I am currently a sophomore at UC Davis and I feel as though this is a topic that needs to be discussed. The last topic on this subject was closed so I will attempt to make this a much better thread.
**Updates** A rally was held at UC Davis on Monday, November 21st. During the student-run rally, onlookers were instructed to provide visual cues to the speakers to voice their opinions on the important issues. A few propositions were made and voted upon by approximately 1000 people, students and faculty. The major proposition was to hold a general strike against the University of California Regents and only 3 people voted against in a group of more than a thousand people. The general strike was held, but with a relatively small showing.
What Happened: UC Davis students part of the #Occupy movement had set up tents on the main quad and refused to leave their 'campsite'. The main protest involved discontent with rising costs of education which are set to increase by 81% by 2015-2016. It is interesting to note that tuition in 2005 was ~$5357. Currently it stands at ~$12,192 and according to the proposed plan, it will rise to ~$22,068.
Location:
University of California Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi ordered the UC Davis police to remove the students from the premises for violating California Penal Code Section 647 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html). The persons can be taken into protective custody ie. moved, with acceptable force as if the person had committed a misdemeanor offense.
The police arrived at the scene and told all the students to remove their tents to which most students complied. However, a group of ten students stood their ground on the sidewalk and sat, refusing to move as a form of non-violent protest.
What Happened Next:
Pictures:
Aftermath: 10 students were arrested after allegedly being beaten and sprayed with pepper spray. One student was coughing up blood for 45 minutes following the incident and many were left in tears. One police officer can be heard saying, "Why don't you fight?" to one of the non-violent student protesters.
My Opinion: The law is clear. What the students were doing was illegal and the students were violating the law. I personally believe the penal code represses some of the basic freedoms that are granted to all Americans in the Bill of Rights, but the fact remains that the students were violating the law. The question is not whether or not the students should have been arrested, but rather how it should have been done. The goal of the police officers was to remove the students from the area and arrest them. I am of the opinion that it should not be very difficult to arrest peaceful, non-violent protesters. By definition, they will not oppose you. What does the pepper spray accomplish? I just don't understand why it was used. Can someone explain to me how it helped accomplish the goal of removing the protesters from the premises? I would go as far as to categorize that as cruel and unusual punishment. Micronesia stated it the best, all that needed to be done was to take the protesters, one by one, and arrest them individually. The result? No backlash, no nothing, just a small news story on local newspapers detailing how some protesters were arrested. You don't see UC Berkeley protests making the CNN front page, do you? I believe the outrage is warranted and justified. The pepper spray accomplished nothing except hurting the students and was completely unnecessary.
In the first video, you can see them moving tents. Not sure if they're moving to set them up or remove them, and hard to tell the time difference from the skip in the video. You see the cops starting to make their way to the camp.
The second video shows the formation of the students interlocking arms and some policemen talking to them.
The third video is when they get pepper sprayed and the police are retreating after arresting some people.
The fourth video shows students and faculty assisting those who have been pepper sprayed.
Please discuss this matter appropriately and with respect for all people involved.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
Yeah the letter isn't saying that what the police did was wrong he was saying that the Chancellor shouldn't have called in the police to disrupt the non-violent protest.
I still don't know how I feel about this Occupy movement...
In all honesty, follow the law. If you want to protest or demonstrate, get the proper permits to do so. I completely understand the rising tuition costs as my schools board of trustees just voted to up our tuition 40% over the next 5 years, but if sitting in a line isn't going to fix the problem, e-mails, talking to representatives and school leaders is how its going to get fixed.
Commend the OP being impartial in his post. But one thing to keep in mid, police in general, isn't using force because they want to, because it's part of their JOB. Same thing can be said to the student protesters, they should know the dangers in doing this. And to the general public such as us, obviously we will be outraged by the actions taken by the enforcers. But we need to have a clear mind when assessing the situation. Both parties are doing what they think is right, give commendation to the protesters who are still doing it, but at the same time, general public shouldn't look the wrong way when assessing what the police are doing.
BTW, Im a graduate student in Berkeley, (Berkeley Occupation)
The students are protesting the rise in tuition. Students who attend college will find that after they graduate they're heavily in debt. This entire situation escalated to a point it didn't need to. I don't believe the problem lies in the one police officer who was ordered to mace the peacefully demonstrating students, the police told the students they would mace them and gave them a fair warning before doing so. The point is the police claimed they felt threatened which they said warranted the use of mace, I don't see how a couple of students sitting down peacefully can be seen as an intimidation.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
Yeah the letter isn't saying that what the police did was wrong he was saying that the Chancellor shouldn't have called in the police to disrupt the non-violent protest.
I still don't know how I feel about this Occupy movement...
When there is a strike, you give the union and the employer time to negotiate; after a certain amount of time is passed, the government usually legislate the people on strike to go back to work. It's a matter of balance of power.
These demonstrations should be considered this way, too. If nothing can be reached, then something needs to be done so people can get on their normal lives.
On November 21 2011 13:47 sesmc wrote: Commend the OP being impartial in his post. But one thing to keep in mid, police in general, isn't using force because they want to, because it's part of their JOB. Same thing can be said to the student protesters, they should know the dangers in doing this. And to the general public such as us, obviously we will be outraged by the actions taken by the enforcers. But we need to have a clear mind when assessing the situation. Both parties are doing what they think is right, give commendation to the protesters who are still doing it, but at the same time, general public shouldn't look the wrong way when assessing what the police are doing.
BTW, Im a graduate student in Berkeley, (Berkeley Occupation)
This. I can't imagine the police did not give warnings before executing these "brutalities".
In the first video, you can see them moving tents. Not sure if they're moving to set them up or remove them, and hard to tell the time difference from the skip in the video. You see the cops starting to make their way to the camp.
The second video shows the formation of the students interlocking arms and some policemen talking to them.
The third video is when they get pepper sprayed and the police were retreating after arresting some people.
The fourth video shows students and faculty assisting those who have been pepper sprayed.
seems appropriate to me. police told students to move, they didn't, police used non violent measures to remove them. too many of these OWS protesters are just DYING for the police to do anything just so they can all start screaming and crying about police brutality, as if police are part of the (vaguely defined) problem they are protesting. the police are just doing their jobs. i bet almost every single officer would rather be doing his normal job, patrolling and what not rather than have to forcibly remove these idiots.
1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
Hmm, watched the video. Clearly they had to use some sort of force in order to remove the students, since that was their job.... but was the pepper spray really necessary? I mean, honestly, it's a bunch of unarmed college students, lol. How "threatening" can they be?
That being said the police didn't seem to be violent and I didn't see any "beating" in the video.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
I'm sorry, but when did pepperspray, riot shields, and batons become acceptable methods of removing people who are peacefully sitting down. Pepper spray was meant as a detterent for someone being violent or threathening to you. Riot shields are for protection against blunt force and projectiles. And batons are bashing people on the head. Where is the moral justifications of using any of these on people sitting down. Police brutality is getting out of hand.
At least this isn't like the 60s where National Guardsmen fired upon students with lethal force (Kent State Massacare). That doesn't make this any better though.
If the students don't want tuition costs to raise continually every year, then they need to remove guaranteed student loans, which means not everyone will be able to go to college. Or the government could instate price controls which would mean the education they get becomes shittier. Effectively the protesters won't be able to have their cake and eat it too.
If the college is private property, I think the police could have beat the shit out of the protesters, just like if someone was occupying my front yard, there would be an ass beating waiting. Also, anyone who thinks peaceful protests accomplish anything is fooling themself. Violence is the only thing that works, peaceful protests that work are usually just an illusion for a coup detat.
I'm not sure if pepper spray was correct in this instance, although I can't see any other way for the police to move the students barring physically accosting them. I agree with what the students are arguing for but they definitely could have found a better method.
On November 21 2011 13:54 YoureFired wrote: I'm not sure if pepper spray was correct in this instance, although I can't see any other way for the police to move the students barring physically accosting them. I agree with what the students are arguing for but they definitely could have found a better method.
Well, I mean, physically moving someone is a given. They aren't gonna be asked to get up and leave. But I mean, come on, couldn't they just have just handcuffed all of them at once (they were in a chain), make them stand up and leave. Do you really have to resort to pepper spraying someone when you are a phsyically fit Police Officer who can probably take on a full grown man any day.
perhaps there is a Police officer (active or retired) on Teamliquid that can give some insight into this?
On November 21 2011 13:50 Pleiades wrote: In the first video, you can see them moving tents. Not sure if they're moving to set them up or remove them, and hard to tell the time difference from the skip in the video. You see the cops starting to make their way to the camp.
The second video shows the formation of the students interlocking arms and some policemen talking to them.
The third video is when they get pepper sprayed and the police are retreating after arresting some people.
The fourth video shows students and faculty assisting those who have been pepper sprayed.
Can someone explain what the main nuisance was? In the OP it says they were camping in the main quadrangle. Were they actively disrupting the functioning of the University?
Bare in mind Universities normally have some sort of protest on campus at any point in time. Everyday I went to Uni I had to avoid being accosted by people trying to shove pamphlets and other crap in my face.
I guess there are health issues with people actually living there but it seems a drastic reaction to call in the police.
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.
i'm pretty sure the pepper spray was over the top.. there were more policeman than protestors.. and they were all just sitting there. you don't have to use pepper spray to disperse them - and as they saw that the pepper spray didn't work the first time - why did they continue to 'subdue' them with it?
People need to read about all the facts before they make posts defending the police.
The students were trying to protect their tents, which the chancellor had ALLOWED them to have, waiving a section of the campus code to allow them to put up tents. The next day, a note was given around without any name that ordered the tents to be removed for "health and safety reasons."
The students did begin to take down their tents when the riot force arrived. A few were being arrested, so the students formed a circle to block the police. The police were not 'ACTUALLY' blocked. Notice how the guy with the pepper spray, Lt. Pike, simply steps over the students to the other side. He sprayed them with military-grade pepper spray. The distance you are allowed to spray at is 15 feet. He sprayed at almost point blank range, 2 or even 3 times. Then police even grabbed people and lifted up their shirts in order to spray in their face, or opened their mouths to spray to their throats.
The police were not provoked at all. There was no reason to use such force in this incident. Plus, the students weren't blocking ANYTHING. If someone was trying to get to class there was PLENTY of room to get around. Davis is also a huge campus as well . . .
On November 21 2011 14:02 Probulous wrote: Sorry guys, can't watch vods here.
Can someone explain what the main nuisance was? In the OP it says they were camping in the main quadrangle. Were they actively disrupting the functioning of the University?
Bare in mind Universities normally have some sort of protest on campus at any point in time. Everyday I went to Uni I had to avoid being accosted by people trying to shove pamphlets and other crap in my face.
I guess there are health issues with people actually living there but it seems a drastic reaction to call in the police.
They were "obstructing a path"
Clearly this is a major violation, as it is impossible for people to walk around the protest.
I am surprised the police didn't bring out the K9's and sniper rifles. Such a dangerous situation.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
okay laws shmaws.. was it morally right? not at all. its not okay to spray chemicals in the faces of peaceful protesters.
Debatable topic, but seeing the yt vid. sort of disgusted me. I also saw one where the police/guards pulled a woman by her hair to arrest her(i think it was related to this) and was quiet apalled.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
Apparently ten nonviolent students are such a huge danger that one needs at least a dozen police officers equipped with pepper spray and batons to disperse them. I mean, really, a single police officer with no weapons could have probably subdued all ten students by himself. Why are we treating peaceful protests like riots? Geez...
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
Given that the law and the justice system is perfect in every way, what the police did was acceptable!!!...
Unfortunately, that's not the case. The videos and pictures depicts dogs (police officers) committing moral crimes against their people - perhaps not according to the law - but the law is a joke.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
Dude lol, are you kidding? You're being rational about it? Dealing with regulations about path obstruction and protesting and shit like that is not rational. Deal with it, is all I'm saying, if you insist on protesting -- and remember that just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean you'll win the argument with the policeman, or judge, or whoever.
Do I personally think 10 people can block anyone from anything? NOPE! I'd leap over that shit and get to class. However, regulations are regulations, and bureaucratic BS is bureaucratic BS. If a law says you cannot block a path -- or whatever -- then that's all the cops need. Does not matter if in reality, a "way around" exists. That's exactly why they were sprayed, and my reasoning is perfectly logical. So, instead of simply calling me wrong, why don't you provide an alternative explanation for why they were sprayed if not due to planting themselves in a location in which they were not allowed to plant, because I'm definitely curious. Was it because they were malicious cops seeking to harm youth? Did the university order the spraying? Did a student assault a policeman? Was a weapon found on a kid? Those would all be reasonable explanations too (if validated, of course)
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
Apparently ten nonviolent students are such a huge danger that one needs at least a dozen police officers equipped with pepper spray and batons to disperse them. I mean, really, a single police officer with no weapons could have probably subdued all ten students by himself. Why are we treating peaceful protests like riots? Geez...
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.
You're right, they didn't circle jerk on campus, they left campus all together...
Keep in mind that people protest for a reason. In fact protests, particularly student protests, can have significant effects. The anti-vietnam war protests started at universities. Besides most graduate are battling to find said work, that's part of what they are protesting about. The fact that they have to morgage their future on tuition and then have little chance of finding work. Surely universty is supposed to help you find gainful employment. That is why people go to Uni. It's not as simple as lazy protesters.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
Dude lol, are you kidding? You're being rational about it? Dealing with regulations about path obstruction and protesting and shit like that is not rational. Deal with it, is all I'm saying, if you insist on protesting -- just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean you'll win the argument with the policeman, or judge, or whoever.
Do I personally think 10 people can block anyone from anything? NOPE! I'd leap over that shit and get to class. However, regulations are regulations, and bureaucratic BS is bureaucratic BS. If a law says you cannot block a path -- or whatever -- then that's all the cops need. Does not matter if in reality, a "way around" exists.
The point is not so much how the cops reacted as why were they called in the first place. If the protest was having an active disruption of the functioning of the college in a meaningful way, then yes they should be moved. If all they were doing was camping on some grass then calling in the troopers is way over the top. I doubt pepper spray would change the minds of the people protesting. It would be doubtful that they expected this kind of response to a peaceful demonstration.
The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
I know the location of exactly where the protest happened you are extremely wrong in your analysis. The quad is big enough for people to simply walk around the protest if they want to. Did you really think that 10 students and a few onlookers can prevent people from going to class?
Dude lol, are you kidding? You're being rational about it? Dealing with regulations about path obstruction and protesting and shit like that is not rational. Deal with it, is all I'm saying, if you insist on protesting -- and remember that just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean you'll win the argument with the policeman, or judge, or whoever.
Do I personally think 10 people can block anyone from anything? NOPE! I'd leap over that shit and get to class. However, regulations are regulations, and bureaucratic BS is bureaucratic BS. If a law says you cannot block a path -- or whatever -- then that's all the cops need. Does not matter if in reality, a "way around" exists. That's exactly why they were sprayed, and my reasoning is perfectly logical. So, instead of simply calling me wrong, why don't you provide an alternative explanation for why they were sprayed if not due to planting themselves in a location in which they were not allowed to plant, because I'm definitely curious. Was it because they were malicious cops seeking to harm youth? Did the university order the spraying? Did a student assault a policeman? Was a weapon found on a kid? Those would all be reasonable explanations too (if validated, of course)
The main question here I think is the use of force by the police. Why was the pepper spray needed? It wasn't. It'd be like if someone was caught jaywalking and you tazered them because, well, it's illegal!
