Right, if you so much as touch someone they'll scream. So you better use pepper spray, that's definitely a lot more mild! In fact, maybe we should shoot people who are sitting there! That's the best way to move them!
Is a protest actually THAT disruptive to your way of life, btw? I'm just wondering . . . lol
1. Have you ever attempted to take someone into custody who is resisting? Just curious, since you seem to know soooo much about this... It's not as easy to do it without injuring someone as you might think.
2. Yes, it's disruptive to my life. And you're not convincing people to join you by crying about police brutality. This isn't some dictatorship where the police are some rogue oppressors. In the US, they are just normal people doing their job and everyone else knows that. You guys aren't even protesting anything related to the police. Crying wolf just looks stupid to the rest of us.
How exactly was this disruptive? No-one seems to be able to explain why the police were needed in the first place. Protest are a continuous presence on University campus. The only problem seems to be that students might have had to deal with the inconvenience of taking a different route to class. Is that worth pepper-spray?
Yes, the police are normal people doing their job, but they are supposed to be trained to deal with these situations in a reasonable manner. This is not reasonable. The goals of the protest has nothing to do with the way the police responded.
I'm comfortable with protesters who listen to police. I have no sympathy for those who ignore them. None at all.
And yes, it's disruptive when you guys block off our banks or other buildings in the name of "the 99%".
On November 21 2011 14:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's funny how when the police tase or spray idiots being belligerent after being pulled over by a cop, people think "Thank god that idiot got tased!" But when a bunch of dumb kids get pepper sprayed, oh boy is that so very wrong! Also, they were sprayed because they were resisting arrest. Resisting arrest=tase on most days, spray against protesters since they are so very special.
I don't think they were resisting arrest. I can't watch the vods but according to Micronesia, they could have dealt with it in a much simpler manner.
On November 21 2011 13:58 nohbrows wrote: Do you really have to resort to pepper spraying someone when you are a phsyically fit Police Officer who can probably take on a full grown man any day.
perhaps there is a Police officer (active or retired) on Teamliquid that can give some insight into this?
What do you suggest they do? I mean, you ask them to not use violence... how else do you move someone who is sitting down and refusing arrest? You're outnumbered 5 to 1, yet YOU are the one expected to not use violence, while still doing your job of arresting the person who is violating the law (yes, that is a blatant violation of the law to sit there).
At the same time, you know that if you so much as TOUCH a person who scream, it will be all over the internet in youtube videos and you will be required to go on administrative leave during an investigation where you MIGHT lose your job because of political reasons.
And pepper spray is the wrong way to handle it? What do you protestors propose police officers do to move your dumb asses out of the rest of our way? Go protest somewhere that isn't completely disruptive to the rest of us, and you won't have these problems.
A few police officers go up to the person on the end. They tell the student they are under arrest and instruct him/her to put their hands on their <whatever>. If the person refuses, the 3-4 officers carefully remove the student from the 'chain' and then carefully move the hands together, and carefully handcuff the student. The student is escorted away once cuffed. Repeat the cycle with the next student. If students wise up and start leaving the chain they are allowed to flee unless they have been notified they are under arrest.
If a student reacts to the arrests in a threatening way, the spray or other equipment can be used then. No reason to jump the gun.
On November 21 2011 14:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's funny how when the police tase or spray idiots being belligerent after being pulled over by a cop, people think "Thank god that idiot got tased!" But when a bunch of dumb kids get pepper sprayed, oh boy is that so very wrong! Also, they were sprayed because they were resisting arrest. Resisting arrest=tase on most days, spray against protesters since they are so very special.
Resisting arrest over something that is not a crime is NOT the same as resisting arrest over something that is. Everybody needs to read the details before posting, this thread is mind numbing
Um, actually it's the exact same thing.... Resisting arrest is a violation of the same law, regardless of what you are being arrested for.
Right, if you so much as touch someone they'll scream. So you better use pepper spray, that's definitely a lot more mild! In fact, maybe we should shoot people who are sitting there! That's the best way to move them!
