On December 07 2011 09:36 Kaitlin wrote: I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
So pepper-spray one student. Problem solved.
Of course, why didn't we think of that earlier! That would obviously solve the problem. Congratz good sir. I tip my hat to you.
Now then, let's just think about this for a second. Pepper spray one student who had arms interlocked, and then I guess pull him apart? Which would still cause a bit of physical damage, but whatever. So now what? What exactly did that solve? If it were as simple as that, then the police weren't really surrounded, they could have gotten out at any time. Next, this would be much more likely to cause an uproar. Why? The crowd would be really angry at the suffering of that one person, then, but, not yet seeing a full demonstration of that weapon, be much more bold in what they would do, instead of hanging back. Multiple students getting sprayed shows the crowd the suffering of many and let's them know that the cops aren't afraid to do it to many more people. If the students thought the cops were being very careful to cause the least amount of damage, they would not have held back as they did. Of course, the second half of this is a possible outcome, but the first part is enough to let you know that that would solve absolutely nothing.
On December 07 2011 09:35 semantics wrote: Bull shit MasterBlasterCaster, police are trained to be cautious but they are not trained to use excessive force without recognizing proper threat, prove to me that the police officer felt personal danger getting close to the protesters and handling them, because if you watch the videos he gets up very close to them and talks to them he even touches them even so don't pull that shit.Yes it's pretty harmless that's why 2 people were hospitalized from the pepper spray during that event. You maybe had experience of 1 2 seconds of exposure but not being drenched in the substance to which not all pepper sprays are equal.
But he didn't try to pull them apart when their arms were interlocked, did he ? I'm of the position that their training is such that interlocked arms are demonstrated resistance of such measure. Why the fuck else would the protestors interlock their arms ? If arms weren't interlocked, cops could have made efforts to pick them up. Protestors themselves escalated the response with the locking.
I haven't seen a video of them doing that, i do see video of them trying to break them apart after spraying them with pepper spray, you can also see people trying to help those people cover their faces as the officer goes back and forth spraying the protesters, a good video would be a continuous shot of when the protesters linked arms till the point where the officer decided to use pepper spray
haven't watched the whole thing yet just skimming though to see if i can find them trying to break them up but i would hope this is continuous footage you can also see how long the "from davis? to greece? fuck the police" lasts for about 10 seconds before people silence those from chanting that - I didn't see them try to break them up before the use of pepper spray, if anything the use of pepper spray was used as if to break them up from linking arms. I do notice them like talking to people over the radio alot.
They pull on them a few times through out the video I think, but never actually concentrate on separating them. It does take a few officers to split that line up of course, with just one or two the protesters would just keep relinking, so I assume the officers on site decided they didn't have the manpower right there to do it and secure the arrested. Hence the suggestions to wait for a few more officers to arrive to handle the line. :\
On December 07 2011 09:35 Tektos wrote: Trying to separate the students physically - if they resist you're either pushed to use more force when trying to separate the students (potentially resulting in police brutality lawsuits, or similar - this must be avoided at all costs). They aren't going to separate just by pushing them apart, you have to overpower them and pry their arms apart.
They were seperated anyway. Watch the video. I'm sure the pepper-spray only strengthened their resolve. Even if it weakened them, it wasn't neccessary.
Weakening them was the entire point, so they could be separated and the situation could be dissolved. There was no other way to do this without means that would result in excessive force. Not a single other viable resolution has been provided in this thread from what I have seen.
You can't just physically separate two people who are linking arms and actively trying to avoid being separated. It just doesn't work unless you overwhelm the people with force. Pepper spray was the only near peaceful option.
Peaceful? They were coughing up blood for three quarters of an hour.
So is physically separating people most likely resulting in a brawl more peaceful? Not in the slightest.
The students were warned of what was going to happen if they continued to resist, then they were warned again. They still refused to separate and hence the only appropriate course of action was taken.