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
all these people talking about obstructing the pathway to class and stuff... didnt this all happen on a saturday? wtf
it's so disheartening to see how many people don't see what's wrong with pepper-spraying 10 people for a nonviolent protest. law enforcement has gotten so fucked up ever since things like pepper-spray and mace were massively distributed to cops. although I guess before that there were firehoses.. :\
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. Believe it or not, there is not outrage amongst the general population for these things. It's just your .5% of your supposed 99% who actually care.
On November 21 2011 14:04 Superiorwolf wrote: People need to read about all the facts before they make posts defending the police.
The students were trying to protect their tents, which the chancellor had ALLOWED them to have, waiving a section of the campus code to allow them to put up tents. The next day, a note was given around without any name that ordered the tents to be removed for "health and safety reasons."
The students did begin to take down their tents when the riot force arrived. A few were being arrested, so the students formed a circle to block the police. The police were not 'ACTUALLY' blocked. Notice how the guy with the pepper spray, Lt. Pike, simply steps over the students to the other side. He sprayed them with military-grade pepper spray. The distance you are allowed to spray at is 15 feet. He sprayed at almost point blank range, 2 or even 3 times. Then police even grabbed people and lifted up their shirts in order to spray in their face, or opened their mouths to spray to their throats.
The police were not provoked at all. There was no reason to use such force in this incident. Plus, the students weren't blocking ANYTHING. If someone was trying to get to class there was PLENTY of room to get around. Davis is also a huge campus as well . . .
"Move or we're going to shoot you," Pike is reported to have yelled at one student right before delivering pepper spray. Then, turning to his fellow officers and brandishing the can in the air, "Don't worry, I'm going to spray these kids down."
That quote right there just angered me so so so much. You don't defend people like that. You do not try to justify people like that. I pray that quote is wrong because if that is the people who are on police forces today, it just makes me sick of humanity.
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
and risk a police brutality suit? yeah right, lol.....
On November 21 2011 13:54 YoureFired wrote: I'm not sure if pepper spray was correct in this instance, although I can't see any other way for the police to move the students barring physically accosting them. I agree with what the students are arguing for but they definitely could have found a better method.
Well, I mean, physically moving someone is a given. They aren't gonna be asked to get up and leave. But I mean, come on, couldn't they just have just handcuffed all of them at once (they were in a chain), make them stand up and leave. Do you really have to resort to pepper spraying someone when you are a phsyically fit Police Officer who can probably take on a full grown man any day.
perhaps there is a Police officer (active or retired) on Teamliquid that can give some insight into this?
Are you serious? If they would have tried to just cuff then it would have been worse. You think that the people are just going to get up and stop linking arms because they are asked to? You think that they weren't going to resist that too? It would have been worse if the police had gone straight for handcuffing without letting the protesters know they were willing to do more than talk.
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. Believe it or not, there is not outrage amongst the general population for these things. It's just your .5% of your supposed 99% who actually care.
Grabbing them, pulling them apart, and cuffing them.
Nobody on youtube would crucify a cop for that.
It's the videos where cops take a 18 year old girl and smash them into a curb or a phone pole that gets the millions of views.
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
If they had the patience, the officers could just wait till someone needs to pee, or eat, or has a really bad itch
But why call the police in the first place? Surely the hassle of having to deal with the protesters is more than just ignoring them. Like I said earlier, every Uni has protests all the time. Why is this one special?
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. Believe it or not, there is not outrage amongst the general population for these things. It's just your .5% of your supposed 99% who actually care.
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
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.
This is a fucking disgrace. I can't believe there isn't more outrage over this. OWS will only grow now. Solidarity with OWS, as more and more people are abused around the country.
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.
Was I the only one throwing punches in the air aimed at the one cop's face who's just standing there trying to block the cameras from recording the horrific acts of these people we pay to "serve and protect" WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY PROTECTING BY DOING THIS HOW MANY TAX DOLLARS WERE WASTED TO ATTACK THESE KIDS SITTING DOWN IN A CIRCLE??!?!
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
and risk a police brutality suit? yeah right, lol.....
I'm sorry, but prying apart vs spraying pepper spray? Which of those actions seem more brutal to you? Quite frankly, by spraying them, they escalated the situation. Wheras pry apart and hand-cuff is pretty low-key. If they resist arrest, then you have more leaverage to escalate force. But c'mon, 10 students sitting on the grass, and the cops are afraid to touch them? Spraying just seems malicious. They weren't trying to attack the police and they weren't even arresting arrest.
It's really obvious that many universities in America are driven by greed from the very top. Ever since the government instituted a resolution to formally back loans for all students who are accepted into a university, the universities have hiked up the prices consecutively, year after year. I myself am over $100,000 in debt because I elected to get an undergraduate education at a state university, and I feel the pain of these students who undoubtedly have to pay much more to get a full education at Davis. It's a bullshit system, and the people at the top are getting rich off of us. Protests like these are absolutely necessary, these poor kids shouldn't have to worry about their physical safety over it.
Also, these officers committed felony assault. How can you tell? Because if YOU went up to somebody peacefully protesting under their first amendment rights, and pepper sprayed them in the face, YOU would be arrested for felony assault. The police are not above the law, and the people in this thread who are trying to defend their actions are clearly misinformed on the situation and I doubt you've done anything besides watch the video. Put some god damn effort into your opinions, you're part of the team liquid community, start acting like it!
My main problem with this incident is not whether they deserved to be arrested, but in the manner they were arrested. From the various youtube videos I have watched in different angles, I've spotted one officer trying to move or arrest a student by grabbing his arm, but that officer couldn't since they were interlocking their arms. However, it happened once, maybe at best twice. Even then, they weren't really aggressively trying to arrest them. If they tried multiple times trying to separate them and arrest them, but failed, I would of understood the use of the pepper spray more. To me it just looked like they chose an easier way to arrest them.
Pepper spray is mainly used for defensive purposes, but it has been used to detain people who are resisting arrest.
On November 21 2011 13:51 AlmightyJoker wrote: seems appropriate to me. police told students to move, they didn't, police used non violent measures to remove them. too many of these OWS protesters are just DYING for the police to do anything just so they can all start screaming and crying about police brutality, as if police are part of the (vaguely defined) problem they are protesting. the police are just doing their jobs. i bet almost every single officer would rather be doing his normal job, patrolling and what not rather than have to forcibly remove these idiots.
I'm sorry but are you brain dead? in what world is it considered "appropriate" or "non violent" measure to pepper spray a group of students protesting the rise in school tuition that are doing nothing more then sitting in front of a group of officers? The police are not just "doing their jobs". Police are supposed to protect the peace and I don't understand HOW THE FUCK you could ever fathom that this is nothing short of police brutality.
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.
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
and risk a police brutality suit? yeah right, lol.....
No. We would prefer to be pre-emptively be shot in the face because in the future they might attack the police /end sarcasm. Why is one overkill method supposd to be replaced by another?
The police didn't even get as far as that individual where he was actually resisting arrest at the top of the aisle. Not even similar circumstances.
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 . . .
On November 21 2011 13:51 AlmightyJoker wrote: seems appropriate to me. police told students to move, they didn't, police used non violent measures to remove them. too many of these OWS protesters are just DYING for the police to do anything just so they can all start screaming and crying about police brutality, as if police are part of the (vaguely defined) problem they are protesting. the police are just doing their jobs. i bet almost every single officer would rather be doing his normal job, patrolling and what not rather than have to forcibly remove these idiots.
I'm sorry but are you brain dead? in what world is it considered "appropriate" or "non violent" measure to pepper spray a group of students protesting the rise in school tuition that are doing nothing more then sitting in front of a group of officers? The police are not just "doing their jobs". Police are supposed to protect the peace and I don't understand HOW THE FUCK you could ever fathom that this is nothing short of police brutality.
No need to insult people here. It is a heated topic but please keep it civil.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Any brutality is bad brutality. We cried out about Tianamen. We are crying out about here. See, its the principle of the matter. Whatever happend to free speech? Whatever happened to peaceful assembly? This is America, the land of democracy! It's downright hypocritical how we can criticize Egypt, Syria, Burma, China and all those other "non-democratic nations" for excercing these rights and then we turn around and do the same to our own citizens, just because of some redtape or regulation requiring that we have permits to exercise a constitutional right. I;m pretty sure that the Egyptians, Syrians, and Burmans had no right to protest. In fact what they were doing was downright illegal in those countries. So why employ the legal argument against our own citizens and not to them? it is mind boggling. In addition, relatively, yeah, this isn't as bad. Relatively. But that doesn't make it any less wrong. You can employ this kind of argument against anything. It still would never make sense. Not in a context like this. And why would you even suggest that our government do the same.
Sigh, I don't understand how people can say they got what they deserved. They are peacefully protesting through civil disobedience and it is the only way to get your voice out without violence. Would people rather the protesters just start rioting? Because after peaceful civil disobedience that's all that is left.
Whatever, I'm all for rioting. IMO, it's the only way that real change will ever happen. I've thought from the beginning that this whole movement would end that way. The way the Police/Government keep instigating it. It's going to happen. It reminds me of the London riots a few months ago. There was an interview with one of the rioters and it pretty much summed up my belief. Basically what he said was. "When we were doing this peacefully nobody listened and the media never showed up. Now that we are burning **** down you all run down here to see what's wrong and call us thugs." Biggest QFT ever.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
#2 is just wrong. I go to UC Davis and you don't need to walk through the quad to go to class. Saying that they were blocking students from going to class is not true.
I just want to reiterate, that the quad is its own block on school and there are no classes on it. And it was 4 pm on a Friday, 2% of students may have been in class at that time.
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.
So this particular protest does not in fact disrupt you. Could it be that this was in fact a well run, peaceful and minimally disruptive protest?
I agree that if the protesters were actively resisting arrest then they would need to be dealt with harshly. I don't agree that this is the case. As micronesia pointed out, there were options available to the police and simply washing the protesters in pepper spray was not necessary.
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.
Any brutality is bad brutality. We cried out about Tianamen. We are crying out about here. See, its the principle of the matter. Whatever happend to free speech? Whatever happened to peaceful assembly? This is America, the land of democracy! It's downright hypocritical how we can criticize Egypt, Syria, Burma, China and all those other "non-democratic nations" for excercing these rights and then we turn around and do the same to our own citizens, just because of some redtape or regulation requiring that we have permits to exercise a constitutional right. I;m pretty sure that the Egyptians, Syrians, and Burmans had no right to protest. In fact what they were doing was downright illegal in those countries. So why employ the legal argument against our own citizens and not to them? it is mind boggling. In addition, relatively, yeah, this isn't as bad. Relatively. But that doesn't make it any less wrong. You can employ this kind of argument against anything. It still would never make sense. Not in a context like this. And why would you even suggest that our government do the same.
The same people crying about people's right to protest are the same people crying in other threads about how people shouldn't be able to say anything verbally offensive to someone else. That's as hypocritical as it gets.
Well, so the students broke the law, if only a misdemeanor, but the police are justified in removing the students, although what they did look a little forceful.
That said, though, it was perhaps imprudent of the Chancellor to remove (mostly?) peaceful(?) students. This can only lead to an escalation of protests.
On November 21 2011 14:57 Chargelot wrote: The lack of moderation in this thread is almost disturbing. Random "fuck you"'s and picture-only posts are usually not very well tolerated here.
When outrage is justified, moderation is censorship.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
I'm sorry, but when did pepperspray, riot shields, and batons become acceptable methods of removing people who are peacefully sitting down. Pepper spray was meant as a detterent for someone being violent or threathening to you. Riot shields are for protection against blunt force and projectiles. And batons are bashing people on the head. Where is the moral justifications of using any of these on people sitting down. Police brutality is getting out of hand.
At least this isn't like the 60s where National Guardsmen fired upon students with lethal force (Kent State Massacare). That doesn't make this any better though.
How else would you go about moving dozens of people who arn't willing to cooperate or listen to your demands? Peper spray them till they move or physically start dragging people away. Just because it's done peacefully doesn't mean force can't be used against them.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
I'm sorry, but when did pepperspray, riot shields, and batons become acceptable methods of removing people who are peacefully sitting down. Pepper spray was meant as a detterent for someone being violent or threathening to you. Riot shields are for protection against blunt force and projectiles. And batons are bashing people on the head. Where is the moral justifications of using any of these on people sitting down. Police brutality is getting out of hand.
At least this isn't like the 60s where National Guardsmen fired upon students with lethal force (Kent State Massacare). That doesn't make this any better though.
How else would you go about moving dozens of people who arn't willing to cooperate or listen to your demands? Peper spray them till they move or physically start dragging people away. Just because it's done peacefully doesn't mean force can't be used against them.
Physically drag one person away at a time. It's far superior to spraying the whole group.
The guys aren't suspended they're on "paid administrative leave" Its the same as a paid vacation and it's a knee jerk reaction for any and all incidents that happen. If someone has to fire their gun in the line of duty they get put on pal. Frankly its a union job and that guy has had so much seniority built up no one can touch him. People flame the police departments too much and the departments have hardened up to these things.
Cali cops will close ranks to protect their own. After the introduction of drugs and gangs into the major metropolitan areas the police fought and died to regain the streets. That guy might have even been apart of those times and lost friends to the violence people yelling for him to step down means nothing to him, He probably can't even feel it anymore.
On November 21 2011 13:40 Sufficiency wrote: I think what the police did was acceptable for removing people violating California Penal Code Section 647.
I'm sorry, but when did pepperspray, riot shields, and batons become acceptable methods of removing people who are peacefully sitting down. Pepper spray was meant as a detterent for someone being violent or threathening to you. Riot shields are for protection against blunt force and projectiles. And batons are bashing people on the head. Where is the moral justifications of using any of these on people sitting down. Police brutality is getting out of hand.
At least this isn't like the 60s where National Guardsmen fired upon students with lethal force (Kent State Massacare). That doesn't make this any better though.
How else would you go about moving dozens of people who arn't willing to cooperate or listen to your demands? Peper spray them till they move or physically start dragging people away. Just because it's done peacefully doesn't mean force can't be used against them.
Physically drag one person away at a time. It's far superior to spraying the whole group.
I totally agree with you but they couldn't drag people away or do what you said. An angry mob surrounded them and I doubt that they would just stand there while their friends where dragged away. Point blank pepper spraying people sitting down is a brain-dead move that I don't even understand the logic of. By trying to drag off a member of the chain you could make the case of them resisting arrest and then pepper spray them. but just blatantly going though the line just isn't something they should have done.
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?
Yes, you bend over and take it. Then you let the judge decide if you were arrested lawfully or not. If you were, then the cop did his job, if you werent, you would be compensated and the cop will by reprimanded. Everyone wins in the end. Better to get arrested for something thats not a crime and get everything cleared out later instead of being arrested thats not a crime and making it worse for yourself for resisting and keep piling on more charges.
