate information, you should listen to the segments aired on our radio station here: http://kdvs.org/ , including a meeting with regents on November 28th.
edit:
these are the emails that were sent out to us students.
+ Show Spoiler +November 18, 2011
To UC Davis Campus Community,
I am writing to tell you about events that occurred Friday afternoon at UC Davis relating to a group of protestors who chose to set up an encampment on the quad Thursday as part of a week of peaceful demonstrations on our campus that coincided with many other occupy movements at universities throughout the country.
The group did not respond to requests from administration and campus police to comply with campus rules that exist to protect the health and safety of our campus community. The group was informed in writing this morning that the encampment violated regulations designed to protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty. The group was further informed that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed.
Following our requests, several of the group chose to dismantle their tents this afternoon and we are grateful for their actions. However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal. We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident.
We appreciate and strongly defend the rights of all our students, faculty and staff to robust and respectful dialogue as a fundamental tenet of our great academic institution. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe and secure environment. We were aware that some of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus were not members of the UC Davis community and this required us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff. We take this responsibility very seriously.
While we have appreciated the peaceful and respectful tone of the demonstrations during the week, the encampment raised serious health and safety concerns, and the resources required to supervise this encampment could not be sustained, especially in these very tight economic times when our resources must support our core academic mission.
We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested. We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal.
We appreciate the substantive dialogue the students have begun here on campus as part of this week.s activities, and we want to offer appropriate opportunities to express opinions, advance the discussion and suggest solutions as part of the time-honored university tradition. We invite our entire campus community to consider the topics related to the occupy movement you would like to discuss and we pledge to work with you to develop a series of discussion forums throughout our campus.
I ask all members of the campus community for their support in ensuring a safe environment for all members of our campus community. We hope you will actively support us in accomplishing this objective.
Linda P.B. Katehi
Chancellor
+ Show Spoiler +
Nov 23rd
Dear UC Davis Students:
As many of you prepare to leave campus for time with friends and family over the Thanksgiving holiday, I want to personally wish you well and explain the difficult and fast-moving events of the past week.
Like the entire UC Davis community, I was appalled by the use of pepper spray against peacefully protesting students. I am truly sorry for what happened and will do everything in my power to make sure nothing like it ever occurs again on our campus.
In my position as Chancellor, there is no responsibility I take more seriously than the safety, protection and well-being of our students. Multiple investigations and reviews are underway to learn why police - despite my explicit instructions that no force be used in removing tents and other equipment from the area - elected to employ pepper spray. But let me again be clear: it was absolutely wrong and unnecessary.
We have placed the police chief and two officers involved in the incident on administrative leave pending the outcome of these investigations.
All criminal charges against those arrested last Friday are being dropped. I am eternally sorry for any injuries and harm we caused those young people. The university will pay related immediate medical and emergency bills.
The challenge before us now is to show the world the best of UC Davis, to reunite our campus and make whatever changes are needed in university policies regarding peaceful assembly and overall campus security.
Our campus is committed to providing a safe environment for all to learn freely and practice their civil rights of freedom of speech and expression. You have no bigger ally than me in your fight against higher tuition and I will continue to work for and speak out with you in favor of greater financial support for higher education in California.
I know that I need to spend more time with students, listening to their concerns, answering their questions and simply getting to know them better. As chancellor of such a large and busy university, I have many obligations and responsibilities but none are more important than working with you directly to make your time at UC Davis as enjoyable and fruitful as possible.
I have been meeting with many student groups both large and small in the past week and will do much more in the coming months. We must never lose sight of the fact that serving students is the reason we are all here.
Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. I look forward to seeing more of you in the weeks and months ahead.
