On December 06 2011 09:27 striderxxx wrote: the police WARNED THEM REPEATEDLY before they would spray them, yet they didn't move. it's not like it was suprise, that's why the students didn't move. they knew it was coming and decided to try and endure it.
I'm about to assault you, don't worry i warned you before hand. All good right? right?
so to be honest i wasn't going to post on this thread because... well discussions like this just piss me off and i'm verry open minded so i can just imagine how other feel. But this comment right here is the most biased thing i have read on TL yet.
Your logic with your comment is no different then telling someone to prove something doesn't exist when faced with an argument about the possibility of it not existing. The police by law had the right to use force there and they were letting the students know that. What you fail to realize is that was a police warning, where as what your reffering to would be assult.
What it all comes down to is this. The students were asked many times to move, they did not, they were told that force will be used on them if they don't move they did not. So the police went to the easiest solution which would safely remove any threat from the situation. the use of mace. And you can argue all you want "it's a peacefull protest what's so threatening about unnarmed students." For people who want to use that argument i have one thing to say for you. They were showing signs of violence through out the whole thing, encircling and telling the police they cannot leave if they don't let there friends go, as well as remarks against the police themselves.
So now i'll ask you a question, when you are outnumbered 5+ to 1 and for arresting 3 people have the entire campus swarm around you telling you, you cannot leave. What do you think would be the safest way to get your men out of there? Trying to forcefully pull apart the students who refused to leave before and will more then likely fight to stay linked by the arms. Or to simply incapacitate them in a safe humane way. Yes i understand they are chemicals, but they are used by the police force because there have never been events of injury from getting sprayed once. Every officer when going through training has to be tazed and sprayed they know how it feels and they can judge better then people who don't if it was going to far or not.
I guess my comment does sound ridiculous out of context of responding to the guy above me. That doesn't really give you a reason to be an apologist for the police doing something wrong. There was no violence from the crowd. And the police where not prevented from leaving. They used violence against people behaving peacefully.
And when you look at it like that this is true, but all i'm trying to say is that is a very biased opinion. if you were in the officers shoes you would have to be thinking of every possibility, there have been countless "peaceful" protests that have turned violent over absolutely nothing. what you basically have is a crowd of riled up teenagers who will agree with basically whatever anyone around them says, it's not that far fetched to believe that it should turn to violence especially when they encircle you shouting you cannot leave etc for arresting 3 people who were warned many times that if they didn't comply they would be arrested.
You also got to think of it as you have 50+ camera's recording everything you do and video's will be over youtube out of context everywhere. which looks worste simply pepperspraying someone or forcefully pulling people apart were talking about officers who whole job is riding on how they handle the situation and what is shown in the video some college art major posts on youtube. Cause everyone knows and i can post links to it proving my point. the media will not show the whole thing they will only show incidents like the pepperspray and then treat the students as a victim or martyr without showing the whole story.
Basically all i'm trying to say is if you look at it from the officer in charge's point of view i don't think many people could have handled it better and it could have easily turned violent if the officers attempted to pry the protestors apart.
What opinion? If every policeman would react according to what COULD HAPPEN NEXT, well I wouldn't want to live in that place. One could argue the police should have never been there in the first place.
What stood the highest chance of inciting violence against the police is them witnessing the police assault their friends for sitting on a fucking sidewalk.
The fact is they were called in there, they had no choice but to be there as that is there job. And i'll tell you what, when your putting your safety on the line, during a peacefull protest or otherwise i would love to see you stand there with a smile on and try to talk out a situation while stores are getting robbed etc because your held up by a line of children who cannot act there age.
Once again you take it out of context to make them look like victims it's not that they were just sitting on the sidewalk it's that they were blocking the path of the officers vehicle and the officers themselves to get the arrested individuals into the police vehicle.
All i'm going to ask is stop twisting the story and look at what is true and what is false not what you want to believe. If you don't like cops that's fine leave it out of your thoughts and look at the facts given using your own mind to decide what you think is right and wrong not what you are told to believe by others.
It's very funny you ask me to stop "twisting" the story.