The only approriate course of action?!? I gave many other scenarios which were less violent and more appropriate.
You've only said that more police should be called, and that is ridiculous there is a limited number of police they can't just keep calling more and more and more police whenever they are needed. Also, once these additional police get there, what course of non-violent action can be taken against protestors resisting arrest?
- The police were not subject to any physical attacks as far as I'm aware, but they were being threatened with such and they were also surrounded and unable to remove themselves from the situation without some use of force. Either physically prying the protesters apart or via pepper spray. They chose the less violent method.
They were not being threatend. They were told they could leave.
The police leaving is equivalent to someone not doing their job. They were there to resolve the situation, leaving wouldn't have done that.
As for the second bolded part: They can't just call in more police, there aren't an infinite number of police standing by waiting to be called if they are needed. And if more police were called, how would that have alleviated the situation without use of force? That is Kaitlin's point that people like you are failing to recognize the situation and the limited resources available.
Why do people keep making this argument?!!? Who needs an infinite number? There wasn't an infinite number of protesters.
What are the factors that complicate this scenario? Its so simple to me. There was a line of protesters. The cop had to deal with the line. He dealt with it using excessive force.
Not an infinite number, but the argument of "just bring in more police" implies that there are more police available to call in. There is a limited supply of officers, hence describing it as non-infinite.
They really need to review the university security rules. If this can happen at that time, I wonder how else they will handle other more chaotic situations.
You know I hate that excuse that one policeman could walk over the people who were sitting, and thus they were not blocked. You really think that is acceptable? Is that a proper path or means to go where you need to? Especially with police who have people in custody pending legal detention. If you want people to see this as an unjustified arrest, you have to let the police bring them into detention to have the right of habeas corpus, instead of resisting arrest or obstructing justice. It is the right of release of imprisonment against arrest, not the right against unlawful arrest.
If they really want to follow Gandhi, MLK Jr, or any other non-violent, law-disobedient protester, they need to realize they are going to have to fully take the injustices brought upon them for people to see that injustice. If they think laws are unjust and break them, they have to take the punishment for them to change. If there is no punishment for breaking laws, well... I don't want to get into that.
I don't think these college students are stupid or dumb, just that they are inexperienced and not mature enough to comprehend most of the situation that they've made or put themselves into. Escalating the situation to that point could of easily been avoided, and thus the pepperspray. Do not, I repeat, do not surround the police and demand things from them. Even though it's non-violent, it is a very threatening behavior. Being surrounded like that is in no way a safe situation to be in terms of mental behavior. Holding the police in a hostage-like situation is not good. Telling the campus police to get off campus is not a good idea either.
As for the police, I would of hoped to see more physical warning before the actual spraying occured. When the spray did occur, many people agree that it should not be used at that range. However, I am not a policeman or had any law enforcement training, so it's hard to say or critique what kind of training or idea of training they've had to deal with situations like this or similar. The reason why I say this is because they are dealing with upset students protesting, not some random petty criminal.
I can only really relate to the student's actions, because I have experienced college life recently, and that I too, am a young adult.
I'm not even going to bother anymore. Anyone who can look at a video of nonviolent protesters being doused with chemicals at point blank range and say that everything is fine is not worth my time.
Im just sorry that some people are so blinded by their own ignorance/stupidity/ideology that they can convince themselves that such outlandish claims, which amount to "pepper-hosing the whole line was better than just one" (601) or "pepper spraying and then seperating the students does not count as excessive force, but just seperating them in the first place would have been" (603), are legitimate defenses of the police officer.
I just can't believe that this is actually how people gauge the thoughtless use of violent force within their own moral ethic.