On November 21 2011 14:45 Meta wrote: 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?
Ummmm..... first off, they violated a law as noted in the OP. Second, police have the authority to arrest you and move you. I understand the constitution can be confusing at times, but no need to disseminate misinformation.
I understand Wikipedia is an open source, but I assure you that their general statement on this matter is 100% correct:
"The privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest. If one believes the arrest is without legal merit and subsequently refuses to come willingly, he still may be guilty of resisting arrest, which can sometimes be a crime in and of itself (even if the initial arrest itself was illegal) depending on the state."
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
To add, not commercial pepper spray either. iirc, that's military grade pepper spray. I think I saw it on a product catalog for Cold Steel knives once. The advert, iirc, said that the thing was illegal in a bunch of states cuz it was just too strong.
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.
So I am not allowed to be informed because I am in Australia? What the hell is that shit? I simply pointed out that your post about China has nothing to do with UC.
Police are supposed to serve and protect. What exactly were they protecting here? Just because pepperspray is not a tank does not mean that it should be used. Where do you draw the line between reasonable force and brutality if it is just a difference in degree? It is my understanding that police should refrain from hurting people unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally why are you so aggressive? Swearing at me is not going to change my mind, in fact I am less inclined to listen to you.
My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
They deserved it. They surrounded the police before getting pepper sprayed. The police was acting in self-defense. The students DID deserve it... This video gives the timeline to the events as they occurred. The students were the ones surrounding the police before the police were forced to remove them by pepper spraying them...
around 1:08 you see clearly the police force being surrounded by the students.
I have to agree with micronesia on this one. The cops could of easily arrested them one by one without any type of physical harm done. If the cops say, you are under arrest, they disobey, they grab the person and arrest them and then move onto the next one. Spraying shit in someones face is escalating the situation more than just arresting one by one and giving a chance for other person to say they give up and leave.
Many people are giving slippery slope arguments in this thread or are trying to act like the protesters are criminal and get what they deserved. If these protesters were threatening or violent in any way, I might agree, but they weren't.
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?
Yes, you bend over and take it. Then you let the judge decide if you were arrested lawfully or not. If you were, then the cop did his job, if you werent, you would be compensated and the cop will by reprimanded. Everyone wins in the end. Better to get arrested for something thats not a crime and get everything cleared out later instead of being arrested thats not a crime and making it worse for yourself for resisting and keep piling on more charges.
I'm sure it depends. Not too fair if a cop can utter the words "you're under arrest" and whatever you do afterwards you are seen as resisting arrest.
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.
Actually, I think we should very much care how they decide to break it up. It's an indicator of free and just society that lawbreakers are responded to with appropriate force. Caring about the methods of the police is part of what distinguishes us from a police state. Furthermore, it just seems like a bad idea all around as it draws more attention to the protestors and escalates the situation.
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
Obviously you selectively read what I said and missed the part where I have been pepper sprayed.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
On November 21 2011 15:11 carloselcoco wrote: They deserved it. They surrounded the police before getting pepper sprayed. The police was acting in self-defense. The students DID deserve it... This video gives the timeline to the events as they occurred. The students were the ones surrounding the police before the police were forced to remove them by pepper spraying them...
around 1:08 you see clearly the police force being surrounded by the students.
Yeah, being surrounded by people who aren't doing anything to you is definitely cause for alarm. I should remember to bring a bottle of spray next time I go on the subway. These aren't just random people, these are students that are willingly participating in nonviolent protest. Are you seriously telling me that police in riot gear are afraid of a bunch of college students packing ipads? The hell are they self-defending against?
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.
So I am not allowed to be informed because I am in Australia? What the hell is that shit? I simply pointed out that your post about China has nothing to do with UC.
Police are supposed to serve and protect. What exactly were they protecting here? Just because pepperspray is not a tank does not mean that it should be used. Where do you draw the line between reasonable force and brutality if it is just a difference in degree? It is my understanding that police should refrain from hurting people unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally why are you so aggressive? Swearing at me is not going to change my mind, in fact I am less inclined to listen to you.
It has everything to do with it when defining what brutality actually is. Pepper spray != brutality. That's the point. But it went over your head. Which isn't too surprising because you're crying that I used a cuss word when you used one first lolol.
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
Obviously you selectively read what I said and missed the part where I have been pepper sprayed.
People are selectively reading what you say because most of it is dribble that doesn't pertain to anything because you are not trying to make an argument for something. You are just posting generic "other people have it worse!" lines
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.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make my point very clear. The part you quoted was me being very simplistic with a view I don't 100% hold. My main point was that these people who protest are willing to risk getting arrest to spark interest in the issue they feel are important. It misses the point of the protest when the main topic being talked about is getting arrest and was pepper spray to much force.
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.
Actually, I think we should very much care how they decide to break it up. It's an indicator of free and just society that lawbreakers are responded to with appropriate force. Caring about the methods of the police is part of what distinguishes us from a police state. Furthermore, it just seems like a bad idea all around as it draws more attention to the protestors and escalates the situation.
Ok, bad choice of words on my part. Of course we should care how they do it....
I should rephrase that to "who cares when they use non-violent ways, such as pepper spray"
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
Obviously you selectively read what I said and missed the part where I have been pepper sprayed.
People are selectively reading what you say because most of it is dribble that doesn't pertain to anything because you are not trying to make an argument for something. You are just posting generic "other people have it worse!" lines
Yea and the people doing that are ignorant people who have one sided views and don't want to face reality and would rather live in their perception of reality.
The thread seems to be focused on whether the actions of the police were appropriate or not. Can anyone give me a reason why the Chancellor should have called the police in the first place?
It seems that the protest was not being overly disruptive, particularly by university standards. Why jump the gun and call in the cops?Just seems like an over reaction to something which didn't need an over reaction.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
Unfortunately, the immediate emotional impact of seeing someone being peppersprayed is a lot more powerful than just breaking fingers.If you're being pulled apart, and you got you're fingers broken cuz you refused to let go, you lose sympathy points (at least IMO) because you were dumb enough to keep holding on. I mean, there is a point at which you just let go. The officers would have taken less flak for just pulling them apart than macing them.
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.
A bit of peppers pray? You should try some. The apathetic argument is as pointless as those made about water boarding. Try it before you call it insignificant.
Obviously you selectively read what I said and missed the part where I have been pepper sprayed.
I wonder what you were doing when you were sprayed and what kind of spray it was. Were you continuously sprayed repeatedly for no reason? You're just arguing that it's not brutality unless someone bleeds, which would justify all types of things that the police can do.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
Unfortunately, the immediate emotional impact of seeing someone being peppersprayed is a lot more powerful than just breaking fingers.If you're being pulled apart, and you got you're fingers broken cuz you refused to let go, you lose sympathy points (at least IMO) because you were dumb enough to keep holding on. I mean, there is a point at which you just let go. The officers would have taken less flak for just pulling them apart than macing them.
QFT. And that's what's funny about this entire thread. People crying 'brutality' for the use of pepper spray that does NO LASTING HARM, yet saying the police should of physically pulled them apart which is more likely to result in actual bodily injury. It's ironic, hypocritcal, and plain stupid what people are saying in that regard.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
Unfortunately, the immediate emotional impact of seeing someone being peppersprayed is a lot more powerful than just breaking fingers.If you're being pulled apart, and you got you're fingers broken cuz you refused to let go, you lose sympathy points (at least IMO) because you were dumb enough to keep holding on. I mean, there is a point at which you just let go. The officers would have taken less flak for just pulling them apart than macing them.
Well, that's personal opinion. Me, I'd rather see them pepper spray and suffer a little for their disobedience. Plus it has the added benefit of not actually hurting them in the long term.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
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 . . .
Do what the cop requests... the poor guy is just doing his job, he's not out to make your life miserable.
Sure, maybe if you were a hot white chick with big boobies. In the world we live in though, cops are dicks.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
Which officer looked scared to you? Did you see any footage of the officers attempting to get out of the crowd? How about some examples of those violently resisting arrest? Did the officer who did the spraying look like he was acting out of instinct and fear?
@Eun_Star Finally we have an eye witness. Look everyone, this is a bad sign for America in general. I am sure everyone has their reasons for either wanting the status quo or change. However, the recent activities overall is pointing towards crazy times, especially with the protests, the internet laws, and the general incompetence of our government.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
Keep up the good work. Honestly I haven't met a single person who doesn't support what you guys are doing. The few arguing the whole disobedience thing probably exist only on the internet.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
Are the protesters more upset at the cops or the chancellor? To me this seems to be an issue with the administration. If this protest was as peaceful and non-disruptive as you say, what reason has the chancellor given for calling in the police. It just seems an unnecessary escalation. Now of course the protests take on a whole new meaning and are quite likely to increase rather than subside.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
Keep up the good work. Honestly I haven't met a single person who doesn't support what you guys are doing. The few arguing the whole disobedience thing probably exist only on the internet.
Man, I'm really sorry to hear about your friend. Hope that nerve damage isn't permanent. Good luck at the meeting tomorrow! Stay strong!
On November 21 2011 15:23 W2 wrote: In the world we live in though, cops are dicks.
Depends how you look at it. Cops get sick of dealing with bullshit, you have to deal with a lot of it in that line of work. If you don't bullshit a cop, they are generally pretty reasonable. When you bullshit them or give them a hard time, they are going to go out of their way to make you miserable because that's what you're doing to them. Despite the badge, they are still people just like you and me. And people hate to be treated like shit.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
Which officer looked scared to you? Did you see any footage of the officers attempting to get out of the crowd? How about some examples of those violently resisting arrest? Did the officer who did the spraying look like he was acting out of instinct and fear?
If it is not fear than it would be either annoyance or stupidity, you take your pick. I have zero example of those violently resisting arrest and that is exactly my point. If they pepper spray wasn't the result of fear than I wish and example was made of the officer just like an example he made by pepper spraying non-violent protester.
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
Are the protesters more upset at the cops or the chancellor? To me this seems to be an issue with the administration. If this protest was as peaceful and non-disruptive as you say, what reason has the chancellor given for calling in the police. It just seems an unnecessary escalation. Now of course the protests take on a whole new meaning and are quite likely to increase rather than subside.
Good luck!
I'd say both. The Chancellor is held accountable for calling the "cops" and UC Davis Police Department did a poor job of handling the situation--as you have seen. Thank you all for your support!
edit: The tuition increase is planned to rise by 81% by 2015-2016. I'd like to point out that tuition in 2005 was ~$5357. Currently it stands at ~$12,192 and according to the proposed plan, it will rise to ~$22,068. The OP is incorrect.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
Which officer looked scared to you? Did you see any footage of the officers attempting to get out of the crowd? How about some examples of those violently resisting arrest? Did the officer who did the spraying look like he was acting out of instinct and fear?
If it is not fear than it would be either annoyance or stupidity, you take your pick. I have zero example of those violently resisting arrest and that is exactly my point. If they pepper spray wasn't the result of fear than I wish and example was made of the officer just like an example he made by pepper spraying non-violent protester.
What the fuck are you talking about? Annoyance and stupidity? You consider that legitimate justification for police brutality? No violently resisting arrests is EXACTLY your point? If no body is doing anything violent, they don't have a godamn thing to make an example for!
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
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
Which officer looked scared to you? Did you see any footage of the officers attempting to get out of the crowd? How about some examples of those violently resisting arrest? Did the officer who did the spraying look like he was acting out of instinct and fear?
If it is not fear than it would be either annoyance or stupidity, you take your pick. I have zero example of those violently resisting arrest and that is exactly my point. If they pepper spray wasn't the result of fear than I wish and example was made of the officer just like an example he made by pepper spraying non-violent protester.
What the fuck are you talking about? Annoyance and stupidity? You consider that legitimate justification for police brutality? No violently resisting arrests is EXACTLY your point? If no body is doing anything violent, they don't have a godamn thing to make an example for!
If your argument for the police action is because the protester is acting violently then please bring your prove. Over what i've read through god knows how many sources and news site, there wasn't a single mention anyway that the protester was in any way action violently. Give me that and I promise myself and I'm sure most people in here would shut the fuck up and admit my own fault and ignorance.
On November 21 2011 15:10 Yamoth wrote: My question to all the people who agree with this kind of treatment to protester is how fucken hard is it to simple pulling people off from the pack one by one and arresting them. Those people are not going anyway and god know the have enough officer there to gang up on the student one by one and separate them. Retarded action like this is nothing more than extreme aggression in hoping that it will deter future action from taking place. The stupidity in this is that the action taken here is no where extreme enough or was it justifiable to scare people. All this really does is pissed people off even more and painted a giant target on people take participate or allowed this brutality to take place.
Harder than you think. You're actually going to do less damage with pepper spray than you are going to do by forcefully removing them. You're almost guaranteed to accidentally sprain an ankle or break a finger when forcibly removing someone 15 times. And none of the officers want to do that on tape. Pepper spray is a simple way to ensure nobody is permanently injured.
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
This have nothing to do with the right or wrong and everything to do with the officers being scared and over-react.
Which officer looked scared to you? Did you see any footage of the officers attempting to get out of the crowd? How about some examples of those violently resisting arrest? Did the officer who did the spraying look like he was acting out of instinct and fear?
If it is not fear than it would be either annoyance or stupidity, you take your pick. I have zero example of those violently resisting arrest and that is exactly my point. If they pepper spray wasn't the result of fear than I wish and example was made of the officer just like an example he made by pepper spraying non-violent protester.
What the fuck are you talking about? Annoyance and stupidity? You consider that legitimate justification for police brutality? No violently resisting arrests is EXACTLY your point? If no body is doing anything violent, they don't have a godamn thing to make an example for!
If your argument for the police action is because the protester is acting violently then please bring your prove. Over what i've read through god knows how many sources and news site, there wasn't a single mention anyway that the protester was in any way action violently. Give me that and I promise myself and I'm sure most people in here would shut the fuck up and admit my own fault and ignorance.
I know they're not acting violently ffs. That was never my point. I was responding to the quote from above:
It is harder when the people you are arresting is violently resisting arrest. What happen here is there the police where arresting protester one by one like they supposed to do before they got surrounded by more student; got scared and over-respond to the situation. I remembered this hold Chinese quote going something like, "kill one to warn thousands other". The correct action here would be to either continue to arrest protester like they did before more people showed up or back off and reassemble when they get more officer on ground or the mob cleared out some.
Read my actual post before replying with broken sentences that make no sense.
I am completely disgusted in the people that are fine with what transpired, people are trying to get their message across and then are sprayed with harmful chemicals. If you are coughing up blood for 45 min after being hit by the stuff then it is obviously excessive force and should be considered assault.
I disagree with how the occupy movement is trying to get shit done, it would be far more effective if they stormed government and demanded change instead of standing in random places wasting everyone's time.
Again, police serve the people, apparently American's are allowed to hold peaceful protests wherever they want, and all I ever see the police doing is forcibly removing protesters. Kind of makes you think.