Is a protest actually THAT disruptive to your way of life, btw? I'm just wondering . . . lol
1. Have you ever attempted to take someone into custody who is resisting? Just curious, since you seem to know soooo much about this... It's not as easy to do it without injuring someone as you might think.
2. Yes, it's disruptive to my life. And you're not convincing people to join you by crying about police brutality. This isn't some dictatorship where the police are some rogue oppressors. In the US, they are just normal people doing their job and everyone else knows that. You guys aren't even protesting anything related to the police. Crying wolf just looks stupid to the rest of us.
How exactly was this disruptive? No-one seems to be able to explain why the police were needed in the first place. Protest are a continuous presence on University campus. The only problem seems to be that students might have had to deal with the inconvenience of taking a different route to class. Is that worth pepper-spray?
Yes, the police are normal people doing their job, but they are supposed to be trained to deal with these situations in a reasonable manner. This is not reasonable. The goals of the protest has nothing to do with the way the police responded.
I'm comfortable with protesters who listen to police. I have no sympathy for those who ignore them. None at all.
And yes, it's disruptive when you guys block off our banks or other buildings in the name of "the 99%".
I hate to beat a dead horse but you seriously need to READ THE ARTICLES before posting. And you should also probably read the constitution. What if the police tried to arrest you for something that's not a crime? I'm sure you'd bend over and take it, right?
So some people were breaking the law. Cops come to tell the people to move because they are breaking, or they will be arrested. Law-breakers continue breaking the law and now are resisting arrest (Yes, just setting down can be taken as a form of resisting arrest, as cops now have to use some measure of force to place you under arrest). Cops use force to place these kids under arrest. This is what generally should, and is the right thing to happen.
There is this sticky point of of the use Pepper Spray (or mace). Legally it's not much of a sticky point tho.
Most protesters don't have the goal to get arrested. They are willing to risk getting arrested (and the crap with it) because the issue is that important to them.
This man says it better then I can. He's also protested a lot more then I have.
I have an arrest record for civil disobedience that spans 23 years and covers seven states, the District of Columbia, and one foreign country. However, I never go to a demonstration to get arrested; I go to demonstrations to bring about change, and am willing to risk arrest to produce that desired change.
Any group that wishes to use civil disobedience or direct action to achieve change must:
1) make absolutely clear what change is desired, usually by listing specific demands;
2) target a group or individual with the power to bring about the desired change;
3) design actions so that the cost of resisting change is perceived by the person/group in power to be greater than the cost of giving in.
The classic type of civil disobedience advocated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., is one in which an unjust law is deliberately and openly violated. Most of the demands of AIDS activists do not lend themselves to the classic Gandhi/King style of civil disobedience. Nevertheless, the same basic principles apply: Make it more costly for those in power to resist than to give in.
This is done in one of two ways:
1) create problems for those in power that will not go away until they give in (for example, occupy their offices or zap their phone lines), and/or
2) educate the public in ways that both cause embarrassment to those in power and cause them to be fearful that the popular movement for change may grow strong enough to threaten their power (for example, interrupt news broadcasts or hang banners).
We should be thinking and talking about what we do much more carefully. For example, when we sat down and blockaded the entrance to the New York State Senate last year in Albany, we were very clear about what we were doing. We did not say we were there to get arrested. We said we had a set of demands and that if Ralph Marino (the Senate Majority Leader) and Governor Cuomo would agree to our demands, we would go home because we were there to pursue a specific set of demands, those demands were picked up and publicized by the media covering the arrests. That helped to educate people, embarrassed Cuomo and Marino, and contributed to the building of our movement and the achievement of change. Other ACT UP members who were in Albany that same day apparently told a local newspaper reporter that they were "going to get arrested. "That reporter then wrote a column that described people who were intent on getting arrested, as if getting arrested were an end in itself. There was no mention in this column of the specific issues that drove people to commit civil disobedience.
