|
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.
6 and a half years ago there was a thread here on TL involving police removing protesters that were interlocking arms, coincidentally also at a university in california (santa cruz). The videos are dead now but I remember them quite vividly. The police used sleeper pinches that are pretty harmless and render people unconscious for a few moments. The protesters were screaming police brutality so loudly that you'd think someone was being beaten to death by the cops. The thread was called "police brutality at my school" and there were quite a few people complaining about the actions of the police. So the moral of the story is that no matter how the police handled this situation they would have handled it "the wrong way."
Top post of page 5 has this gem that I thought was hilarious given the circumstances..
On April 30 2005 19:23 decafchicken wrote:They coulda just used pepper spray or something 
oops, forgot to include link to thread
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=26735
|
You mean even 6 and a half year ago there were morons on TL? Who would have thought...
I mean, whats the point? If they use shockers, bats, spray.. I don't see the big diffrence, it's just a overuse of force. Police brutality/overreaction as teached by the book.
|
Thanks for posting that. That thread is a carbon copy of this one, except this time they used pepper spray instead of strangling them unconscious. Seems to me pepper spray is the less violent method, but perhaps the demonstrators disagree ? Dunno.
I was unaware of the previous protests until now, but it seems they were protesting over tuition hikes again. What ended up happening ? Did the protestors convince the University to not raise tuition until now ? Or is this another increase being protested ?
Something else in that thread caught my attention. People were complaining about how stupid the University was for handling that situation in such a way, but the complainers were the ones paying thousands of dollars to be educated by these very people ...
|
On December 07 2011 18:48 Kaitlin wrote:
Thanks for posting that. That thread is a carbon copy of this one, except this time they used pepper spray instead of strangling them unconscious. Seems to me pepper spray is the less violent method, but perhaps the demonstrators disagree ? Dunno.
I was unaware of the previous protests until now, but it seems they were protesting over tuition hikes again. What ended up happening ? Did the protestors convince the University to not raise tuition until now ? Or is this another increase being protested ?
Something else in that thread caught my attention. People were complaining about how stupid the University was for handling that situation in such a way, but the complainers were the ones paying thousands of dollars to be educated by these very people ...
It is a carbon copy! You're right!
Surprisingly enough the thought of police action being taken to quash a free and peaceful protest assembly (this time, though, because they broke the curfew on the first amendment) struck people as an abuse of power six years ago, too. Crazy. And surprisingly enough the "omg, stupid hippies" contingent was there in full force to support the right of the government to forcibly remove any protesters who do not scrupulously adhere to free speech zones, curfews, and permitting procedures (because I think we can all agree that allowing the very bodies that you're protesting to micromanage the location, duration, and activity of your protest is the polite thing to do).
P.S.: No one gets educated by the chancellor. Chancellors are university administrators, not educators.
|
On December 07 2011 18:48 Kaitlin wrote:
Thanks for posting that. That thread is a carbon copy of this one, except this time they used pepper spray instead of strangling them unconscious. Seems to me pepper spray is the less violent method, but perhaps the demonstrators disagree ? Dunno.
I was unaware of the previous protests until now, but it seems they were protesting over tuition hikes again. What ended up happening ? Did the protestors convince the University to not raise tuition until now ? Or is this another increase being protested ?
Something else in that thread caught my attention. People were complaining about how stupid the University was for handling that situation in such a way, but the complainers were the ones paying thousands of dollars to be educated by these very people ...
This is evidently an unrelated increase that raises tuition by around 80%, I think more details are in the OP.
As for the protesters complaining about the hike, it seems reasonable that the people upset by the increase are the ones with skin in the game (those that are paying thousands of dollars will how have to pay thousands more). Typically it is the people inconvenienced by something that are first to complain about it.
|
It's incredibly disingenuous to make a thread on this issue and not post the full video.
I'm sure this has been addressed in this 32 page thread, but I want to make sure this point is heard:
Police have very stringent procedural instructions and training.
When they are in a protest environment, there is a reason they are in riot gear and have shields.
Yes, the protest was "non-violent," but a protest is not fixed entity that will remain in one state. Hence, the need for protection. It is an inflammatory situation with many people with many motivations.