On December 07 2011 09:36 Kaitlin wrote: I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
Police removing protesters who were delaying nuclear waste transports: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2011 09:36 Kaitlin wrote: I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
Police removing protesters who were delaying nuclear waste transports: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb2LgVkjp1s
Thanks for posting that video. I do sincerely appreciate the effort. However, in each of those cases, the video shows the police standing up individuals who were not interlocking their arms. I understand the scene begins with people interlocking arms, but at the point the police remove anyone, they aren't interlocked. Also, those people being taken away seemed to be standing up with the "assistance" of the officers more than resisting from being picked up. My point has been that the act of interlocking arms is a statement of resistance from being removed, which doesn't appear in this video. The UC Davis group took and extra step demonstrating a resistance to being picked up, and I'm hoping we can find a video in the vast world of Youtube where law enforcement engages interlocked arms to pick people up.
Also, unrelated to the quoted post and video, does anyone else find it weird that people in this thread are 1) insisting upon the non-violent nature of these protestors, while at the same time 2) admitting that the number of officers on the scene was not adequate to handle the situation and additional forces needed to be called in.
I just don't get why so many officers need to be called in to handle a group of "non-violent" college kids with cell phones sitting down, when a single dose of pepper spray sufficed.
On December 07 2011 09:36 Kaitlin wrote: I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
Police removing protesters who were delaying nuclear waste transports: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb2LgVkjp1s
Also, unrelated to the quoted post and video, does anyone else find it weird that people in this thread are 1) insisting upon the non-violent nature of these protestors, while at the same time 2) admitting that the number of officers on the scene was not adequate to handle the situation and additional forces needed to be called in.
No not really, I would think most people understand that what constitutes a reasonable amount of police officers is more complicated than just a direct correlation to the amount of violence involved.
Should police pepper spray EVERY person they arrest JUST IN CASE they have a knife?
I believe that no police officer should EVER put himself in danger. If someone is resisting arrest or a lawful order I want the police officer to treat them as they would treat a rabid dog. Use ALL caution and necessary force to force IMMEDIATE compliance.
As I said, I don't know the specifics of this situation, and so I don't want to comment on it specifically. I am not even trying to excuse or justify what was done, just trying to explain that it is not so cut and dry, black and white, as some would have us believe. If I am going to be expected to think about the protestor's point of view (and I am honestly trying to do so) than I think it is not too much to ask for you to think about the police officer's point of view.
edit: I feel rather strongly about this particular subject (the one of "proper force") as I personally know a kid whose dad was killed by a "peaceful" perp during an arrest. He assumed the guy, who was apparently being calm and rational and even joking with the cop, was gonna be fine, and the guy shot him in the head. So, yeah, you could say that I err on the side of caution for police officers.
This mindset is a terrible, terrible problem.
A protester is not a perp. He or she is not a criminal, even when he or she is violating a sacred sidewalk ordinance. What a protester is is a participant in some of the oldest and most integral of democratic prerogatives—free expression, free assembly, public dissent. It's frankly infuriating to hear someone recommend use chemical agents against protesters based on the harm they could theoretically be plotting to visit upon the police officers sent to corral them.
Do you think the individuals involved in the Boston Tea Party applied for a permit beforehand? Do you wish that riot police had been there to put the kibosh on their clearly illegal antics with riot shields and batons and tear gas?
Recently the U.N. criticized the United States for how we have been handling OWS protests. One part of the critique really stands out to me:
The demonstrations are treated as if they're presumptively criminal. Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene.
Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Seems to me that the classy thing to do after so many of your arguments have been invalidated by pointing out the various logical fallacies they contained (and that you never bothered to address) would be to just move on. When you poke back in to nitpick with such strange biased interpretations all it does is confirm that you never had any intention of having an honest discussion or debate, and rather you only came in here to spin some sort of agenda. Disagreement is fine, but why not make an effort to be genuine about it?
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
They probably just found it tasty and were hoping for a second serving. Are we done yet?
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
Point me to that video. When many police departments and dudes like the guy who CO-INVENTED pepper spray say that it was overkill, I remain unconvinced that pepper-spray should have been deployed at all.