If these individuals had 'instead told the reporter that they were willing to risk arrest in order to bring about X, Y and Z, the action might have been more powerful. My point is simply this: When we engage in civil disobedience, we do so to achieve change, not to get arrested. Getting arrested is of little significance in and of itself. We're not out to accumulate arrests like merit badges. Arrests result from our commitment to achieve change; they are the means to an end, not the end in themselves.
On November 21 2011 14:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's funny how when the police tase or spray idiots being belligerent after being pulled over by a cop, people think "Thank god that idiot got tased!" But when a bunch of dumb kids get pepper sprayed, oh boy is that so very wrong! Also, they were sprayed because they were resisting arrest. Resisting arrest=tase on most days, spray against protesters since they are so very special.
Your post is an incoherent representation of your blatant ignorance. First of the all, the kids weren't dumb. UC Davis is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Additionally, there is no law that dictates that police are allowed to pepper spray protesters who resist arrest. Please, research the topic before making a post that displays the apparent lack of knowledge you have.
Funny all the kids crying in this thread about 'police brutality'. Obviously you kids have never heard about tienaman square in china when they protested, the chinese government just brought out tanks and rolled them the fuck over. Which, with how fucking stupid some of these protestors are, might not be a bad idea for our government to do that either.
On November 21 2011 14:34 BluePanther wrote: So.... would you protesters resisting removal prefer to go back to being tasered?
You seemed to take objection to that method of removal as well...
What? How does that line of reasoning even make sense. If you had a problem with A. So you went ahead And made B follow A. And then you have a problem with B. You don't go back to A for god sake you go forward to C. Which is hopefully better than A or B. it's how you make solutions.
Honestly they need a better way to do this shit....Or they don't do it at all and recognize that stuff like this doesn't require full on Riot squad action. A mob going around with molotov cocktails, slings with metal slugs and even guns? Well, duh that requires riot police action. Even more. People sitting on the ground? Nope. I think micronesia's solution a few posts up is pretty elegant.
Right, if you so much as touch someone they'll scream. So you better use pepper spray, that's definitely a lot more mild! In fact, maybe we should shoot people who are sitting there! That's the best way to move them!
Is a protest actually THAT disruptive to your way of life, btw? I'm just wondering . . . lol
1. Have you ever attempted to take someone into custody who is resisting? Just curious, since you seem to know soooo much about this... It's not as easy to do it without injuring someone as you might think.
2. Yes, it's disruptive to my life. And you're not convincing people to join you by crying about police brutality. This isn't some dictatorship where the police are some rogue oppressors. In the US, they are just normal people doing their job and everyone else knows that. You guys aren't even protesting anything related to the police. Crying wolf just looks stupid to the rest of us.
How exactly was this disruptive? No-one seems to be able to explain why the police were needed in the first place. Protest are a continuous presence on University campus. The only problem seems to be that students might have had to deal with the inconvenience of taking a different route to class. Is that worth pepper-spray?
Yes, the police are normal people doing their job, but they are supposed to be trained to deal with these situations in a reasonable manner. This is not reasonable. The goals of the protest has nothing to do with the way the police responded.
I'm comfortable with protesters who listen to police. I have no sympathy for those who ignore them. None at all.
And yes, it's disruptive when you guys block off our banks or other buildings in the name of "the 99%".
Trust me I am a long way from your banks...
Besides this wasn't at a bank. Please explain to me why this needed to be dealt with by the police? I just don't understand why the chancellor would take the risk. Seems stupid to me. Even if the police removed them peacefully, they gain attention. Just ignore them. Calling the cops only makes sense if they are causing a major disruption which does not seem to be the case.
On November 21 2011 14:37 Superiorwolf wrote: Do you seriously not see the difference between someone resisting arrest versus people simply sitting on the ground? The police in UCD didn't even ATTEMPT to arrest anyone in a manner similar to what micronesia suggested before pepper spraying everybody.