Sincerely,
Linda P.B. Katehi
Chancellor
+ Show Spoiler +Dec 1st Dear UC Davis Community, I want to thank everyone for attending the recent student and then faculty and staff town hall meetings. I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to not only share my thoughts, but also hear from you. There are a number of investigations underway that will help us truly understand what happened on November 18. As you know, I requested that the UC Office of the President investigate this matter; the goal was to ensure an independent review. We have also launched our own internal investigation. More details on these and other independent investigations can be found in the fact sheet which was posted on our website on Tuesday: http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/pdfs/20111129_Fact Sheet-FINAL_crx.pdf . As Chancellor, I feel accountable for everything that happens on this campus and deeply regret what happened on Friday, November 18. We were all shocked by the pepper spray incident on our quad and wish that it had never happened. But it did, and now our community needs to come together, to heal and move forward. I promise to redouble my efforts to engage in a positive meaningful dialogue with everyone that is a part of the UC Davis community. Meetings with the various colleges are underway and more are being scheduled. Following winter break, I am also planning to meet with students in the dorms and at other locations throughout the campus. I will also be talking to our parents and alumni about our campus' plans going forward. Lawmakers in Sacramento will hear from me about our shared concerns with rising cost of education. I've given a great deal of thought on various ways we can continue to engage in a positive, meaningful dialogue. More details can be found in my remarks at the recent faculty and staff town hall: http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/speeches-writings/2011/faculty_staff_town_hall_11.29.11.html . Your input is critical to making this process a success, and I look forward to continuing our conversations. Thank you for your strength and commitment to our UC Davis community. Sincerely, Linda P.B. Katehi Chancellor
|
I definitely agree with the OP's opinion. They definitely should've been arrested in a better way; after all, it was a non-violent protest, I doubt any of the students would've resisted being handcuffed and led out. In my opinion, if they had resisted it would have been okay to use this kind of force.
BUT, I'm a little biased towards law enforcement, so I don't feel bad for any of those students.
|
Having read the emails posted above, I'm glad to see investigations being conducted and officers being placed on "administrative leave" (paid, I'm sure). Of course, the students attending UC Davis will be absorbing these additional costs, which is perhaps ironic, as they seem to be protesting, in part at least, the costs of tuition ...
|
[/QUOTE]
1. So in your estimation, police should be allowed to physically attack protesters who yell hurtful things at them? At what volume level (or is more of a meanness rating sort of thing) does someone cross the line from peaceful protester to non-peaceful protester?
2. I think you're confusing the poor, who rarely attend college at all, with the middle and upper class, who attend college and take out large loans to attain non- or semi-profitable degrees. And at any rate "educating the poor" would require tremendous political resources and a upheaval of the status quo, which leaves a great deal of impoverished children trapped in underfunded and shitty inner-city schools. Your line of argument is an old and frankly insulting one: "If only poor people knew how to live their lives as intelligently as us better off people, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands."
And we should look to Finland? Nothing but love for Finland, but their entire population is a million or so over half that of New York City's. And they are much more culturally and ethnically homogenous than the U.S.A. You could say that the educational system of America faces a different set of obstacles than the educational system of Finland and it would be a gross understatement.
3. Once again I am stumped. Yes, we are better off than a lot of other countries. No, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address perceived injustices or imperfections in the sphere of higher education or politics. Rising tuition costs have farther reaching consequences than merely pissing off self-entitled college kids. Just off the top of my head, they could, I dunno, pose problems for getting the poor their much needed education on how to properly run their lives.
And also saying that the UC Davis protests at which the kids were pepper sprayed were simply about rising tuition is a bit reductionist. But I have a sneaking suspicion that overly reductionist might be a habitual disposition where you're concerned.[/QUOTE]
1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
|
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
|
On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
edit:
Educate yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
|
Why exactly did you do
On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:
"non-violent"
that. I certainly hope you weren't implying the protestors were in fact violent, that would be pretty dumb!
|
I don't really see a problem with this. They were violating laws, and police told them to leave. They refused and the response was less than lethal force to break up the "event".
The alternative would have been to arrest every single one of them with use of physical force.
|
On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
|
On December 06 2011 08:01 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd. More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force: #1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray. #2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns. #3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
#1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant.
#2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees.
#3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ?
Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
|
On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
thank you, i'm glad i'm not the only person here missing a brain
|
On December 06 2011 08:30 wrags wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. thank you, i'm glad i'm not the only person here missing a brain
Umm... Is that really what you meant to say ???
|
On December 06 2011 08:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 08:30 wrags wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. thank you, i'm glad i'm not the only person here missing a brain Umm... Is that really what you meant to say ???