On November 21 2011 14:02 Kuja wrote: What did these children think would happen? Im so glad they got what was coming to them. Obviously Steve Jobs/Bill Gates didn't make their fortune circle jerking on the campus. If the kids could do 1/100 of what our rich do for us they would all be loaded; But they cant, they're to stupid. They don't have to work do they? People should work for them and they should get the money right? But in all honestly, i haven't had as good a laugh in a long time as these videos gave me, Thanks. EDIT: Also it was MACE, not pepper spray, which makes it even funnier.
And why hasn't this person been banned for trolling?
On December 06 2011 09:27 striderxxx wrote: the police WARNED THEM REPEATEDLY before they would spray them, yet they didn't move. it's not like it was suprise, that's why the students didn't move. they knew it was coming and decided to try and endure it.
I'm about to assault you, don't worry i warned you before hand. All good right? right?
so to be honest i wasn't going to post on this thread because... well discussions like this just piss me off and i'm verry open minded so i can just imagine how other feel. But this comment right here is the most biased thing i have read on TL yet.
Your logic with your comment is no different then telling someone to prove something doesn't exist when faced with an argument about the possibility of it not existing. The police by law had the right to use force there and they were letting the students know that. What you fail to realize is that was a police warning, where as what your reffering to would be assult.
What it all comes down to is this. The students were asked many times to move, they did not, they were told that force will be used on them if they don't move they did not. So the police went to the easiest solution which would safely remove any threat from the situation. the use of mace. And you can argue all you want "it's a peacefull protest what's so threatening about unnarmed students." For people who want to use that argument i have one thing to say for you. They were showing signs of violence through out the whole thing, encircling and telling the police they cannot leave if they don't let there friends go, as well as remarks against the police themselves.
So now i'll ask you a question, when you are outnumbered 5+ to 1 and for arresting 3 people have the entire campus swarm around you telling you, you cannot leave. What do you think would be the safest way to get your men out of there? Trying to forcefully pull apart the students who refused to leave before and will more then likely fight to stay linked by the arms. Or to simply incapacitate them in a safe humane way. Yes i understand they are chemicals, but they are used by the police force because there have never been events of injury from getting sprayed once. Every officer when going through training has to be tazed and sprayed they know how it feels and they can judge better then people who don't if it was going to far or not.
I guess my comment does sound ridiculous out of context of responding to the guy above me. That doesn't really give you a reason to be an apologist for the police doing something wrong. There was no violence from the crowd. And the police where not prevented from leaving. They used violence against people behaving peacefully.
And when you look at it like that this is true, but all i'm trying to say is that is a very biased opinion. if you were in the officers shoes you would have to be thinking of every possibility, there have been countless "peaceful" protests that have turned violent over absolutely nothing. what you basically have is a crowd of riled up teenagers who will agree with basically whatever anyone around them says, it's not that far fetched to believe that it should turn to violence especially when they encircle you shouting you cannot leave etc for arresting 3 people who were warned many times that if they didn't comply they would be arrested.
You also got to think of it as you have 50+ camera's recording everything you do and video's will be over youtube out of context everywhere. which looks worste simply pepperspraying someone or forcefully pulling people apart were talking about officers who whole job is riding on how they handle the situation and what is shown in the video some college art major posts on youtube. Cause everyone knows and i can post links to it proving my point. the media will not show the whole thing they will only show incidents like the pepperspray and then treat the students as a victim or martyr without showing the whole story.
Basically all i'm trying to say is if you look at it from the officer in charge's point of view i don't think many people could have handled it better and it could have easily turned violent if the officers attempted to pry the protestors apart.
What opinion? If every policeman would react according to what COULD HAPPEN NEXT, well I wouldn't want to live in that place. One could argue the police should have never been there in the first place.
What stood the highest chance of inciting violence against the police is them witnessing the police assault their friends for sitting on a fucking sidewalk.
The fact is they were called in there, they had no choice but to be there as that is there job. And i'll tell you what, when your putting your safety on the line, during a peacefull protest or otherwise i would love to see you stand there with a smile on and try to talk out a situation while stores are getting robbed etc because your held up by a line of children who cannot act there age.