It is so frustrating to argue with you, so I'll just stop, maybe you'll stop posting as well. Look at how many people are arguing with your posts and take a minute to just think about what you're posting . . .
Who cares how they decided to break it up. When a police officer asks you to move, you refuse, then they announce you are under arrest, you should do what they say. End of story.
Why are protesters immune to the same arrest laws that everyone else is subject to? You're not special. Do what the cop requests... the poor guy is just doing his job, he's not out to make your life miserable.
On November 21 2011 14:45 woody60707 wrote: So some people were breaking the law. Cops come to tell the people to move because they are breaking, or they will be arrested. Law-breakers continue breaking the law and now are resisting arrest (Yes, just setting down can be taken as a form of resisting arrest, as cops now have to use some measure of force to place you under arrest). Cops use force to place these kids under arrest. This is what generally should, and is the right thing to happen.
Continuing to violate a law when you have been informed by the police your lawbreaking will result in your arrest is not resisting arrest.
I don't have sufficient information to draw conclusions with a high degree of certainty... but what I saw was that police had two choices: start arresting in the way I described (one at a time, no spray unless actually needed) or let the situation escalate and address the group as a whole. The police (in this case) seem to have chosen the latter in order to assert power over the other group (the protesting students). Disrespecting a police officer is a bad idea, but a poor response by a police officer shouldn't be defended.
On November 21 2011 14:46 Probasaur wrote: Tell em Cap'n
Too bad the people don't even know why they're doing it, or are protesting something completely dumb and retarded (It is not a rich mans fault that a poor man is poor). So the whole 'river of truth' thing in that picture doesn't apply to the idiots of OWS.
Yeah, interlocking arms = resisting arrest. This is perfectly fine to me. Don't see a problem. Seems to me like they wanted to resist arrest until the police had to move to more drastic measures to remove them, upon which they could scream police brutality.
Feeling themselves members of a free and rational society, it is entirely reasonable that these citizens found it acceptable for them to make their grievances against the 'universe/society/banks etc.' a constant message in a public space, with no intention to harm anyone. They felt obliged to speak as loudly and as distractingly as possible while still maintaining a decent mode of existence; they were not in anyone's living room or church service, nor were they actively causing harm to anyone. I would expect that a police force is present for the safety of citizens, and I would also assume that they are going to provide the safety in a manner that is appropriate and clear in its means and ends. In other words, rational and effective.
So law enforcement decides that the safety of the citizens present is better cared for if they are forcibly relocated rather than allowed to remain at their leisure. There are many defenses that could be made for this decision, I am sure, but I do not know how they could be prioritizing citizen safety above all else. My logic tells me in this case, safety is preserved by allowing these non-violent students their free agency to locate a space in this big wide universe of ours. Even if by some logic you prove that action was neccessary and in fact forced removal is the best action, I don't know why police resort to causing burning and itching of the mouth, eyes and airways. A stink bomb isn't a little more reasonable? How about explaining in detail to the protesters why they are being pepper sprayed? Is there some dire emergency here that requires these people to be moved at a fast pace? If so, have they been notified of this emergency?
Every police officer involved was asked to commit this lapse in reasoning, defend it and perpetuate it. I for one view it as regrettable but inevitable. The world is full of people who instigate violence at different thresholds, these guys drew it WAY ahead of where I would. And I feel obligated to speak up about that, because I empathize with people who get hurt by other more aggressive and violent people.
What's really sad here is that nobody is discussing the point of the protests: the tuition increases. Nobody has the power to stop tuition hikes. If you start a university education it's pretty much useless unless you finish it, and these kids are facing an increased cost of 81 fucking percent next year. If they don't pay up, they don't finish their degree, and their money is wasted. They are essentially robbed because they have no other option than to pay up. It's bullshit and it has to stop, and the only way these 18-23 year old young adults have any sort of power is by banding together and protesting.
Right, if you so much as touch someone they'll scream. So you better use pepper spray, that's definitely a lot more mild! In fact, maybe we should shoot people who are sitting there! That's the best way to move them!