As a serious skeptic of the occupy movements (my perception of the occupy movements from what I've seen/read is that the majority of people participating don't actually know what it is they hope to accomplish, it's just "such a cool experience to be a part of history" and "down with corporations because I don't have a job" etc...)...but seeing this really disturbs me. I'm not sure where I stand, as I think it's definitely inappropriate for the students to have been repeatedly pepper sprayed at point blank range.
I'm not 100% sure what the laws were, but if the students were interfering with the operation of the university and it was against the law for them to stay, then I do believe they should have left, even have been made to left. But forcing them to leave in this fashion was wrong , very wrong and I cannot support it.
On November 21 2011 15:46 Zirith wrote: I am completely disgusted in the people that are fine with what transpired, people are trying to get their message across and then are sprayed with harmful chemicals. If you are coughing up blood for 45 min after being hit by the stuff then it is obviously excessive force and should be considered assault.
I disagree with how the occupy movement is trying to get shit done, it would be far more effective if they stormed government and demanded change instead of standing in random places wasting everyone's time.
Again, police serve the people, apparently American's are allowed to hold peaceful protests wherever they want, and all I ever see the police doing is forcibly removing protesters. Kind of makes you think.
Shouldn't have committed a crime and refused to cease their position when asked by police.
The fuck you think is going to happen when you're breaking the law and lock arms to avoid being detained?
On November 21 2011 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: 1) College is expensive, and some students rightfully want to go to class. 2) Students protesting on that pathway are blocking students from going to class. 3) Students won't move as requested; students are warned but don't move. Result: Students are sprayed. Notice how the reason for which they were protesting isn't even important? It just matters that they were doing something totally and obviously wrong by loitering in a pathway, and they knew it too in order to prove a point. If they can't take the consequences they should think first.
That "pathway" runs along the middle of the quad surrounded by grass, and I can tell you this: these students did NOT block ANY students from going to class. The incident took place at around 3:30~4:00 and most students are already off campus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to use this pathway to go to class. I'm a current student in UCD.
It was completely unnecessary to use the pepper spray on these students.
Suitemate of mine was arrested+walked out of the protest with a nerve damage in his left arm. He's an artist and we're heading towards the last 3 weeks of school (including finals), so I am quite worried about his condition that may directly affect his academics.
Look, 81% increase in tuition is INSANE. I'll be out of here within 2 years and this increase probably won't affect me as much (at least for undergraduate studies), but I have a brother in high school who will be paying almost twice as much tuition when he attends college. My parents are already struggling with helping us (my sister and I) pay for our education.
The situation could have been "better." We are simply outraged at HOW the police handled the situation. Please don't make wild assumptions and type out words/sentences that may offend those who are involved with the protests. We are trying to let our voices be heard.
To my fellow UC Davis students, see you tomorrow at 12! I'll make sure to be there. This one will be big.
Are the protesters more upset at the cops or the chancellor? To me this seems to be an issue with the administration. If this protest was as peaceful and non-disruptive as you say, what reason has the chancellor given for calling in the police. It just seems an unnecessary escalation. Now of course the protests take on a whole new meaning and are quite likely to increase rather than subside.
Good luck!
I'd say both. The Chancellor is held accountable for calling the "cops" and UC Davis Police Department did a poor job of handling the situation--as you have seen. Thank you all for your support!
edit: The tuition increase is planned to rise by 81% by 2015-2016. I'd like to point out that tuition in 2005 was ~$5357. Currently it stands at ~$12,192 and according to the proposed plan, it will rise to ~$22,068. The OP is incorrect.
On November 21 2011 15:46 Zirith wrote: I am completely disgusted in the people that are fine with what transpired, people are trying to get their message across and then are sprayed with harmful chemicals. If you are coughing up blood for 45 min after being hit by the stuff then it is obviously excessive force and should be considered assault.
I disagree with how the occupy movement is trying to get shit done, it would be far more effective if they stormed government and demanded change instead of standing in random places wasting everyone's time.
Again, police serve the people, apparently American's are allowed to hold peaceful protests wherever they want, and all I ever see the police doing is forcibly removing protesters. Kind of makes you think.
The location of protests is hardly random, I should think. The students at UC Davis are protesting tuition increases at UC Davis, the students at UC Berkeley are protesting tuition increases at UC Berkeley and the protesters at Wall Street are protesting big corporations. The government isn't their primary target.
It's amazing that violence only happens when the police get involved. It never fails. Sure, there are some laws and rules being broken, but nothing that has warranted so much violence and abuse of power.
I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
I really agree with most of what you said, including that last line especially. But the way it was handled by the police is inappropriate. Is it really appropriate that they were sprayed at point blank range over and over?
On November 21 2011 15:46 Zirith wrote: I am completely disgusted in the people that are fine with what transpired, people are trying to get their message across and then are sprayed with harmful chemicals. If you are coughing up blood for 45 min after being hit by the stuff then it is obviously excessive force and should be considered assault.
I disagree with how the occupy movement is trying to get shit done, it would be far more effective if they stormed government and demanded change instead of standing in random places wasting everyone's time.
Again, police serve the people, apparently American's are allowed to hold peaceful protests wherever they want, and all I ever see the police doing is forcibly removing protesters. Kind of makes you think.
Shouldn't have committed a crime and refused to cease their position when asked by police.
The fuck you think is going to happen when you're breaking the law and lock arms to avoid being detained?
Clearly a bunch of unarmed 20 year olds should have expected to have pepper spray shot down their throats.
Here is an example of this happening before, and a case where support of the protestors was pretty much unanimous. I know you're trying to be edgy by disagreeing with everybody, but you're wrong on pretty much every level imaginable.
Not sure about US, but in my country, the police have a very strict code of measures to be taken depending on how the criminal is acting, for example, you only use violence if the criminal is acting in a threatening manner, and police can get into serious trouble for violation of such rules, I think that the police at UC Davis were using force unreasonably, and people even got injured to the point of coughing out blood. Also, pepper spraying by itself is already harmful and inhumane, and more so when used on peaceful protestors, as from reddit, "When students covered their eyes with clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.", which is an extremely dangerous thing to do. In my country, cops don't use pepper spray but they use tasers against violent criminals, and the law dictates that after tasing a criminal, the police are obliged to instantly send him/her to a hospital for a checkup. While the students at US Davis may have been wrong in the method of their protest, the police were definitely wrong in the manner they handled the arrest of the students.
Perhaps police in US are lacking regulation in the form of both rules to govern their conduct, as well as stringent criteria for recruiting police officers.
Edit: Would just like to add that holding the Chancellor responsible and asking her to resign is unfair. The Chancellor was justified in using the police to remove the protestors. The real fault for the incident lies with the police, who chose the methods used to disperse the protestors, and has nothing to do with the Chancellor. But I guess that since those people don't have the power to make any changes in the police force, they use the Chancellor as a scapegoat to unleash their mob vengeance upon.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
I do agree that running into halls and yelling is not what the protesters should be doing.
However, first of all from what I've heard Chancellor Katehi actually allowed the protesters to stay the first day by waiving a code that prevented encampments on campus. Also, I don't believe pepper spray was nearly the best option, especially in the manner that they did it (basically point blank range, also reaching up into student's clothes to make sure they got hit with the spray). They didn't even attempt to arrest the protesters first - who knows, the protesters may not have even resisted and willingly been arrested by letting go of the chain. You never know unless you try - so pepper spraying was definitely uncalled for.
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.
Are you kidding me??? I don't even know where to begin here. Since you are making massive generalizations, I feel I can in response too. People don't get rich from working harder than everyone else. Working hard helps, but getting lucky is what matters. I'm not trying to belittle the efforts of the rich, but really its not as simple as "work hard and get rich herp derp". There are people who work their ass off their whole life and die poor. I just don't get it, are you saying because these students are protesting that they're dumb and unproductive? This is just fucking silly.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
Oh man, my heart wrenched seeing that kind of image. I didn't have the gut to click on the video because seeing the picture was already too much for me
While I feel for the police, having to follow protocol and what not (I'm not a cop so I'm not gonna pretend I know what protocol is), I honestly think peacefully removing the students (handcuffs, physically carry them off site) would be a much better course of action.
I think everyone was just victims of the circumstance, and people should be more lenient with their views on these people (police or students alike). It's very very easy to get outrage over something that you deem unacceptable, but it's much harder to view things objectively and understand why it happens and find it in your heart to forgive any mistake that may have been made.
I think it is ultimately futile for us observers to judge the actions of the police. Police are hopefully trained and hopefully have some sort of experience in these situations. I think there was a very probable and significant threat of actual physical injury should the police attempt to physically break up the students. Therefore, the police made a judgment at that point that the best course of action is the pepper spray. While we all may judge these actions, our opinions have no basis in experience or facts. Instead they are knee-jerk reactions that allow for easy dismissal of the other point of view.
I think another factor is that the students were intentionally provoking the police. While they were "non-violent" they were purposely refusing to follow the police's orders as well as chanting and surrounding the police. It seems silly to provoke someone and then act surprised that they actually retaliate. In the end, the only difference between the supposed safe method of removal is some hurt feelings and discomfort, what did the protestors expect?
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary.
Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten.
I go to UC Davis. I didn't take part in the protest, but here's some more stuff that may be of interest:
2 emails the chancellor sent out after Friday (when the students were maced) + Show Spoiler [First] +
Dear Member of the UC Davis Community,
Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent. As I described in my previous letter to the community, this past week our campus was a site of week-long peaceful demonstrations during which students were able to express their concerns about many issues facing higher education, the University of California, our campus, our nation, and the world as a whole. Those events involved multiple rallies in the Quad and an occupation of Mrak Hall which ended peacefully a day later.
However, the events on Friday were a major deviation from that trend. In the aftermath of the troubling events we experienced, I will attempt to provide a summary of the incident with the information now available to me.
After a week of peaceful exchange and debate, on Thursday a group of protestors including UC Davis students and other non-UC Davis affiliated individuals established an encampment of about 25 tents on the Quad. The group was reminded that while the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds.
On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.
During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful. However, a group of students and non-campus affiliates decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. The events of this intervention have been videotaped and widely distributed. As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way. The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this.
To this effect, I am forming a task force made of faculty, students and staff to review the events and provide to me a thorough report within 90 days. As part of this, a process will be designed that allows members of the community to express their views on this matter. This report will help inform our policies and processes within the university administration and the Police Department to help us avoid similar outcomes in the future. While the university is trying to ensure the safety and health of all members of our community, we must ensure our strategies to gain compliance are fair and reasonable and do not lead to mistreatment.
Furthermore, I am asking the office of Administrative and Resource Management and the office of Student Affairs to review our policies in relation to encampments of this nature and consider whether our existing policies reflect the needs of the students at this point in time. If our policies do not allow our students enough flexibility to express themselves, then we need to find a way to improve these policies and make them more effective and appropriate.
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. At the same time, our campus has the responsibility to ensure the safety of all others who use the same spaces and rely on the same facilities, tools, environments and processes to practice their freedoms to work and study. While the university has the responsibility to develop the appropriate environments that ensure the practice of these freedoms, by no means should we allow a repeated violation of these rules as an expression of personal freedom.
Through this letter, I express my sadness for the events of past Friday and my commitment to redouble our efforts to improve our campus and the environment for our students.
I am writing to tell you about events that occurred Friday afternoon at UC Davis relating to a group of protestors who chose to set up an encampment on the quad Thursday as part of a week of peaceful demonstrations on our campus that coincided with many other occupy movements at universities throughout the country.
The group did not respond to requests from administration and campus police to comply with campus rules that exist to protect the health and safety of our campus community. The group was informed in writing this morning that the encampment violated regulations designed to protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty. The group was further informed that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed.
Following our requests, several of the group chose to dismantle their tents this afternoon and we are grateful for their actions. However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal. We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident.
We appreciate and strongly defend the rights of all our students, faculty and staff to robust and respectful dialogue as a fundamental tenet of our great academic institution. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe and secure environment. We were aware that some of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus were not members of the UC Davis community and this required us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff. We take this responsibility very seriously.
While we have appreciated the peaceful and respectful tone of the demonstrations during the week, the encampment raised serious health and safety concerns, and the resources required to supervise this encampment could not be sustained, especially in these very tight economic times when our resources must support our core academic mission.
We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested. We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal.
We appreciate the substantive dialogue the students have begun here on campus as part of this week.s activities, and we want to offer appropriate opportunities to express opinions, advance the discussion and suggest solutions as part of the time-honored university tradition. We invite our entire campus community to consider the topics related to the occupy movement you would like to discuss and we pledge to work with you to develop a series of discussion forums throughout our campus.
I ask all members of the campus community for their support in ensuring a safe environment for all members of our campus community. We hope you will actively support us in accomplishing this objective.
Linda P.B. Katehi
Honestly, the emails did nothing but piss students off more (at least the ones I know).
Anyways, the chancellor also called an emergency press conference - short notice to try to avoid protestors. Instead, students got a whiff of it and it spread like wildfire on social media. 600+ protestors showed up to the building where the conference was being held. They essentially kept the chancellor hostage - she couldn't get out of the building for several hours...
Here's a video of when she finally got out. To show that the protesters were indeed nonviolent, every single one of them was COMPLETELY silent. You can see a ton of kids just lined up looking at her in silence - some idiot reporters broke it and were promptly told to shut up (shown in the video)
On November 21 2011 16:29 affinity wrote: I go to UC Davis. I didn't take part in the protest, but here's some more stuff that may be of interest:
2 emails the chancellor sent out after Friday (when the students were maced) + Show Spoiler [First] +
To the UC Davis Community:
Many of you might have already read or heard about a recent incident on our campus that is now being investigated as a possible hate incident.
On Sunday, November 13, during the UC systemwide Student of Color Conference, an unknown individual vandalized one of the Veterans Day yellow ribbons tied around a tree on the quad, writing on it, "USE ME AS A NOOSE." As one of our students rightly noted, the historical background related to the use of nooses and their racist implications are well known.
We do not know if the person who scrawled this offensive graffiti knew about the three-day conference on our campus. But it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students. In fact, this was just the latest in a recent series of distressing incidents of hate and bias on our campus since the start of the fall quarter.
We know these are very stressful times for our students and for the entire UC Davis community. Especially during these difficult times, we believe it is important to remember that while written and spoken words might challenge our beliefs and perspectives, words and actions that seek to promote hatred or to degrade any particular individual or group is an affront to all in our community.
Indeed, our "Principles of Community" constitute one of the most distinctive features of UC Davis. They represent the ideals of expression and interaction that we as university citizens seek to uphold. They can be read at: http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/
Expressions of hate, intolerance and incivility have no place in a university community that prides itself on educating the brightest minds and future leaders of tomorrow. Such behavior is not only inconsistent with the goals of our Principles of Community, but in many instances is criminal, as well. We strongly encourage all members of our community to engage in dialogue rather than confrontation, to exchange ideas rather than shout slogans and slurs, and to be respectful and inclusive of others.
While much has already been accomplished, clearly there is much more work that needs to be done. A civil and respectful community necessitates the support and commitment of each and every one of us. While these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.
Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent. As I described in my previous letter to the community, this past week our campus was a site of week-long peaceful demonstrations during which students were able to express their concerns about many issues facing higher education, the University of California, our campus, our nation, and the world as a whole. Those events involved multiple rallies in the Quad and an occupation of Mrak Hall which ended peacefully a day later.
However, the events on Friday were a major deviation from that trend. In the aftermath of the troubling events we experienced, I will attempt to provide a summary of the incident with the information now available to me.
After a week of peaceful exchange and debate, on Thursday a group of protestors including UC Davis students and other non-UC Davis affiliated individuals established an encampment of about 25 tents on the Quad. The group was reminded that while the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds.
On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.
During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful. However, a group of students and non-campus affiliates decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. The events of this intervention have been videotaped and widely distributed. As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way. The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this.
To this effect, I am forming a task force made of faculty, students and staff to review the events and provide to me a thorough report within 90 days. As part of this, a process will be designed that allows members of the community to express their views on this matter. This report will help inform our policies and processes within the university administration and the Police Department to help us avoid similar outcomes in the future. While the university is trying to ensure the safety and health of all members of our community, we must ensure our strategies to gain compliance are fair and reasonable and do not lead to mistreatment.
Furthermore, I am asking the office of Administrative and Resource Management and the office of Student Affairs to review our policies in relation to encampments of this nature and consider whether our existing policies reflect the needs of the students at this point in time. If our policies do not allow our students enough flexibility to express themselves, then we need to find a way to improve these policies and make them more effective and appropriate.
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. At the same time, our campus has the responsibility to ensure the safety of all others who use the same spaces and rely on the same facilities, tools, environments and processes to practice their freedoms to work and study. While the university has the responsibility to develop the appropriate environments that ensure the practice of these freedoms, by no means should we allow a repeated violation of these rules as an expression of personal freedom.
Through this letter, I express my sadness for the events of past Friday and my commitment to redouble our efforts to improve our campus and the environment for our students.
Sincerely,
Linda P.B. Katehi
Honestly, the emails did nothing but piss students off more (at least the ones I know).
Anyways, the chancellor also called an emergency press conference - short notice to try to avoid protestors. Instead, students got a whiff of it and it spread like wildfire on social media. 600+ protestors showed up to the building where the conference was being held. They essentially kept the chancellor hostage - she couldn't get out of the building for several hours...
Here's a video of when she finally got out. To show that the protesters were indeed nonviolent, every single one of them was COMPLETELY silent. You can see a ton of kids just lined up looking at her in silence - some idiot reporters broke it and were promptly told to shut up (shown in the video)
I'd just like to point out that the Chancellor claimed to be 'held hostage,' and the crowd subsequently made a path for her to leave and chanted 'Just go home," to show that she was not, in fact, in any danger.
"What was clear to me was that once again, the students’ willingness to show restraint kept us from spiraling into a cycle of violence upon violence. There was no credible threat to the Chancellor, only a perceived one. The situation was not hostile."
Honestly i think they got whats coming to them, it kinda breaks my heart to see ppl protesting anti capitalism... some just need to be thought a history lesson of "why fascism/communism/de-facto monarchy was a bad thing". That said the police obviously did not care for what they were protesting they were called to do there job, so ignoring my option on there causes i believe the only reason they paper sprayed is : 1) If they tried to just "grab" the students they might have fought back resulting in them having to use physical force => other legal problem or simply 2) Paper spray won't get you, the policeman, into any trouble but if they would have used physical force to "remove" the protester that might have... That said i do not know the legislation but i think they had a reason for using paper spray instead of just "grabbing" the students and arresting them that way.
On November 21 2011 16:29 affinity wrote: I go to UC Davis. I didn't take part in the protest, but here's some more stuff that may be of interest:
2 emails the chancellor sent out after Friday (when the students were maced) + Show Spoiler [First] +
To the UC Davis Community:
Many of you might have already read or heard about a recent incident on our campus that is now being investigated as a possible hate incident.
On Sunday, November 13, during the UC systemwide Student of Color Conference, an unknown individual vandalized one of the Veterans Day yellow ribbons tied around a tree on the quad, writing on it, "USE ME AS A NOOSE." As one of our students rightly noted, the historical background related to the use of nooses and their racist implications are well known.
We do not know if the person who scrawled this offensive graffiti knew about the three-day conference on our campus. But it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students. In fact, this was just the latest in a recent series of distressing incidents of hate and bias on our campus since the start of the fall quarter.
We know these are very stressful times for our students and for the entire UC Davis community. Especially during these difficult times, we believe it is important to remember that while written and spoken words might challenge our beliefs and perspectives, words and actions that seek to promote hatred or to degrade any particular individual or group is an affront to all in our community.
Indeed, our "Principles of Community" constitute one of the most distinctive features of UC Davis. They represent the ideals of expression and interaction that we as university citizens seek to uphold. They can be read at: http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/
Expressions of hate, intolerance and incivility have no place in a university community that prides itself on educating the brightest minds and future leaders of tomorrow. Such behavior is not only inconsistent with the goals of our Principles of Community, but in many instances is criminal, as well. We strongly encourage all members of our community to engage in dialogue rather than confrontation, to exchange ideas rather than shout slogans and slurs, and to be respectful and inclusive of others.
While much has already been accomplished, clearly there is much more work that needs to be done. A civil and respectful community necessitates the support and commitment of each and every one of us. While these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.
Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent. As I described in my previous letter to the community, this past week our campus was a site of week-long peaceful demonstrations during which students were able to express their concerns about many issues facing higher education, the University of California, our campus, our nation, and the world as a whole. Those events involved multiple rallies in the Quad and an occupation of Mrak Hall which ended peacefully a day later.
However, the events on Friday were a major deviation from that trend. In the aftermath of the troubling events we experienced, I will attempt to provide a summary of the incident with the information now available to me.
After a week of peaceful exchange and debate, on Thursday a group of protestors including UC Davis students and other non-UC Davis affiliated individuals established an encampment of about 25 tents on the Quad. The group was reminded that while the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds.
On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.
During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful. However, a group of students and non-campus affiliates decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. The events of this intervention have been videotaped and widely distributed. As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way. The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this.
To this effect, I am forming a task force made of faculty, students and staff to review the events and provide to me a thorough report within 90 days. As part of this, a process will be designed that allows members of the community to express their views on this matter. This report will help inform our policies and processes within the university administration and the Police Department to help us avoid similar outcomes in the future. While the university is trying to ensure the safety and health of all members of our community, we must ensure our strategies to gain compliance are fair and reasonable and do not lead to mistreatment.
Furthermore, I am asking the office of Administrative and Resource Management and the office of Student Affairs to review our policies in relation to encampments of this nature and consider whether our existing policies reflect the needs of the students at this point in time. If our policies do not allow our students enough flexibility to express themselves, then we need to find a way to improve these policies and make them more effective and appropriate.
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. At the same time, our campus has the responsibility to ensure the safety of all others who use the same spaces and rely on the same facilities, tools, environments and processes to practice their freedoms to work and study. While the university has the responsibility to develop the appropriate environments that ensure the practice of these freedoms, by no means should we allow a repeated violation of these rules as an expression of personal freedom.
Through this letter, I express my sadness for the events of past Friday and my commitment to redouble our efforts to improve our campus and the environment for our students.
Sincerely,
Linda P.B. Katehi
Honestly, the emails did nothing but piss students off more (at least the ones I know).
Anyways, the chancellor also called an emergency press conference - short notice to try to avoid protestors. Instead, students got a whiff of it and it spread like wildfire on social media. 600+ protestors showed up to the building where the conference was being held. They essentially kept the chancellor hostage - she couldn't get out of the building for several hours...
Here's a video of when she finally got out. To show that the protesters were indeed nonviolent, every single one of them was COMPLETELY silent. You can see a ton of kids just lined up looking at her in silence - some idiot reporters broke it and were promptly told to shut up (shown in the video)
I'd just like to point out that the Chancellor claimed to be 'held hostage,' and the crowd subsequently made a path for her to leave and chanted 'Just go home," to show that she was not, in fact, in any danger.
On November 21 2011 17:41 Aterons_toss wrote: Honestly i think they got whats coming to them, it kinda breaks my heart to see ppl protesting anti capitalism... some just need to be thought a history lesson of "why fascism/communism/de-facto monarchy was a bad thing". That said the police obviously did not care for what they were protesting they were called to do there job, so ignoring my option on there causes i believe the only reason they paper sprayed is : 1) If they tried to just "grab" the students they might have fought back resulting in them having to use physical force => other legal problem or simply 2) Paper spray won't get you, the policeman, into any trouble but if they would have used physical force to "remove" the protester that might have... That said i do not know the legislation but i think they had a reason for using paper spray instead of just "grabbing" the students and arresting them that way.
I don't see how protesting a 81% increase in tuition is considered anti-capitalism. It's a very sharp increase in cost for anyone midstream.
The problem with your first point which is similar to what some others have argued is this is giving license for police to enforce according to how they think people might act. Possible actions and actual actions are two very different things. Police respond with force based on the scale of resistance they encounter (protocol). It's why you generally don't get tasered when you are pulled for speeding. The resistance they encounter doesn't warrant it.
Whatever the protocol was, the amount of resistance offered by the ten or so students on the ground was minimal. There as not even an opportunity to resist arrest. Nor was it a matter of police getting surrounded and needing to create space. In that case, the students arriving upon the scene would be the likely targets. Washington Post called it casual, almost showman like spraying of the students and I rather agree. If they were flopping on the ground, flailing arms while police are trying to handcuff them, sure taser them or something (although maybe not in Canada).
The main thing is the escalation of force occurs after, not before; when it is warranted not before there is any indication it is warranted.There is an element of pre-emptiveness that is warranted as preventative measure, but there was nothing preventative about this. Pepper spray is crowd control, but the crowd didn't need controlling anymore than they needed firehoses, riot horses, rubber bullets or any number of possible options.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary.
Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten.
Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods.
The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual.
Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
On November 21 2011 18:23 furymonkey wrote: I think firehosing them would be good option! :D
eh... while it's fun, that's far more dangerous than macing.
The US Army concluded in a 1993 Aberdeen Proving Ground study that pepper spray could cause "[m]utagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities. There is a risk in using this product on a large and varied population".[9] However, the pepper spray was widely approved in the US despite the reservations of the US military scientists after it passed FBI tests in 1991. As of 1999, it was in use by more than 2000 public safety agencies.[10]
I read on the interview with a guy who had been maced that the pepper spray was only designed to be used at 15 feet range. He said he vomited twice, and ended up with dry-heaves, as well as stinging (obviously). He says the effects were still with him the day after.
These protesters should not be confused with being "peaceful". They are merely non-violently violating the rights of other people, specifically the owners of the campus. No such violation is an act of peace.
On November 21 2011 13:51 AlmightyJoker wrote: seems appropriate to me. police told students to move, they didn't, police used non violent measures to remove them. too many of these OWS protesters are just DYING for the police to do anything just so they can all start screaming and crying about police brutality, as if police are part of the (vaguely defined) problem they are protesting. the police are just doing their jobs. i bet almost every single officer would rather be doing his normal job, patrolling and what not rather than have to forcibly remove these idiots.
agreed these people are not doing any good what so ever they would rather rebel then work to better there life. they want it all the good life but refuse to work for it.
I'm continually mystified by these protests, exactly what do these and the Wallstreet protestors actually think they are going to accomplish here? Real political change in a democracy is accomplished by changing hearts and minds of voters of every day people. Living in a tent city and shouting slogans over and over does not do this.
There is a clear difference between those political activities that make people "feel" like they are making a difference and those activities which do make a clear difference politically. Voters are not going to be convinced that they should pay millions in extra taxes because some young people were trying to live in tents and got pepper sprayed. This has all the hallmarks of a news story to which people say "oh, how terrible" and then move on with their lives.
As a general rule, in the US system if the activity doesn't raise money or directly support a candidate it is pointless. That's partly an effect of our two party system, but it's also an effect of how the masses of sheep respond to marketing. After weeks, the Occupy Wallstreet crowd accomplished nothing other than massively disrupting an entire neighborhood and making themselves look foolish. Meanwhile Mitt Romney has put several million dollars in the bank. Who do you think is going to have a bigger political impact? I'll give you one guess.
I'm not arguing that this system is right or wrong, but it is reality. These students can protest and shout "shame" all they want, but it's not going to stop their tuition from going up. If you want to convince California tax payers to pay out tens of millions of dollars in additional taxes, you had better have a very organized campaign and marketing systems. Otherwise good luck.
Bracing for the inevitable stupid replies of "nu-uh, money isn't everything". Yeah, only in the real world.
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.
While I do agree with you in principle, I need to point out that Jobs was in fact a crazy hippy. Also Jobs and Gates didn't make their fortunes posting on internet forums; go figure. Also you need to turn down the aggressiveness by three notches.
But I agree with your rhetorical sentiment, I too am curious to exactly what they though they were going to get out of this.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary.
Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten.
Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods.
The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual.
Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
As previously posted wikipedia link states pepper spray is not completely benign.
I don't understand why police don't go up to individual protesters and tell them that they will be pulled from the others and arrested, then pull them away one-by-one, if protestors throw punches, etc. then you can use more violent methods, but my guess is that they wouldn't.
going to repost this link from RosaParksStoleMySeat:
in this case protesters used metal cuffs to link themselves together and police used pepper spray on them. The court found it to be excessive to use it as the police had previously used grinders to remove the metal cuffs safely.
"Beginning in the fall of 1997, defendants began using olesoresin capsicum aerosol (“OC” or “pepper spray”) to cause the protestors to release themselves from the “black bears.” The use of pepper spray under these circumstances was entirely unprecedented: in California, its use was “limited to controlling hostile or violent subjects” and it had never been used in Humboldt County, the State of California, or anywhere in the country against nonviolent protestors."
Unless something has changed since 1997 this is fairly rare and not by the book.
On November 21 2011 13:51 AlmightyJoker wrote: seems appropriate to me. police told students to move, they didn't, police used non violent measures to remove them. too many of these OWS protesters are just DYING for the police to do anything just so they can all start screaming and crying about police brutality, as if police are part of the (vaguely defined) problem they are protesting. the police are just doing their jobs. i bet almost every single officer would rather be doing his normal job, patrolling and what not rather than have to forcibly remove these idiots.
agreed these people are not doing any good what so ever they would rather rebel then work to better there life. they want it all the good life but refuse to work for it.
yeah they're totally just lazy and want everything handed to them. just like that dr king guy
@The Toast While it's great that the system works for many people, the fact that there is low voter turn-out in addition to protests, it seems that people are unhappy with how the system functions. Furthermore, you may not see the immediate use of protests, but I certainly see them at the very least as an important safety valve. Without it, you are pushing a lot of the issues underground and when they do arise, the outpouring could be far more violent. Violently suppressing it and Gingerich's derisive 'let them eat cake/ go home and take a bath' just makes things worse.
Protests do push the public discourse to start speaking about what the protests are about, even it is a negation of the protest. But at best, consistent protests can push politicians to ammend positions. Perhaps not enough for the protestors, but enough to stem it.