Once again you take it out of context to make them look like victims it's not that they were just sitting on the sidewalk it's that they were blocking the path of the officers vehicle and the officers themselves to get the arrested individuals into the police vehicle.
All i'm going to ask is stop twisting the story and look at what is true and what is false not what you want to believe. If you don't like cops that's fine leave it out of your thoughts and look at the facts given using your own mind to decide what you think is right and wrong not what you are told to believe by others.
It's very funny you ask me to stop "twisting" the story.
if you want to make personal assults on my argument go right ahead just know that your making a fool out of yourself. those are the facts, they were blocking the sidewalk that the police vehicle was parked on. That is a fact, no twisting involved. and as for putting yourself in there shoes, i fail to see why you even bothered underlining that.
Either come up with an actual argument or get your childish act out of this thread because your not helping any your just making a fool of yourself.
On November 21 2011 14:02 Kuja wrote: What did these children think would happen? Im so glad they got what was coming to them. Obviously Steve Jobs/Bill Gates didn't make their fortune circle jerking on the campus. If the kids could do 1/100 of what our rich do for us they would all be loaded; But they cant, they're to stupid. They don't have to work do they? People should work for them and they should get the money right? But in all honestly, i haven't had as good a laugh in a long time as these videos gave me, Thanks. EDIT: Also it was MACE, not pepper spray, which makes it even funnier.
And why hasn't this person been banned for trolling?
Come on mate, that post was two weeks ago. What is the point in taking action now? Besides if you have an issue, send a PM to a mod, no point posting in the thread.
On December 06 2011 09:27 striderxxx wrote: the police WARNED THEM REPEATEDLY before they would spray them, yet they didn't move. it's not like it was suprise, that's why the students didn't move. they knew it was coming and decided to try and endure it.
I'm about to assault you, don't worry i warned you before hand. All good right? right?
so to be honest i wasn't going to post on this thread because... well discussions like this just piss me off and i'm verry open minded so i can just imagine how other feel. But this comment right here is the most biased thing i have read on TL yet.
Your logic with your comment is no different then telling someone to prove something doesn't exist when faced with an argument about the possibility of it not existing. The police by law had the right to use force there and they were letting the students know that. What you fail to realize is that was a police warning, where as what your reffering to would be assult.
What it all comes down to is this. The students were asked many times to move, they did not, they were told that force will be used on them if they don't move they did not. So the police went to the easiest solution which would safely remove any threat from the situation. the use of mace. And you can argue all you want "it's a peacefull protest what's so threatening about unnarmed students." For people who want to use that argument i have one thing to say for you. They were showing signs of violence through out the whole thing, encircling and telling the police they cannot leave if they don't let there friends go, as well as remarks against the police themselves.
So now i'll ask you a question, when you are outnumbered 5+ to 1 and for arresting 3 people have the entire campus swarm around you telling you, you cannot leave. What do you think would be the safest way to get your men out of there? Trying to forcefully pull apart the students who refused to leave before and will more then likely fight to stay linked by the arms. Or to simply incapacitate them in a safe humane way. Yes i understand they are chemicals, but they are used by the police force because there have never been events of injury from getting sprayed once. Every officer when going through training has to be tazed and sprayed they know how it feels and they can judge better then people who don't if it was going to far or not.
I guess my comment does sound ridiculous out of context of responding to the guy above me. That doesn't really give you a reason to be an apologist for the police doing something wrong. There was no violence from the crowd. And the police where not prevented from leaving. They used violence against people behaving peacefully.
And when you look at it like that this is true, but all i'm trying to say is that is a very biased opinion. if you were in the officers shoes you would have to be thinking of every possibility, there have been countless "peaceful" protests that have turned violent over absolutely nothing. what you basically have is a crowd of riled up teenagers who will agree with basically whatever anyone around them says, it's not that far fetched to believe that it should turn to violence especially when they encircle you shouting you cannot leave etc for arresting 3 people who were warned many times that if they didn't comply they would be arrested.