Is a protest actually THAT disruptive to your way of life, btw? I'm just wondering . . . lol
1. Have you ever attempted to take someone into custody who is resisting? Just curious, since you seem to know soooo much about this... It's not as easy to do it without injuring someone as you might think.
2. Yes, it's disruptive to my life. And you're not convincing people to join you by crying about police brutality. This isn't some dictatorship where the police are some rogue oppressors. In the US, they are just normal people doing their job and everyone else knows that. You guys aren't even protesting anything related to the police. Crying wolf just looks stupid to the rest of us.
How exactly was this disruptive? No-one seems to be able to explain why the police were needed in the first place. Protest are a continuous presence on University campus. The only problem seems to be that students might have had to deal with the inconvenience of taking a different route to class. Is that worth pepper-spray?
Yes, the police are normal people doing their job, but they are supposed to be trained to deal with these situations in a reasonable manner. This is not reasonable. The goals of the protest has nothing to do with the way the police responded.
I'm comfortable with protesters who listen to police. I have no sympathy for those who ignore them. None at all.
And yes, it's disruptive when you guys block off our banks or other buildings in the name of "the 99%".
Trust me I am a long way from your banks...
Besides this wasn't at a bank. Please explain to me why this needed to be dealt with by the police? I just don't understand why the chancellor would take the risk. Seems stupid to me. Even if the police removed them peacefully, they gain attention. Just ignore them. Calling the cops only makes sense if they are causing a major disruption which does not seem to be the case.
First off, you asked me when the protests disrupted me personally, iirc. Second, I don't disagree that questioning the need to remove them is healthy. However, that does not give the protestors the right to resist arrest and then cry about it when they are dealt with. They are worse than floppers, and it's annoying to have to listen to your tears.
On November 21 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote: Funny all the kids crying in this thread about 'police brutality'. Obviously you kids have never heard about tienaman square in china when they protested, the chinese government just brought out tanks and rolled them the fuck over. Which, with how fucking stupid some of these protestors are, might not be a bad idea for our government to do that either.
When that happens you can cry about brutality.
That is a very nice strawman you have produced for us. Please explain, what exactly this has to do with with UC? In your opinion should the protesters be thankful they were met with pepper spray and not tanks? China and its government have sweet fuck all to do with protests at a US university.
On November 21 2011 14:49 seiferoth10 wrote: Yeah, interlocking arms = resisting arrest. This is perfectly fine to me. Don't see a problem. Seems to me like they wanted to resist arrest until the police had to move to more drastic measures to remove them, upon which they could scream police brutality.
I can't tell from what I've seen if the police ever actually announced to anybody that they were actually under arrest. From what I saw it looks like they were instructing people to obey the law, which the students were refusing to do. This is not the same thing.
If anyone has a source which can shed light on this it will help.
On November 21 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote: Funny all the kids crying in this thread about 'police brutality'. Obviously you kids have never heard about tienaman square in china when they protested, the chinese government just brought out tanks and rolled them the fuck over. Which, with how fucking stupid some of these protestors are, might not be a bad idea for our government to do that either.
When that happens you can cry about brutality.
That is a very nice strawman you have produced for us. Please explain, what exactly this has to do with with UC? In your opinion should the protesters be thankful they were met with pepper spray and not tanks? China and its government have sweet fuck all to do with protests at a US university.
By your own logic, you're listed as Austrailia so what does your opinion have to do with the US either why bother posting here?
But, I'll elaborate for you since you have such a hard time understanding, its quite simple. The word 'brutality' is being thrown around and overused to such a ridiculous level. A bit of pepperspray? Lol who gives a fuck. Doesn't even cause serious harm, ive been pepper sprayed before. Kids in this thread don't even know what brutality is. When cops start busting peoples faces in, or shooting them, then you can scream brutality. Till then, shut the fuck up about a bit of pepper spray.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CprQ3.jpg)