But what I don't understand is how people wish for protests do be this quiet little thing that when that government says stand, they stand; when the government says sit, they sit; and when the government says go home, they all go home. Protests are by their nature disruptive. And if it's peaceful disruption, there is no cause to escalate it to violent disruption with asymmetrical use of force. Remove them from where they are being disruptive and let's not have this 'they deserve to be pepper sprayed.' That's crowd control and there was nothing that needed controlling at the time- just removal.
Edit.
In addition, as the Chancellor (who set the police on the students in the first place) is backing away from the police actions, I'm not sure the police actions need to be defended. 2 police on admin leave for all the good that is...
I'm always surprised by the messages from these protests. These students are always complaining about tuition yet they never seem to complain about all the goshdarn waste in the system.
What happens when the Police loses all authority because they have no means available to break up situations like this without being called out in the media, and people get more and more obnoxious because they know the police cant do anything ?
What if somebody someday get hurt or killed because a policeman hesitates to use his pepper spray or baton because he is afraid of the consequences ?
also have anyone of you guys even tryed getting pepper sprayed, yes it hurts and you will probably vomit if its point blank. But you dont die from it. Its a non violent way to solve problems like this.
Cut the police some slack they put their own life on the line to protect people often. But this is also part of their job, if they get told to break a demonstration up they have to do it. They dont deserve this hate.
This is great. No one got serious injuries and we have a really good chance that a bunch of fuckers who forgot who they're working for will lose the ability to abuse the power we bestowed them.
@ElementEighty, I have the right to self defense and safety. In the case that I perceive a threat on my life by your blog post, which clearly disagrees with my opinion and my overwhelming desire for freedom, I am clearly justified in violently assaulting you. Because it might just preempt your violence against me. Don't pretend that macing people isn't violent assault. By that logic, I could kick you in the balls and you'll be fine in a week.
On November 21 2011 19:05 zobz wrote: These protesters should not be confused with being "peaceful". They are merely non-violently violating the rights of other people, specifically the owners of the campus. No such violation is an act of peace.
wow
a huge F you to you. the owners of the campus? This is a paid-for-by-taxpayers public UNIVERSITY. Police are ABUSING THEIR POWER so fucking much in our country.
If a cop tell you you're under arrest you should comply, i think it's an offense to resist arrest. BUT using the pepper spray is not justified... why not just man handle the kids
These protests are impotent "activism". Nothing's going to change until people start setting things on fire. Not that I necessarily encourage that, but if you want change... people with power don't give it up easily.
I think whole occupy movement is pretty absurd... and in all honesty, I had absolutely no time to protest, let alone for days, while I was in college.... I think they need to do what they are actually there to to, study :/
And furthermore, I am willing to bet that most of those protestors will not even be paying tuition in 2015-2016 so its even more ridiculous. People have started to occupy whatever they feel is upsetting at the moment, I condone the pepper-spraying of idiots protesting silly things.
This looks stupid, pepper spray should only be used against someone violent. They will have to force them to move after it anyways, so I don't see any excuse for using it.
I think this is a good point. "What happens when the Police loses all authority because they have no means available to break up situations like this without being called out in the media, and people get more and more obnoxious because they know the police cant do anything ?"
I think as normal citizens we need to review what are the suitable venues of action when facing higher authority. I feel there is a misconception that the average individual can get away with anything as long as it does not constitute violence or outright crime.
On November 21 2011 23:07 fluidin wrote: I think this is a good point. "What happens when the Police loses all authority because they have no means available to break up situations like this without being called out in the media, and people get more and more obnoxious because they know the police cant do anything ?"
I think as normal citizens we need to review what are the suitable venues of action when facing higher authority. I feel there is a misconception that the average individual can get away with anything as long as it does not constitute violence or outright crime.
This is wrong. Know your place.
No. If it's not a crime then the individual SHOULD be able to do it. Anything else is just a matter of expression.
The police has the power to make arrest and use the necessary force to do so. All the uproar has been with videos of police brutality, not police arrests. If the student resist arrest, then that's a charge altogether different from the original one according to the American legal system. Violently resisting arrest should then be met with only the necessary force. What we see time and again is peaceful protesting being met with violence in one form or another. That's not police showing their helplessness, it's police showing the abuse of their powers.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary.
Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten.
Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods.
The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual.
Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
Actually, I sympathize with the officers quite a bit. As I stated earlier, I think the situation was the way it is because the officers feels like they where threaten and react poorly to it. Second, even if it is a powder-keg situation, nothing is stopping them from retreating and wait for more reinforcement. Hell, I would even find it more reasonable for the officer walk around macing the mob that was screaming and yelling at the officer. What was unacceptable is for them for mace people who only form of resisting was to park your ass at a spot and don't move.
On November 21 2011 23:07 fluidin wrote: I think this is a good point. "What happens when the Police loses all authority because they have no means available to break up situations like this without being called out in the media, and people get more and more obnoxious because they know the police cant do anything ?"
I think as normal citizens we need to review what are the suitable venues of action when facing higher authority. I feel there is a misconception that the average individual can get away with anything as long as it does not constitute violence or outright crime.
This is wrong. Know your place.
They could have tried to move the protestors first. Or arrest them. The first method that guy used was pepper spray from about 2 feet away, when it is supposed to be used at a minimum of 15 feet. He also sprayed for much longer than intended. Also some things like cuffing too tight causing nerve damage in peoples hands. Aiming pepper spray down peoples throat. Pepper spraying whilst holding someone down, and stopping them from covering their face so they can spray them. That's gone too far.
If they are violent, spray the shit out of them by all means. Not only did they resort to the most extreme method available to them straight away, apart from "defending" themselves with batons, but they didn't even do it by the book. They fucked up.
On November 21 2011 15:59 ObliviousNA wrote: I go to UCD, and I had class about 30 yards from the quad on the day in question. At about 1pm, ~200 people came screaming through Wellman hall chanting "WE ARE THE 99%". They opened every door on the floor, banging and yelling all the way through. As a paying student (who wasn't paying much attention to database class, but thats not the point) I was very annoyed at the lot of them. What do they think they're accomplishing by alienating the student base?
Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in for why they were asked to disperse. Apart from inadequate restroom facilities to house the campers, they were disturbing a lot of paying students. They were asked (multiple times the day before and the day of) to pack their stuff up, but they refused. The cops were called in, and the rest is history. Pepper spray seems like the easiest method honestly. If the cops tried to pull them apart forcefully, limbs could have easily been broken in the scuffle.
It was an unfortunate ending to the situation, but the protesters were definitely just out for their 15 minutes of fame to bring attention to their cause.
Except there were no scuffle, at least from what i've red. If there were any kind of scuffle, macing the protester would totally be acceptable. Second, I am pretty sure no one is disputing that the officer don't have to right to arrest the student. We mainly argue that the macing was over the top, even if it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method.
If A) the officers have "the right to arrest the student" and B) "it is the easiest and cause less harm than other more extreme method" ... how do you propose they proceed then? cops can't negotiate with protesters, they're clearly not in a position to talk about tuition hikes. they were informed of a group of people breaking the law, they went to intervene and 20 people refused arrest while hundreds of supporters were surrounding and screaming. ANY broken bone or forcible arrest would have resulted in MUCH more bad press than this. Or worse, a riot.
I just think there's a logical chain of events that led up to the "brutal" video (with 100s of cameras watching them, you don't think the police did EVERYTHING by the book?) and we shouldn't jump to demonize the cops that did it. I don't think there's any point where the cops decided to be amoral, but many people seem to be quick to call police brutality.
My argument is that while is it the easiest method and cause less harm than more extreme but equally easy method out there, there are other more tedious method that would of cause much less harm to the protester. The police should of either continue to make arrest one at a time like they were doing before they draw a huge crowd or back off. My argument is that the protester wasn't kicking, failing or really doing anything other than being a dead weight that would cause them or the officer any harm when they do get arrested. Sure they were making the officer job a whole lot harder (which is exactly the point), but no one wasn't in immediate danger of getting hurt. Since there were no immediate danger toward the protester or the officer, macing was totally unnecessary.
Further, if what the police officer did was truly "by the book", I would then argue that "the book" need to be rewritten.
Your view of this situation is terribly one-sided. You really need to live a day in a cops world.... your statements are completely ignorant to their predicament. I get that you feel bad and don't like "the book", but it's really written that way for a reason -- cops want to live at the end of the day. It's much safer to take drastic measures first to quash resistance than to risk escalating powder-keg situations like this. The book is this way for a reason. This isn't a "police brutality" situation. The students should have known that the likely reaction of refusing riot police would be A.) Tasers, B.) Tear Gas, or C.) Pepper Spray. You claim that a lack of "immediate danger" means they should not take preventative measures... I bet the kids of those cops would be unhappy with that as the working protocol. You exponentially increase the chance for something to happen to the cops when you don't allow them to take preventative measures as they deem neccessarry. If they feel threatened by the situation (remember, there were hundreds of hostile students there, not just these 20 or so), they should be allowed to take the steps they deem necessary to keep the situation safe, particularly if it involves non-lethal, non-damaging methods.
The questionable judgment in my mind is the chancellor feeling the need to evict them. But once they were asked to leave, they should have complied. They knew what the risks were; any American knows what police in riot gear means.... stay away. By staying in the vicinity, you risk things such as being doused in tear gas or pepper spray or similar things, even if it is not you being the disruptive individual.
Let's just be thankful this didn't devolve into a riot or worse. And for better or worse, the actions taken by the police prevented it from escalating.
i've read almost every post in this thread including what i believe to be all of yours. first of all, you clearly have some sort of police bias. i'm not sure why, but this is completely irrational behavior by police and if you actually had any idea what you were talking about it would be obvious. any properly trained police officer who doesn't have an erection for their own authority would be disgusted by how this was dealt.
the issue: non-campus protesters are joining protesters. these protesters, not being paid students are very reasonably a cause for concern when they are camping over night in what is basically intrusion. they are not necessarily suspicious because of that given the context, but they are nonetheless breaking school policy.
logical solution: evict non-campus protesters and invite them to join again when non-campus protesters are allowed on grounds by means of local campus security peacefully in compliance with the fact that the demonstration is an otherwise scheduled peaceful protest.
actual solution: call the police requesting a riot squad and demanding no specific direction, resulting in illegal (supreme court ruling on the subject already posted, find it like i did) misconduct of authority as well as several injuries via unethical use of riot equipment (especially when there was not even a riot), physical abuse and assault of random protesters whether allowed on campus or otherwise.
again, if you actually bothered to figure out what was going on, watched the video, read the statements made by witnesses, etc. you would realize that they prevented no hostilities, they WERE the hostilities. the spray was not a substitution to physical detainment, and it was not a substitution for force because they grossly misused it despite its illegality in the situation in the first place. it's as illegal as shooting a culprit who has put their hands up and shows no weapon. you are completely misusing a weapon you've been trusted with to assault people you are trying to protect.
they hauled people off with reckless force in ways such as (people witnessed) dragging by the hair and forceful kneeling on people's backs to pin them down when there was little to no resistance directly; only via linked arms which is a common and valid form of insisting on civil disobedience.
and no, the actions taken by police didn't do shit. the mere presence of intentionally forceful police measures were the only instigator of violent riots, and the irrational use of force by them would be the only thing that could ever incite riot. you inability to understand the amazing logical leaps you are taking is impressive to me.
They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray..
On November 22 2011 00:08 KobyKat wrote: They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray..
This isn't how it is supposed to work. The use of force has very strict and limited use. The fact that people think there's nothing wrong here scares the shit out of me.
On November 22 2011 00:00 youngminii wrote: You people in this thread, stop fucking commenting without watching the videos/reading the appropriate articles. Did you even see what happened?
The police acted disgustingly and the chancellor should definitely resign.
On November 22 2011 00:08 KobyKat wrote: They broke the laws of the school and got pepper sprayed. I don't see the big deal. Follow the rules or this is what you get. Going to college is a privelege and they can kick you out at any time. They're lucky it was just pepper spray..
This isn't how it is supposed to work. The use of force has very strict and limited use. The fact that people think there's nothing wrong here scares the shit out of me.
Same here. People find nothing disturbing about our own law enforcement pepper spraying students?? I really don't care that they were breaking the law, arrest them, that's perfectly reasonable. But to use such violence and force against peacefully protesting students? I don't see how this could be defined as anything but excessive and unnecessary. The police were in no danger and clearly mishandled the situation.
100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Who's being a public nuisance? A group of 10 people sitting in a line, or a division of riot police, in riot gear, pepper spraying them?
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
On November 22 2011 00:12 Reaper9 wrote: American people seem to be too used to violence, so they think oh pepper spray, they didn't get shot, thank God.
Reminds me off... "Waterboarding is not torture"... Disgusting.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Who's being a public nuisance? A group of 10 people sitting in a line, or a division of riot police, in riot gear, pepper spraying them?
unless u are referring to some different pictures, there was definitely more than 10 ppl there. the use of pepper spray i think was acceptable as they are all refusing arrest by locking their arms together like that. there is only so much cops can do by asking nicely, if you're too stupid to follow the rules, then i dont really care what happens to you.
FFS Pepper spray is one of the last things a cop should use... They could just have "dragged" them away (like it's normally done with peaceful protesters). But some asshole cops needed to play Dirty Harry.
That guy definitely needs to resign, if I were in his position I would never resort to calling the police on my own students... Especially during a peaceful protest.
This honestly makes me feel sick, and those saying "follow the law" make me feel even more sick.
A peaceful protest, by students, at a school, and they are phoning the cops and macing them?
Is this not the very idealist, non-violent spirit we've tried to instill in these students from birth? And for them showing some initiative, we mace, then violently arrest them?
My goodness America, look what is happening to you. Do your people have no sense anymore? Even people here, on team liquid feel that what was done was right? That truly scares me.
Agreed. There should be very clear rules about the escalation of force.
Put your hands on them first, and try to arrest them. If they violently resist or people become threatening, THEN you have every right to use pepper spray. I really wonder what moron in the chain of command gave this order the go ahead. Chances are he won't have his job for long.
At the same time, let's not go over board and suggest these kids were brutalized. I've experienced pepper spray, and CS gas which is much worse than pepper spray. It's really not that horrible, just a little stinging and coughing.
unless u are referring to some different pictures, there was definitely more than 10 ppl there. the use of pepper spray i think was acceptable as they are all refusing arrest by locking their arms together like that. there is only so much cops can do by asking nicely
Grab them, one at a time, and pull them apart. They are not being violent. You don't need to baton them, tazer them, or pepper spray them to make an arrest.
But according to
f you're too stupid to follow the rules, then i dont really care what happens to you.
I guess you'd be fine with the cop just shooting them.
ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.
I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
On November 22 2011 01:55 slappy wrote: ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.
I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign
You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.
Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
On November 21 2011 15:46 Zirith wrote: I am completely disgusted in the people that are fine with what transpired, people are trying to get their message across and then are sprayed with harmful chemicals. If you are coughing up blood for 45 min after being hit by the stuff then it is obviously excessive force and should be considered assault.