You also got to think of it as you have 50+ camera's recording everything you do and video's will be over youtube out of context everywhere. which looks worste simply pepperspraying someone or forcefully pulling people apart were talking about officers who whole job is riding on how they handle the situation and what is shown in the video some college art major posts on youtube. Cause everyone knows and i can post links to it proving my point. the media will not show the whole thing they will only show incidents like the pepperspray and then treat the students as a victim or martyr without showing the whole story.
Basically all i'm trying to say is if you look at it from the officer in charge's point of view i don't think many people could have handled it better and it could have easily turned violent if the officers attempted to pry the protestors apart.
What opinion? If every policeman would react according to what COULD HAPPEN NEXT, well I wouldn't want to live in that place. One could argue the police should have never been there in the first place.
What stood the highest chance of inciting violence against the police is them witnessing the police assault their friends for sitting on a fucking sidewalk.
The fact is they were called in there, they had no choice but to be there as that is there job. And i'll tell you what, when your putting your safety on the line, during a peacefull protest or otherwise i would love to see you stand there with a smile on and try to talk out a situation while stores are getting robbed etc because your held up by a line of children who cannot act there age.
Once again you take it out of context to make them look like victims it's not that they were just sitting on the sidewalk it's that they were blocking the path of the officers vehicle and the officers themselves to get the arrested individuals into the police vehicle.
All i'm going to ask is stop twisting the story and look at what is true and what is false not what you want to believe. If you don't like cops that's fine leave it out of your thoughts and look at the facts given using your own mind to decide what you think is right and wrong not what you are told to believe by others.
It's very funny you ask me to stop "twisting" the story.
if you want to make personal assults on my argument
Personal assaults on your argument? An argument isn't a person, what were you trying to say? Are you suggesting that muse has made some sort of ad hominem attack against you? He accused you of miss representing the story, that's not a personal attack.
You on the other hand...
"Either come up with an actual argument or get your childish act out of this thread because your not helping any your just making a fool of yourself."
How the hell can your argument get attacked when for most of it you were just saying what happened in the video. The fuck is with people taking sides here. Are you telling me the protesters were in the right? Are you telling me the police were in the right? If you're arguing anyone of these by themselves, then you should probably kick yourself out of the argument right now. Shooting pepper spray that close and potentially causing serious damage? That's a paddlin'. Threatening cops who are trying to remain peaceful and just doing their job? That's a paddlin'. Not addressing both these parties? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin'. (Hopefully the simpsons reference kept this comment interesting)
9.2.3.4.3 (01-23-2004) When Oleoresin Capsicum May Be Used
Special agents may use OC when they perceive that weaponless control techniques are or may be insufficient to maintain lawful control.
also:
9.2.3.3 (01-23-2004) Weaponless Control
Weaponless control is the most commonly used control and restraint. Techniques include:
special agent presence and approach
identification
verbal commands
contact controls
compliance techniques
defensive tactics
Weaponless controls are based on fundamental policing skills and capitalize upon the acceptance of authority by the general public.
I think the bolded last sentence is telling. These people were not accepting the authority of the officers.
You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're quoting. You've posted use of force guidelines for U.S. Treasury Agents, not UC Davis campus police officers. Additionally, the part you've bolded for emphasis doesn't have anything to do with when to use weaponless controls or, for that matter, pepper spray (which the first part of the document you've quoted clearly excludes from the category of weaponless control). The part you bolded is just a general observation about weaponless control tactics, namely that they work well because the general public accepts the authority of agents to do their job. It has nothing to do with when they ought to be applied.
So, in review:
1) You've posted a document that describes use of force guidelines for IRS agents, not police officers.
2) The part you've bolded concerns weaponless control tactics, from which pepper spray is expressly excluded by earlier lines in the same document.
3) Furthermore, the bolded section simply makes a general statement about weaponless control tactics, rather than describing a situation in which they could be acceptably employed.
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.
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.
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.