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
Point me to that video. When many police departments and dudes like the guy who CO-INVENTED pepper spray say that it was overkill, I remain unconvinced that pepper-spray should have been deployed at all.
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
Point me to that video. When many police departments and dudes like the guy who CO-INVENTED pepper spray say that it was overkill, I remain unconvinced that pepper-spray should have been deployed at all.
Is the ability to cheer inapplicable to someone being "brutalized"? I would say no, unless the argument has to do with the ability of one to make noises, making this whole venture pointless, also there is a clear wipe at the end of the video when the police are leaving the you can hear a crowd cheer and from the wipe you cannot say that it's the same set of people. The cheering cannot be pointed to say it's the same people who were as put "brutalized" it can be said the crowd cheered. The wipe cuts out a large portion of what happens, it's why unedited footage is best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6u2fTYUjpmU#t=1341s The area at which the people are sprayed with pepper spray and the area at which the crowd chants "you can go" are different the video shows the police were slowly pushed back to protect those people by the crowd. That video people keep linking to has clear intentions which is not to show what happened but to show an abridged version to suit the maker's goals... so referencing it is just bad arguing.
Frankly the crowd slowly advancing on the police officers chanting "shame on you" is the most threating thing that occurred, which is most likely why the officers left becuase they actually were inciting danger on themselves becuase of their actions..
The easiest way to prove would be to find a video concentrating on the people who were pepper sprayed after the crowd pushes back the police officers, my bet is most of them were still on the ground considering that people were not only sprayed but zip tied. But youtube is hard to navigate for such a specific video that would be continuous
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Why do you get so hung up on that word? And I don't see what would prevent a crowd like that from cheering brutilized or not.
On December 07 2011 14:56 HULKAMANIA wrote: Spot on. So people like Kaitlin can continue to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify some asshole point blank pepper spraying a line of seated student protesters. That's fine. But the real issue isn't even whether or not a "use of force continuum" allowed heavily armed police officers to brutalize undergraduates in a manner consistent with campus policy. The real issue is why are we so hell-bent on upholding college quad ordinances in the first place when they are in tension with god damned First-Amendment rights? The real question is why are our governments and our universities—institutions that ought to act as protectors of democratic values and civil rights—so quick to criminalize protests in the first place?
I just watched another video of it. You do realize those very students that were just "brutalized" were actually cheering as the officers left. It's hardly a scene of a brutalization. So overly dramatic...
Oh, I know, I know! Pepper spray is just a food product after all. I'm surprised that they even teared up.
No. I'm serious. I'm not making it up. The very people who you claim to have been brutalized were cheering moments later as the cops were leaving. The video in just a couple pages back in this thread. I'm not being minimalistic, calling it a food product or being sarcastic. Just pointing out their own behavior after being pepp... er.. brutalized as you put it. They were cheering.
Point me to that video. When many police departments and dudes like the guy who CO-INVENTED pepper spray say that it was overkill, I remain unconvinced that pepper-spray should have been deployed at all.
Is the ability to cheer inapplicable to someone being "brutalized"? I would say no, unless the argument has to do with the ability of one to make noises, making this whole venture pointless, also there is a clear wipe at the end of the video when the police are leaving the you can hear a crowd cheer and from the wipe you cannot say that it's the same set of people. The cheering cannot be pointed to say it's the same people who were as put "brutalized" it can be said the crowd cheered.
You are absolutely right that this whole venture is pointless. It's a captious little sidebar based on yet another of Kaitlin's bizarre interpretations of the world around her. The video she cited clearly stops during the pepper spray debacle (probably because the camera operator was so overjoyed by the pleasant sensation of the chemical agent attack that he or she had to immediately begin cheering) and picks up a later point when the crowd was happy that the riot police were finally leaving. It's thoroughly disingenuous of her to imply that the people cheering were the ones who endured the spray, but shit like that's been her constant m.o. in this thread.
EPT