I disagree with how the occupy movement is trying to get shit done, it would be far more effective if they stormed government and demanded change instead of standing in random places wasting everyone's time.
Again, police serve the people, apparently American's are allowed to hold peaceful protests wherever they want, and all I ever see the police doing is forcibly removing protesters. Kind of makes you think.
Shouldn't have committed a crime and refused to cease their position when asked by police.
The fuck you think is going to happen when you're breaking the law and lock arms to avoid being detained?
Clearly a bunch of unarmed 20 year olds should have expected to have pepper spray shot down their throats.
Here is an example of this happening before, and a case where support of the protestors was pretty much unanimous. I know you're trying to be edgy by disagreeing with everybody, but you're wrong on pretty much every level imaginable.
As much as case law is fascinating, it's not going to stop these incidents from occurring. Call me edgy, call me whatever, but the point still stands that case law will not stop an officer from shooting pepper spray at you if he can't get his way. He wants his cake and would like to eat it as well. Making shit illegal doesn't stop people from breaking the law.
You won't see me protesting and being mad when something bad happens as a result of being a major pain in the ass to people who put up with more shit in a week than I will in a month.
Let me say it again: With all the bad shit occurring as a result of protests like this as of late, what the fuck did they think was going to happen after disobeying the requests of officers, whether they were in the right or not?
On November 22 2011 01:55 slappy wrote: ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.
I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign
You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.
Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.
Your an idiot. You don't beat and pepper spray your nation's scholars because they won't move? It's so drastically important that we have a pathway that we should incite violence in a peaceful place onto peaceful people?
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
On November 21 2011 19:47 Falling wrote: @The Toast While it's great that the system works for many people, the fact that there is low voter turn-out in addition to protests, it seems that people are unhappy with how the system functions. Furthermore, you may not see the immediate use of protests, but I certainly see them at the very least as an important safety valve. Without it, you are pushing a lot of the issues underground and when they do arise, the outpouring could be far more violent. Violently suppressing it and Gingerich's derisive 'let them eat cake/ go home and take a bath' just makes things worse.
Protests do push the public discourse to start speaking about what the protests are about, even it is a negation of the protest. But at best, consistent protests can push politicians to ammend positions. Perhaps not enough for the protestors, but enough to stem it.
But what I don't understand is how people wish for protests do be this quiet little thing that when that government says stand, they stand; when the government says sit, they sit; and when the government says go home, they all go home. Protests are by their nature disruptive. And if it's peaceful disruption, there is no cause to escalate it to violent disruption with asymmetrical use of force. Remove them from where they are being disruptive and let's not have this 'they deserve to be pepper sprayed.' That's crowd control and there was nothing that needed controlling at the time- just removal.
I'm not necessarily criticizing the act of protesting and rallying, they can be useful political tools in certain circumstances. My point is about the Occupy Wallstreet group and the additional movements that have been spawned out of it.
Protesting and camping out is by itself not going to achieve political goals. Yes, protests like these do gain public attention, however much of the media attention given to the Wallstreet protest has been generally negative. There have been dozens of stories in the media about drugs, sex, crime, and disorderly behavior at Zucotti park. Obviously, these people only represent one element of the protest and is not representative of all the people there. You can say this is unfair, but politics is all about controlling the rhetoric and controlling the message. A movement such as this has no means of controlling it's message, yes these Occupy movements have spokes people, but they are in no way able to control what the people on the ground are saying and doing. It's like a ship in a storm with no one at the helm.
Inevitably, I have run into people trying to compare these movements with the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. However this movement was inherently different. With the Civil Rights movement you had a strong central leader who was able to control the rhetoric, and perhaps more importantly had such respect that he could control the actions of the people on the ground. The Occupy movement has no one like this.
The Civil Rights protests also were part of a larger overall campaign. The protestors wanted to get beaten up by the police as the footage of this would inevitably end up on television in the northern half of the country; creating a sympathy with the Civil Rights movement that lead to votes, money, and manpower. This allowed the movement to fund legal battles, run stronger grassroots campaigns, and put more resources into future protests. The protests were only one part of the movement, an integral one yes, but only only one aspect to the political movement.
In some ways the tea party uses this same format, and one of the reasons they have been so successful. Three years ago I went to the tax day tea party rally in Madison WI, which at the time turned out to be one of the largest such rallies in the country. The rally was not too different from a protest like we have seen on Wallstreet, a series of presenters and speakers hyping people up through sensationalist rhetoric. But what was really interesting, is when the rally concluded a group of volunteers went through the crowd handing out information packets with links to resources on how to run as a candidate, how to form a tea party group, and most importantly where to send money. The rally was used as a conduit to get people together and invested in the larger political movement. There's a reason the tea party is on the verge of surpassing the Republican National Committee in terms of fund raising and why so many very conservative candidates have been appearing on election ballets.
Earlier this year I attended another tea party rally in Madison, this time Sarah Palin was the "headliner". While she is not the leader of the tea party (no one really is) she does qualify as the figure head for sure. She definetly has the respect of the people on the ground and is able to, at the very least, sway and influence the rhetoric of the movement and the actions of protestors in a certain direction. The Occupy movement is devoid of such leaders, again back to the ship lost in the storm analogy.
Essentially, my point is that in the US system, if your actions are not raising money or supporting a candidate in some way, you are participating in a pointless activity. I realize some of these protests can help people deal with their frusteration and make them feel like they are "making a difference" but they are not. Imagine the impact of all the Occupy Wallstreet protesters had spent the last few weeks going door to door soliciting monetary donations or support for a candidate. They could get someone elected to Congress with that kind of time and man power. Protests can be an important political tool, but to make a real difference they have to be used withing the framework of a movement that can control the rhetoric and capitalize on public support. If not, they it is a waste of time.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.
On November 21 2011 19:47 Falling wrote: @The Toast While it's great that the system works for many people, the fact that there is low voter turn-out in addition to protests, it seems that people are unhappy with how the system functions. Furthermore, you may not see the immediate use of protests, but I certainly see them at the very least as an important safety valve. Without it, you are pushing a lot of the issues underground and when they do arise, the outpouring could be far more violent. Violently suppressing it and Gingerich's derisive 'let them eat cake/ go home and take a bath' just makes things worse.
Protests do push the public discourse to start speaking about what the protests are about, even it is a negation of the protest. But at best, consistent protests can push politicians to ammend positions. Perhaps not enough for the protestors, but enough to stem it.
But what I don't understand is how people wish for protests do be this quiet little thing that when that government says stand, they stand; when the government says sit, they sit; and when the government says go home, they all go home. Protests are by their nature disruptive. And if it's peaceful disruption, there is no cause to escalate it to violent disruption with asymmetrical use of force. Remove them from where they are being disruptive and let's not have this 'they deserve to be pepper sprayed.' That's crowd control and there was nothing that needed controlling at the time- just removal.
I'm not necessarily criticizing the act of protesting and rallying, they can be useful political tools in certain circumstances. My point is about the Occupy Wallstreet group and the additional movements that have been spawned out of it.
Protesting and camping out is by itself not going to achieve political goals. Yes, protests like these do gain public attention, however much of the media attention given to the Wallstreet protest has been generally negative. There have been dozens of stories in the media about drugs, sex, crime, and disorderly behavior at Zucotti park. Obviously, these people only represent one element of the protest and is not representative of all the people there. You can say this is unfair, but politics is all about controlling the rhetoric and controlling the message. A movement such as this has no means of controlling it's message, yes these Occupy movements have spokes people, but they are in no way able to control what the people on the ground are saying and doing. It's like a ship in a storm with no one at the helm.
Inevitably, I have run into people trying to compare these movements with the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. However this movement was inherently different. With the Civil Rights movement you had a strong central leader who was able to control the rhetoric, and perhaps more importantly had such respect that he could control the actions of the people on the ground. The Occupy movement has no one like this.
The Civil Rights protests also were part of a larger overall campaign. The protestors wanted to get beaten up by the police as the footage of this would inevitably end up on television in the northern half of the country; creating a sympathy with the Civil Rights movement that lead to votes, money, and manpower. This allowed the movement to fund legal battles, run stronger grassroots campaigns, and put more resources into future protests. The protests were only one part of the movement, an integral one yes, but only only one aspect to the political movement.
In some ways the tea party uses this same format, and one of the reasons they have been so successful. Three years ago I went to the tax day tea party rally in Madison WI, which at the time turned out to be one of the largest such rallies in the country. The rally was not too different from a protest like we have seen on Wallstreet, a series of presenters and speakers hyping people up through sensationalist rhetoric. But what was really interesting, is when the rally concluded a group of volunteers went through the crowd handing out information packets with links to resources on how to run as a candidate, how to form a tea party group, and most importantly where to send money. The rally was used as a conduit to get people together and invested in the larger political movement. There's a reason the tea party is on the verge of surpassing the Republican National Committee in terms of fund raising and why so many very conservative candidates have been appearing on election ballets.
Earlier this year I attended another tea party rally in Madison, this time Sarah Palin was the "headliner". While she is not the leader of the tea party (no one really is) she does qualify as a figure head for sure. She definetly has the respect of the people on the ground and is able to at the very least sway and influence the rhetoric of the movement in a certain direction. The Occupy movement has no one like this, again back to the ship lost in the storm analogy.
Essentially, my point is that in the US system, if your actions are not raising money or supporting a candidate in some way, you are participating in a pointless activity. I realize some of these protests can help people deal with their frusteration and make them feel like they are "making a difference" but they are not. Imagine the impact of all the Occupy Wallstreet protesters had spent the last few weeks going door to door soliciting monetary donations or support for a candidate. They could get someone elected to Congress with that kind of time and man power. Protests can be an important political tool, but to make a real difference they have to be used withing the framework of a movement that can control the rhetoric and capitalize on public support. If not, they it is a waste of time.
Derailing a little bit, but are you from Madison? I go to school here and I went to the same tax day rally that you mention in your post!
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.
They are not peaceful and harmless if they are breaking the law. They were told to move and didn't so reasonable force was used
On November 22 2011 01:55 slappy wrote: ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.
I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign
You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.
Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.
UC Davis is an immense campus so they really weren't preventing people from getting anywhere.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.
They are not peaceful and harmless if they are breaking the law. They were told to move and didn't so reasonable force was used
On November 22 2011 01:55 slappy wrote: ya everyone needs to watch the videos and read the interviews to see what actually happend. The students were keeping the grounds immaculate, offering food and coffee to everyone who passed by (EVEN THE FUCKING COPS, THE SAME FUCKIN LT. THAT MACED THEM WAS TALKING WITH THEM BY NAME THE DAY BEFORE!), and were NOT blocking any path. They were moving their tents around to ensure they weren't disrupting anyone from going to class, or anyone from getting by, etc.
I signed the petition for that LT and the Chancelor to resign
You realize that they're sitting across multiple sidewalks in the pictures, right? They were clearly blocking paths.
Moreover, they're on private property and were told to leave and refused. You can have all the civil disobedience you want, these are the consequences.
UC Davis is an immense campus so they really weren't preventing people from getting anywhere.
That doesnt mean anything...
The world is an immense campus so those people blocking the road really weren't preventing people from getting anywhere.
You can change the scope of something however you want but a rule is a rule no matter how you look at it.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.
If they refuse to do as instructed when breaking a law, yes, yes it ethical to shoot pepper spray at them/beat them if they continue to resist.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
the protesters got permission to camp there for that night before by the lady in charge of the school and she called the cops to clear them out the next day... they were peacefully protesting. The guys sitting were disobeying the cops order (to move), they were not breaking any laws
READ SOME FUCKIN SHIT BEFORE COMMENTING
WTF do you people not understand. You CANNOT block a road or SIDEWALK. Do I have to spell it out for you?
The reason this discussion is leading you nowhere is that you're discussing whether the cops were in the right in a strictly legal sense, whereas other people are questioning whether it was ethical to shoot pepper spray into a peaceful and harmless crowd.
They are not peaceful and harmless if they are breaking the law. They were told to move and didn't so reasonable force was used
Kind of a leap, don't you think?
No you can't create double standards or it will create a precedence where everyone will point fingers and say
"If they are allowed to block the sidewalks why can't I protest by laying down in the middle of a road."
On November 21 2011 19:47 Falling wrote: @The Toast While it's great that the system works for many people, the fact that there is low voter turn-out in addition to protests, it seems that people are unhappy with how the system functions. Furthermore, you may not see the immediate use of protests, but I certainly see them at the very least as an important safety valve. Without it, you are pushing a lot of the issues underground and when they do arise, the outpouring could be far more violent. Violently suppressing it and Gingerich's derisive 'let them eat cake/ go home and take a bath' just makes things worse.
Protests do push the public discourse to start speaking about what the protests are about, even it is a negation of the protest. But at best, consistent protests can push politicians to ammend positions. Perhaps not enough for the protestors, but enough to stem it.
But what I don't understand is how people wish for protests do be this quiet little thing that when that government says stand, they stand; when the government says sit, they sit; and when the government says go home, they all go home. Protests are by their nature disruptive. And if it's peaceful disruption, there is no cause to escalate it to violent disruption with asymmetrical use of force. Remove them from where they are being disruptive and let's not have this 'they deserve to be pepper sprayed.' That's crowd control and there was nothing that needed controlling at the time- just removal.
I'm not necessarily criticizing the act of protesting and rallying, they can be useful political tools in certain circumstances. My point is about the Occupy Wallstreet group and the additional movements that have been spawned out of it.
Protesting and camping out is by itself not going to achieve political goals. Yes, protests like these do gain public attention, however much of the media attention given to the Wallstreet protest has been generally negative. There have been dozens of stories in the media about drugs, sex, crime, and disorderly behavior at Zucotti park. Obviously, these people only represent one element of the protest and is not representative of all the people there. You can say this is unfair, but politics is all about controlling the rhetoric and controlling the message. A movement such as this has no means of controlling it's message, yes these Occupy movements have spokes people, but they are in no way able to control what the people on the ground are saying and doing. It's like a ship in a storm with no one at the helm.
Inevitably, I have run into people trying to compare these movements with the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. However this movement was inherently different. With the Civil Rights movement you had a strong central leader who was able to control the rhetoric, and perhaps more importantly had such respect that he could control the actions of the people on the ground. The Occupy movement has no one like this.
The Civil Rights protests also were part of a larger overall campaign. The protestors wanted to get beaten up by the police as the footage of this would inevitably end up on television in the northern half of the country; creating a sympathy with the Civil Rights movement that lead to votes, money, and manpower. This allowed the movement to fund legal battles, run stronger grassroots campaigns, and put more resources into future protests. The protests were only one part of the movement, an integral one yes, but only only one aspect to the political movement.
In some ways the tea party uses this same format, and one of the reasons they have been so successful. Three years ago I went to the tax day tea party rally in Madison WI, which at the time turned out to be one of the largest such rallies in the country. The rally was not too different from a protest like we have seen on Wallstreet, a series of presenters and speakers hyping people up through sensationalist rhetoric. But what was really interesting, is when the rally concluded a group of volunteers went through the crowd handing out information packets with links to resources on how to run as a candidate, how to form a tea party group, and most importantly where to send money. The rally was used as a conduit to get people together and invested in the larger political movement. There's a reason the tea party is on the verge of surpassing the Republican National Committee in terms of fund raising and why so many very conservative candidates have been appearing on election ballets.