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
The physics department's letter to the chancellor asking for her resignation actually expressed my view on why she should resign perfectly. I couldn't hope to be more eloquent then them so I'll just post it here:
With a heavy heart and substantial deliberation, we the undersigned faculty of the UC Davis physics department send you this letter expressing our lack of confidence in your leadership and calling for your prompt resignation in the wake of the outrageous, unnecessary, and brutal pepper spraying episode on campus Friday, Nov. 18.
The reasons for this are as follows.
• The demonstrations were nonviolent, and the student encampments posed no threat to the university community. The outcomes of sending in police in Oakland, Berkeley, New York City, Portland, and Seattle should have led you to exhaust all other options before resorting to police action.
• Authorizing force after a single day of encampments constitutes a gross violation of the UC Davis principles of community, especially the commitment to civility: “We affirm the right of freedom of expression within our community and affirm our commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency towards all.”
• Your response in the aftermath of these incidents has failed to restore trust in your leadership in the university community.
We have appreciated your leadership during these difficult times on working to maintain and enhance excellence at UC Davis. However, this incident and the inadequacy of your response to it has already irreparably damaged the image of UC Davis and caused the faculty, students, parents, and alumni of UC Davis to lose confidence in your leadership. At this point we feel that the best thing that you can do for this university is to take full responsibility and resign immediately. Our campus community deserves a fresh start.
9.2.3.4.3 (01-23-2004) When Oleoresin Capsicum May Be Used
Special agents may use OC when they perceive that weaponless control techniques are or may be insufficient to maintain lawful control.
also:
9.2.3.3 (01-23-2004) Weaponless Control
Weaponless control is the most commonly used control and restraint. Techniques include:
special agent presence and approach
identification
verbal commands
contact controls
compliance techniques
defensive tactics
Weaponless controls are based on fundamental policing skills and capitalize upon the acceptance of authority by the general public.
I think the bolded last sentence is telling. These people were not accepting the authority of the officers.
You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're quoting. You've posted use of force guidelines for U.S. Treasury Agents, not UC Davis campus police officers. Additionally, the part you've bolded for emphasis doesn't have anything to do with when to use weaponless controls or, for that matter, pepper spray (which the first part of the document you've quoted clearly excludes from the category of weaponless control). The part you bolded is just a general observation about weaponless control tactics, namely that they work well because the general public accepts the authority of agents to do their job. It has nothing to do with when they ought to be applied.
So, in review:
1) You've posted a document that describes use of force guidelines for IRS agents, not police officers.
2) The part you've bolded concerns weaponless control tactics, from which pepper spray is expressly excluded by earlier lines in the same document.
3) Furthermore, the bolded section simply makes a general statement about weaponless control tactics, rather than describing a situation in which they could be acceptably employed.
I have a clear understanding of what I quoted, however I miscalculated your ability to read and draw logical conclusions. I referred in an earlier post to FEDERAL use of force guidelines, which I have now posted. The bolded part spells out the fact that the use of weaponless controls is based on the people they are attempting to control respecting the authority of the law enforcement officers. These protestors clearly did not. Therefore, the basis for "weaponless" controls are inherently less effective. That is why I bolded it and that's why the part about weaponless controls was included in my post.
So, in review:
1) That spells out the use of force guidelines for ALL TREASURY FEDERAL AGENTS, not just IRS. Do you think different agencies of the Federal Government are going to have significantly different policies ? There is no reason to think they would differ by much. Further, do you expect local law enforcement agencies to have drastically different models than the Feds ? They could, but it's certainly easier to defend if it's close to the US. Further, I posted that because it's the CURRENTLY IN EFFECT guidelines, not something from 20 years ago or some wikipedia source.
2) Here's where that ability to draw logical conclusions would have come in handy. The weaponless control tactics part was quoted to demonstrate that it simply was not to be effective in the particular case at hand. Therefore, the escalation to the pepper spray.
3) Here's where the ability to read comes in. I posted a link to the source, wherein there are descriptions of where each level of force is acceptable. I simply didn't include the entire text in my post. That's what links are for. Further reading...