The facts as I see them:
Police were instructed to enter and remove the tents. They did so after issuing 3-4 verbal warnings over a loudspeaker.
Several students attempted to prevent them from removing the tents. These students were arrested.
Upon attempting to leave with the students in a circle per procedure, the police were surrounded by people chanting and screaming at them. 10-20 students formed a human line sitting on their exit path.
Police issued these students several formal warnings informing them they would be removed from their position and would be subject to arrest/force. The force continuum is very clear in this regard, and "soft force" such as pepper spray is clearly identified as the proper response.
The students persisted. They were pepper sprayed.
Then, the world reports the issue as a group of nonviolent, peaceful protestors being maliciously assaulted by police officers.
Not the case.
Maybe if these protests utilized media to make accurate representations of their demands and purpose, and stopped focusing so much on baiting police into action so that they can cry brutality (see OWS videos from NYC) then the cause would be a lot more respected by the mainstream populace.
Watch the whole video, it's very telling.
The most significant part for me was a student dressed in all black running through the center of the circle/video frame stomping the ground and waving his hands as if to incite more people to become unruly and angry.
And you wonder why the police were interested in exiting through their pre-determined route instead of being forced to turn and walk through a horde of students and protestors with their arrestees.
|
|
|
The constant argument of "They were peaceful protestors" must be met with the common-sense response of "how are you so sure?"
You are not omnipotent. Police do not suddenly stop being cautious because they think someone is not dangerous.
Remember police being shot on "routine traffic stops?"
Tons of videos exist of an officer approaching a small unremarkable sedan or van even and being gunned down.
Stop acting like the police officers in an inflammatory protest situation should just abandon their protocol and not do everything to keep order and make sure they are safe.
|
On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote:
Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
If you can't be bothered to keep up to date on the conversation in here, and how all of the things you suggested have already been addressed, then don't bother bumping the thread. If you are interested in contributing, why not read the discussion and if you have a specific point to add then go ahead and post about it.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 08 2011 03:15 natebreen wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.reallifesuperheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/force.gif)
Did you really just post a gif from a site about Real Life Superheroes as if it's the use-of-force continuum that governed, or should have governed, the actions of UC Davis campus police officers? (When it's actually an established fact and under current governmental review that the UC Davis use of force policy was vague and lacked any formal use of force continuum?)
Not to mention that fundamental to this whole debate is why the police were allowed to treat the protesters as criminals in the first place. We've already had this out in this very thread. Furthermore, unedited videos of the entire police intervention have already been posted and discussed in this thread. You should catch up on the conversation before jumping in.
|
On December 08 2011 03:22 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote:
Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble If you can't be bothered to keep up to date on the conversation in here, and how all of the things you suggested have already been addressed, then don't bother bumping the thread. If you are interested in contributing, why not read the discussion and if you have a specific point to add then go ahead and post about it.
Nah, I'm good with what I said.
|
On December 08 2011 03:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:Did you really just post a gif from a site about Real Life Superheroes as if it's the use-of-force continuum that governed, or should have governed, the actions of UC Davis campus police officers? (When it's actually an established fact and under current governmental review that the UC Davis use of force policy was vague and lacked any formal use of force continuum?) Not to mention that fundamental to this whole debate is why the police were allowed to treat the protesters as criminals in the first place? We've already had this out in this very thread. Furthermore, unedited videos of the entire police intervention have already been posted and discussed in this thread.
You seem angry.
PS you accidentally the "issue."
|
On December 08 2011 03:26 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 03:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 08 2011 03:15 natebreen wrote: Did you really just post a gif from a site about Real Life Superheroes as if it's the use-of-force continuum that governed, or should have governed, the actions of UC Davis campus police officers? (When it's actually an established fact and under current governmental review that the UC Davis use of force policy was vague and lacked any formal use of force continuum?) Not to mention that fundamental to this whole debate is why the police were allowed to treat the protesters as criminals in the first place? We've already had this out in this very thread. Furthermore, unedited videos of the entire police intervention have already been posted and discussed in this thread. You seem angry. PS you accidentally the "issue."