LOL
|
On December 06 2011 07:43 JackDanger wrote:Why exactly did you do that. I certainly hope you weren't implying the protestors were in fact violent, that would be pretty dumb!
I put it in quotes because everybody locks onto that "non-violent" phrase and automatically concludes that pepper spray was excessive. The people sitting down, encircling the cops, with arms interlocked were physically resistant to law enforcement. If they weren't non-violent, they would have been classified as "assaultive" in the Use of Force model, which would have resulted in an ass beating, not merely pepper spray. The physical resistance, the interlocking of the arms, is what brought us to the level of pepper spray. They weren't just individuals sitting down around a field, who the cops could have picked up easily. They were grouped together with locked arms preventing such low-level law enforcement response.
|
On December 06 2011 08:25 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 08:01 No_Roo wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd. More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force: #1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray. #2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns. #3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons. #1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant. #2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees. #3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ? Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that.
|
On November 21 2011 13:58 nohbrows wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 13:54 YoureFired wrote:
I'm not sure if pepper spray was correct in this instance, although I can't see any other way for the police to move the students barring physically accosting them. I agree with what the students are arguing for but they definitely could have found a better method. Well, I mean, physically moving someone is a given. They aren't gonna be asked to get up and leave. But I mean, come on, couldn't they just have just handcuffed all of them at once (they were in a chain), make them stand up and leave. Do you really have to resort to pepper spraying someone when you are a phsyically fit Police Officer who can probably take on a full grown man any day. perhaps there is a Police officer (active or retired) on Teamliquid that can give some insight into this?
You can try this at home:
You- sit on the gound and go limp, interlock your arms with 2 other people.
Team of Friends- Try to 'just pick you up and move you'.
Anyone with kids will tell you that once a kid goes 'limp' when he/she's upset, it's damn near impossible to pick the kid up or hold him without great effort.
OC spray is for non-compliance when force 'may' be used.
|
On December 06 2011 08:51 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 08:25 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 08:01 No_Roo wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd. More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force: #1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray. #2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns. #3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons. #1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant. #2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees. #3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ? Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%. More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that.
How many officers were on the scene ? Is that not enough to handle a bunch of "non-violent" protestors who were doing nothing but sitting down ? How many do you suggest should be called upon to handle this situation ? Perhaps they could bring in the National Guard as well ? Shit, we have troops coming back from Iraq, perhaps we should enlist their support too. Or maybe we just accept that sometimes someone who actively attempts to prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs gets dealt with.
|
On December 06 2011 09:00 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 08:51 No_Roo wrote:On December 06 2011 08:25 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 08:01 No_Roo wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum. We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd. More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force: #1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray. #2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns. #3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons. #1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant. #2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees. #3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ? Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%. More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that. How many officers were on the scene ? Is that not enough to handle a bunch of "non-violent" protestors who were doing nothing but sitting down ? How many do you suggest should be called upon to handle this situation ? Perhaps they could bring in the National Guard as well ? Shit, we have troops coming back from Iraq, perhaps we should enlist their support too. Or maybe we just accept that sometimes someone who actively attempts to prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs gets dealt with.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed. At this point, as a courtesy I'll go ahead and inform you that your hyperbole is showing.
|
On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference. A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal. When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When? As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen. Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives. Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
|
If someone got their face bashed in or killed I think a discussion about unnecessary or brutal use of force would be fair; however, since that didn't happen, this really won't go anywhere. I'd like to think if someone were "camping" on my property and I asked the police to do something about it, that the police would actually have some sort of power to REMOVE THE FUCKER.
No offence to any of you who feel some personal vendetta against police for doing their jobs, but think of yourself as a property or business owner (however difficult that may be) trying to get some assholes off your own property for just a second. I applaud the police for not going overboard. A little pep / mace to the face? Bring it on protesters. Maybe wear gogs / a gas mask next time you stage a peaceful "camping". Just be glad you didn't die and can live to protest another day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