I don't know what entered the atmosphere this year that made all the rich (relatively speaking), white, entitled liberal arts students go crazy, but by golly we've got a genuine epidemic on our hands here people...
9.2.3.4.3 (01-23-2004) When Oleoresin Capsicum May Be Used
Special agents may use OC when they perceive that weaponless control techniques are or may be insufficient to maintain lawful control.
also:
9.2.3.3 (01-23-2004) Weaponless Control
Weaponless control is the most commonly used control and restraint. Techniques include:
special agent presence and approach
identification
verbal commands
contact controls
compliance techniques
defensive tactics
Weaponless controls are based on fundamental policing skills and capitalize upon the acceptance of authority by the general public.
I think the bolded last sentence is telling. These people were not accepting the authority of the officers.
You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're quoting. You've posted use of force guidelines for U.S. Treasury Agents, not UC Davis campus police officers. Additionally, the part you've bolded for emphasis doesn't have anything to do with when to use weaponless controls or, for that matter, pepper spray (which the first part of the document you've quoted clearly excludes from the category of weaponless control). The part you bolded is just a general observation about weaponless control tactics, namely that they work well because the general public accepts the authority of agents to do their job. It has nothing to do with when they ought to be applied.
So, in review:
1) You've posted a document that describes use of force guidelines for IRS agents, not police officers.
2) The part you've bolded concerns weaponless control tactics, from which pepper spray is expressly excluded by earlier lines in the same document.
3) Furthermore, the bolded section simply makes a general statement about weaponless control tactics, rather than describing a situation in which they could be acceptably employed.
I have a clear understanding of what I quoted, however I miscalculated your ability to read and draw logical conclusions. I referred in an earlier post to FEDERAL use of force guidelines, which I have now posted. The bolded part spells out the fact that the use of weaponless controls is based on the people they are attempting to control respecting the authority of the law enforcement officers. These protestors clearly did not. Therefore, the basis for "weaponless" controls are inherently less effective. That is why I bolded it and that's why the part about weaponless controls was included in my post.
So, in review:
1) That spells out the use of force guidelines for ALL TREASURY FEDERAL AGENTS, not just IRS. Do you think different agencies of the Federal Government are going to have significantly different policies ? There is no reason to think they would differ by much. Further, do you expect local law enforcement agencies to have drastically different models than the Feds ? They could, but it's certainly easier to defend if it's close to the US. Further, I posted that because it's the CURRENTLY IN EFFECT guidelines, not something from 20 years ago or some wikipedia source.
2) Here's where that ability to draw logical conclusions would have come in handy. The weaponless control tactics part was quoted to demonstrate that it simply was not to be effective in the particular case at hand. Therefore, the escalation to the pepper spray.
3) Here's where the ability to read comes in. I posted a link to the source, wherein there are descriptions of where each level of force is acceptable. I simply didn't include the entire text in my post. That's what links are for. Further reading...
So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
And there is nothing in your quote that would help arbitrate either way on the question of whether or not seated protesters violate "lawful control," nor does, I repeat, the bolded section have anything to say one way or another about when a situation should be escalated from weaponless tactics to chemical agents. Once again, it's simply a description of the type and the nature of the weaponless control tactics that treasury agents (not to be confused with campus police officers) employ.
On December 06 2011 16:43 DminusTerran wrote: I don't know what entered the atmosphere this year that made all the rich (relatively speaking), white, entitled liberal arts students go crazy, but by golly we've got a genuine epidemic on our hands here people...
I know, right? It's weird! Things have being going so fucking well for the United States for the past decade or so. Unnecessary wars abroad, restriction of civil rights at home, deadlocked partisan politics, public education that continues to lag behind other developed nations, rampant obesity, economic meltdown... personally I can't see why anyone would be upset. What a bunch of whiners.
9.2.3.4.3 (01-23-2004) When Oleoresin Capsicum May Be Used
Special agents may use OC when they perceive that weaponless control techniques are or may be insufficient to maintain lawful control.
also:
9.2.3.3 (01-23-2004) Weaponless Control
Weaponless control is the most commonly used control and restraint. Techniques include:
special agent presence and approach
identification
verbal commands
contact controls
compliance techniques
defensive tactics
Weaponless controls are based on fundamental policing skills and capitalize upon the acceptance of authority by the general public.