We'll put it like this: I'm calmer than you are, dude.
|
On December 08 2011 03:27 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 03:26 natebreen wrote:On December 08 2011 03:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 08 2011 03:15 natebreen wrote: Did you really just post a gif from a site about Real Life Superheroes as if it's the use-of-force continuum that governed, or should have governed, the actions of UC Davis campus police officers? (When it's actually an established fact and under current governmental review that the UC Davis use of force policy was vague and lacked any formal use of force continuum?) Not to mention that fundamental to this whole debate is why the police were allowed to treat the protesters as criminals in the first place? We've already had this out in this very thread. Furthermore, unedited videos of the entire police intervention have already been posted and discussed in this thread. You seem angry. PS you accidentally the "issue." We'll put it like this: I'm calmer than you are, dude.
OHHHH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BROTHERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
User was warned for this post
|
As is usually the case in conflicts you have two sides here and it's tough to find out who I despise more. The protesters, who are complaining that the government isn't stealing enough of my money to subsidize their already extremely subsidized life style or the police which represent the physical manifestation of the constant violence and aggression that is the state. Priviledged rich upper class children who had a million advantages over me think they have a right to even more of my money order to extend that advantage even further and violent idiot thugs who harass me, exist through a salary which is extorted from me and compel us into arbitrary and undesired behaviours. Can't an asteroid fall down from earth and kill them all?
|
On December 08 2011 03:53 BestZergOnEast wrote:
As is usually the case in conflicts you have two sides here and it's tough to find out who I despise more. The protesters, who are complaining that the government isn't stealing enough of my money to subsidize their already extremely subsidized life style or the police which represent the physical manifestation of the constant violence and aggression that is the state. Priviledged rich upper class children who had a million advantages over me think they have a right to even more of my money order to extend that advantage even further and violent idiot thugs who harass me, exist through a salary which is extorted from me and compel us into arbitrary and undesired behaviours. Can't an asteroid fall down from earth and kill them all?
You can probably have both, I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing with the original premise of the protesters AND disapproving of the way the officers handled the situation. They aren't mutually exclusive feelings, maybe this helps?
|
Meh. These protesters want the government to use violence to steal more of my money and give it to them. Isn't it fitting that they got a little taste of what they are advocating? There's a certain perversion to the left which Rand accurately points out. They are fine with the government using violence against us, against our friends, but when it comes to enemies they become pacifists. Rather incongruous don't you think?
|
+ Show Spoiler +In a sit-in, protesters remain until they are evicted, usually by force, or arrested, or until their requests have been met. Sit-ins have historically been a highly successful form of protest because they cause disruption that draws attention to the protesters' cause. They are a non-violent way to effectively shut down an area or business. The forced removal of protesters, and sometimes the use of violence against them, often arouses sympathy from the public, increasing the chances of the demonstrators reaching their goal.
Martin Luther King was arrested in one sit-in, and was not released for 4 months.
People in this thread make me laugh. If the internet had existed in the 60's this thread would be slightly differnet but with the same kinda posts.
On December 08 2011 03:53 BestZergOnEast wrote:
The protesters, who are complaining that the government isn't stealing enough of my money
Your money??? Its says on your profile you live in Canada.
|
Except the protest movement in the 60's was against the war in vietnam in which 6 million innocent men and women were slaughtered for no reason, in which bombs rained down upon Cambodia and Laos. That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high.
|
On December 07 2011 16:17 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 16:03 Kaitlin wrote:On December 07 2011 15:37 DystopiaX wrote:On December 07 2011 15:17 Kaitlin wrote:On December 07 2011 15:08 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 07 2011 15:06 Kaitlin wrote: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. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=287687¤tpage=30#582 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..
You apparently didn't watch the video I posted two or three pages ago. That was not the most threatening thing that crowd did. They surrounded the officers and chanted about how if the officers let their friends go, they would continue to protest peacefully. And chanted conditions under which the protestors would let the officers leave. This mob was threatening the officers, and the officers showed restraint in only pepper spraying the students on the sidewalk who were blocking them. That whole mob deserved for the officers to retaliate against the verbal threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