I think the bolded last sentence is telling. These people were not accepting the authority of the officers.
You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're quoting. You've posted use of force guidelines for U.S. Treasury Agents, not UC Davis campus police officers. Additionally, the part you've bolded for emphasis doesn't have anything to do with when to use weaponless controls or, for that matter, pepper spray (which the first part of the document you've quoted clearly excludes from the category of weaponless control). The part you bolded is just a general observation about weaponless control tactics, namely that they work well because the general public accepts the authority of agents to do their job. It has nothing to do with when they ought to be applied.
So, in review:
1) You've posted a document that describes use of force guidelines for IRS agents, not police officers.
2) The part you've bolded concerns weaponless control tactics, from which pepper spray is expressly excluded by earlier lines in the same document.
3) Furthermore, the bolded section simply makes a general statement about weaponless control tactics, rather than describing a situation in which they could be acceptably employed.
I have a clear understanding of what I quoted, however I miscalculated your ability to read and draw logical conclusions. I referred in an earlier post to FEDERAL use of force guidelines, which I have now posted. The bolded part spells out the fact that the use of weaponless controls is based on the people they are attempting to control respecting the authority of the law enforcement officers. These protestors clearly did not. Therefore, the basis for "weaponless" controls are inherently less effective. That is why I bolded it and that's why the part about weaponless controls was included in my post.
So, in review:
1) That spells out the use of force guidelines for ALL TREASURY FEDERAL AGENTS, not just IRS. Do you think different agencies of the Federal Government are going to have significantly different policies ? There is no reason to think they would differ by much. Further, do you expect local law enforcement agencies to have drastically different models than the Feds ? They could, but it's certainly easier to defend if it's close to the US. Further, I posted that because it's the CURRENTLY IN EFFECT guidelines, not something from 20 years ago or some wikipedia source.
2) Here's where that ability to draw logical conclusions would have come in handy. The weaponless control tactics part was quoted to demonstrate that it simply was not to be effective in the particular case at hand. Therefore, the escalation to the pepper spray.
3) Here's where the ability to read comes in. I posted a link to the source, wherein there are descriptions of where each level of force is acceptable. I simply didn't include the entire text in my post. That's what links are for. Further reading...
Your bolded section is a statement that explains why weaponless control can be effective, it does not describe escalation conditions or justifications. Of course this document has no application to local law enforcement departments any way, so it wouldn't matter if it did.
The logical fallacy you have tried to obfuscate here goes as follows.
"Weaponless control is effective when the general public respects the authority of the agency." "These protesters did not respect the authority of the berkley police department." "Therefore, weaponless control is not effective against them."
This discussion is so dumb. I'm not even going to start to try to wade through all the lunacy that those people who will support law enforcement no matter how far they go are spitting out.
For this entire thread to conclude, we just need ONE argument that shows how dousing a sitting line of peaceful protesters in chemicals was not an excessive use of force. Just one.
The police were in no danger. They could have arrested the students who linked arms for impeding justice (they weren't resisting arrest). This was not a mob that needed controlling. As the meme on the internet shows, its absurd to just go around pepper-spraying everything.
Who cares is the real question? Excessive force? You have no idea how fast a situation can turn ugly, it only takes one spark for shit to hit the fan and all hell to break loose. However .. I believe the police were also wrong, but the students are even more idiotic. "The Whole World is Watching?" You wonder why people hate the United States, we're the only nation in the world that can live as well as we do and still have something to complain about! I bet half of them are tree hugging liberals anyways, a good douse of pepper spray will do them good. That's what happens when you give Government a bit too much control, they stomp on your rights.
I mean the fact that people choose to live in California is probably the biggest joke of all! A state that limits personal freedom more then any other state in the union, what did you expect to happen? Police brutality is nothing new to Cali.
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
EPT
Chancelor made a huge mistake and the police are paying for it. 