Earlier this year I attended another tea party rally in Madison, this time Sarah Palin was the "headliner". While she is not the leader of the tea party (no one really is) she does qualify as a figure head for sure. She definetly has the respect of the people on the ground and is able to at the very least sway and influence the rhetoric of the movement in a certain direction. The Occupy movement has no one like this, again back to the ship lost in the storm analogy.
Essentially, my point is that in the US system, if your actions are not raising money or supporting a candidate in some way, you are participating in a pointless activity. I realize some of these protests can help people deal with their frusteration and make them feel like they are "making a difference" but they are not. Imagine the impact of all the Occupy Wallstreet protesters had spent the last few weeks going door to door soliciting monetary donations or support for a candidate. They could get someone elected to Congress with that kind of time and man power. Protests can be an important political tool, but to make a real difference they have to be used withing the framework of a movement that can control the rhetoric and capitalize on public support. If not, they it is a waste of time.
Derailing a little bit, but are you from Madison? I go to school here and I went to the same tax day rally that you mention in your post!
Seems entirely reasonable to me. They formed a circle around the policemen and locked arms so they could not get out. What do you expect to happen? I am surprised they did not open fire with their rubber bullets.
Edit: and to all the people saying it was just a small group of people sitting there, it wasn't. There was an entire circle of people who linked arms around the police. If you go to the link of the interview with the pepper-sprayed "victim" you can see pictures of the circle around the police. Then the police only sprayed that small portion blocking the sidewalk. Entirely reasonable
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
Regardless of how justified the actual protest is, this amount of force doesn't measure up to the threat the protestors were posing. Part of being involved in law enforcement is wielding a certain amount of force necessary to maintain the law and justice. But with that comes the great responsibility of using that power with discretion. If you mean to tell me that riot police wearing body armor couldn't move those students without using pepper spray or fearing for their safety, I'll call you a flat out liar.
The riot police are there to prevent riots. The act of physical trying to move the people out of the way is what starts a riot. If you don't understand officer protocol and the fact that they have to follow orders, don't bother commenting. Call me a flat out liar, but I'll just call you flat out wrong.
The flaw in this logic is that the pepper spray was very specifically directed towards the people sitting on the ground in a very unthreatening way. That small group of kids sitting on the ground aren't going to start a riot. The people standing behind the cops were clearly a bigger threat, and the cops barely even looked at them, much less sprayed them. Try again.
Maybe because the people standing were not breaking a law?
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
No, it's called assaulting kids because you're too lazy to just peel them apart from each other. Stop apologizing for cops assaulting people protesting peacefully, it's hard to watch.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
Yeah dumbass students. Might as well shoot them and rid society of their useless asses. I mean they break the law they should be prepared to get shot and beaten. This is America, land of the FREE.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
Um... what?
Let's say I am about to park in a handicapped spot. I am breaking the law. A policeman comes by and shoots me to stop me. Is that justified? Obviously not. The response is totally out of proportion to what I am doing.
This was a peaceful protest in a public space. Spraying with pepper spray and beating with batons is WAY WAY WAY disproportional.
For all you saying that the police were legally justified for the amount of force use as they students were breaking the law and that removing them peacefully would cause a riot: Why not just shoot the students? Live ammo is the ultimate at preventing riots. And it's not excessive force, as the police would simply be following orders.
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
Um... what?
Let's say I am about to park in a handicapped spot. I am breaking the law. A policeman comes by and shoots me to stop me. Is that justified? Obviously not. The response is totally out of proportion to what I am doing.
This was a peaceful protest in a public space. Spraying with pepper spray and beating with batons is WAY WAY WAY disproportional.
Excessive force is excessive force and brutality. Whether or not these students were breaking any laws or not is beside the point. Campus police have such a tendency to exercise way too much violence probably because most of them have never done real police work and don't get much action otherwise. It disgusts me that tax money goes to feed these pigs.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
Peaceful protest or not, the students were being delinquent and refusing to move. I support their cause concerning tuition. And this was a necessary evil to bring it to the public attention.
But had they just gotten up and listened to the cops we wouldn't be hearing anything about this. The Chancellor would not give a shit. And nothing would get done about the ridiculous tuition.
I don't think threatening looking cops, who, these days have an extremely negative reputation, are an appropriate response to such protests. People generally tend to not want to listen to authority figures telling them not to do something they feel passionate and "in the right" about. From what I've seen cops only ever make these situations worse. Perhaps some of them do good by weeding out people in the protests trying to stir up trouble. But we never hear about it.
When all the cops can do to deal with protests is resort to violence I think we need to try finding a better solution to responding to protests.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers' goal was to remove them from the path, and they could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they had to end up doing at the end, because the students did not disperse on their own like you implied) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
On November 22 2011 04:00 couches wrote: But had they just gotten up and listened to the cops we wouldn't be hearing anything about this. The Chancellor would not give a shit. And nothing would get done about the ridiculous tuition.
That's the best thing about this. If the cops had just peeled them apart and arrested them, no one would give a shit and the cops would keep their jobs. The way it happened, everyone's eyes are on UCD now and the students now have a much larger platform to make their voice heard and the cops who did it are on administrative leave.
I cannot believe the response on here from Americans. How do you think you got your freedoms? It was from active, illegal protest against the English. The thing is, just because something is illegal by the letter of the law, it doesn't mean the courts won't uphold the spirit of the law above the letter.
Gandhi is pretty widely accepted to have been a civil revolutionist even though he practised civil disobedience. He broke the law countless times. He was never arrested, because the English new it was a question of human rights. They might be right according to the law, but not according to a greater sense of morality.
What about illegally sitting at the front of the bus? These are not crimes without purpose. They are calculated and meaningful, and should evoke change. The problem is that we are all so jaded that we just don't listen to the protesters.
People on here talking about ethics seem to have never studied the subject. It is not ethical to pepper spray someone regardless of the circumstances. Pepper spray is also not "non-violent." It causes damage and pain, that's pretty obviously violent.
I can't believe this is now the United States of America. The opinion has been shoved down our throat that America is the greatest, safest, most honest country in the world. I see that has never been true.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
The escalation argument is used to justify the use of the mace. I am using it to show how stupid it is. You have proven my point.
You don't think this type of stuff escalates? You don't think that POLICE cause the escalation?
Guys, it's not like these people were occupying Wall Street or something like that.
They were on campus in the main quad that is there for the community of students.
It says a lot about what kind of person you are if you think people should have the right to protest policies impacting education, tuition, taxation, economics, etc. while also thinking that those rights to protest are superseded by public bylaws mandating public parks be kept clean. This goes from UC Davis to Zuccotti Park.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
I agree. I think the issue here is whether or not they should have removed them or not. Once that decision is made (not saying it was the right or wrong one) pepper spraying the students is I think an appropriate response.
If you try to physically remove them, you run the risk of an officer or a student being seriously injured. The beauty of pepper spray is that it HURTS like hell and make people very very uncomfortable; but it's a natural compound that does not leave any lasting physical injuries. In some ways, pepper spraying the students is for their protection and the police involved. It's the same reason cops use it to subdue criminals, so that the suspect can be arrested without getting hurt in a physical altercation with the cops.
At the time of the incident, the students had been entirely non-violent (and I believe they at least intended to stay that way), but you have to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the police. They have no idea what these people are going to do, they could start a riot or a fight and you could end up with a lot of injured people. It's so easy to make judgements from your computer chair, but I suspect it's entirely different when you are greatly outnumbered and surrounded by chanting protestors. I think you would also want to choose the option that will resolve the situation without anyone being permanently hurt.
Again, I'm not justifying the decision made to remove them in the first place, but the use of pepper spray I think is definetly justified.
To those that think the cops did okay, what do you think of the fact that they were placed on administrative leave? What do you think of the Chancellor making an apology for how things went?
So what, these people didn't do what the cops told them to do. Did the cops have the right? Did the students NOT have the right to be on the campus THEY paid for? Do they not have the constitutional rights every American citizen has? For the most part, except when safety comes around.
Now that we start getting into the pickle jar, WHAT IS SO FUCKING DANGEROUS ABOUT FUCKING SITTING THERE? The cops had NO reason to be scared when the group of students were yelling, "YOU USE YOUR GUNS, WE USE OUR VOICE!" The students had every right to be scared.
The ENTIRE staff of UCDavis realizes it was a BAD FUCKING CALL to bring in the police.
Now that we understand some points of views FROM THE ADMINISTRATORS WHO BROUGHT IN THE POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE, we can concluded that what the police did was wrong. They have been punished, maybe justly, maybe not, and that should prove to everyone who thinks the cops did no wrong, that they did wrong. Otherwise, why would you punish someone for doing their job?
"A law is a law is a law"... The constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
I agree. I think the issue here is whether or not they should have removed them or not. Once that decision is made (not saying it was the right or wrong one) pepper spraying the students is I think an appropriate response.
If you try to physically remove them, you run the risk of an officer or a student being seriously injured. The beauty of pepper spray is that it HURTS like hell and make people very very uncomfortable; but it's a natural compound that does not leave any lasting physical injuries. In some ways, pepper spraying the students is for their protection and the police involved. It's the same reason cops use it to subdue criminals, so that the suspect can be arrested without getting hurt in a physical altercation with the cops.
At the time of the incident, the students had been entirely non-violent (and I believe they at least intended to stay that way), but you have to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the police. They have no idea what these people are going to do, they could start a riot or a fight and you could end up with a lot of injured people. It's so easy to make judgements from your computer chair, but I suspect it's entirely different when you are greatly outnumbered and surrounded by chanting protestors. I think you would also want to choose the option that will resolve the situation without anyone being permanently hurt.
Again, I'm not justifying the decision made to remove them in the first place, but the use of pepper spray I think is definetly justified.
Actually, pepper spray can leave tissue damage and even kill some people. Who knows, maybe someone will have an allergy to the peppers.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
I agree. I think the issue here is whether or not they should have removed them or not. Once that decision is made (not saying it was the right or wrong one) pepper spraying the students is I think an appropriate response.
If you try to physically remove them, you run the risk of an officer or a student being seriously injured. The beauty of pepper spray is that it HURTS like hell and make people very very uncomfortable; but it's a natural compound that does not leave any lasting physical injuries. In some ways, pepper spraying the students is for their protection and the police involved. It's the same reason cops use it to subdue criminals, so that the suspect can be arrested without getting hurt in a physical altercation with the cops.
At the time of the incident, the students had been entirely non-violent (and I believe they at least intended to stay that way), but you have to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the police. They have no idea what these people are going to do, they could start a riot or a fight and you could end up with a lot of injured people. It's so easy to make judgements from your computer chair, but I suspect it's entirely different when you are greatly outnumbered and surrounded by chanting protestors. I think you would also want to choose the option that will resolve the situation without anyone being permanently hurt.
Again, I'm not justifying the decision made to remove them in the first place, but the use of pepper spray I think is definetly justified.
Actually, pepper spray can leave tissue damage and even kill some people. Who knows, maybe someone will have an allergy to the peppers.
Well anything can run the risk of death. Tasers, tear gas, and physical confrontations can all end up deadly. The difference is physical confrontations are much more likely to cause harm, and in most cases the effects of Pepper Spray dissipate after a few hours. Physical confrontations can also lead to injury of both the police officers and the students, thus doubling the chances of such an occurance. There's no real good way to remove people, but some options are much better than others.
the pepper spray is getting all the attention, haven't seen anyone here mention the cop saying "move or I'll shoot you", or one kid getting zip tied so tight it caused nerve damage in his hands, etc
On November 22 2011 04:13 DigiGnar wrote: To those that think the cops did okay, what do you think of the fact that they were placed on administrative leave? What do you think of the Chancellor making an apology for how things went?
The ENTIRE staff of UCDavis realizes it was a BAD FUCKING CALL to bring in the police.
No they dont. I'm sure they were placed on administrative leave because UC Davis is doing the politically correct thing and removing them until a thorough investigation is complete. The apology is along the same lines. They have to at least look like they care when millions of ignorant people outcry over use of pepper spray. Pepper spray for god sakes, you know, the non-lethal stuff.... This will come and go and I can almost guarantee that the cops will still have their jobs, they did the right thing.
You can bet that there will not be another stupid protest on that campus any time soon either. I'm honestly dumbfounded that so many people are trying to claim police brutality or a violation of rights in this situation.
I know you haven't said whether or not this was justified but we should take a step back.
Why was it so necessary for the cops to remove them? Cause they got orders? That argument didn't fly at Nuremburg and it shouldn't fly here. Were the students causing so many problems that it was necessary to cause physical pain to them? I would understand if they were shutting down normal functioning of the University but it doesn't seem like it. Maybe if they were blocking the way to stop some terrorists or something there would be urgency, but why was it deemed so necessary that the students are removed that they had to resort to pepper spray? At any normal university, if the problem was so great that even the thought of pepper-spraying students popped up, the president of the college would be down there negotiating with them cause they know that doing it the violent route is just going to lead to bad publicity. Too bad for UCD.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
I agree. I think the issue here is whether or not they should have removed them or not. Once that decision is made (not saying it was the right or wrong one) pepper spraying the students is I think an appropriate response.
If you try to physically remove them, you run the risk of an officer or a student being seriously injured. The beauty of pepper spray is that it HURTS like hell and make people very very uncomfortable; but it's a natural compound that does not leave any lasting physical injuries. In some ways, pepper spraying the students is for their protection and the police involved. It's the same reason cops use it to subdue criminals, so that the suspect can be arrested without getting hurt in a physical altercation with the cops.
At the time of the incident, the students had been entirely non-violent (and I believe they at least intended to stay that way), but you have to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the police. They have no idea what these people are going to do, they could start a riot or a fight and you could end up with a lot of injured people. It's so easy to make judgements from your computer chair, but I suspect it's entirely different when you are greatly outnumbered and surrounded by chanting protestors. I think you would also want to choose the option that will resolve the situation without anyone being permanently hurt.
Again, I'm not justifying the decision made to remove them in the first place, but the use of pepper spray I think is definetly justified.
Actually, pepper spray can leave tissue damage and even kill some people. Who knows, maybe someone will have an allergy to the peppers.
Well anything can run the risk of death. Tasers, tear gas, and physical confrontations can all end up deadly. The difference is physical confrontations are much more likely to cause harm, and in most cases the effects of Pepper Spray dissipate after a few hours. Physical confrontations can also lead to injury of both the police officers and the students, thus doubling the chances of such an occurance. There's no real good way to remove people, but some options are much better than others.
But why do they need to bring it to this point? The students HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE, EVEN IN THE UNIVERSITY. The university preserves that right except in the light of safety. Now, please, for the fucking love of god, WHAT IS SO DANGEROUS ABOUT SITTING?
Is handcuffing someone really so much more dangerous than pepper spraying? Shit, had the cops tried to use those FIRST, this video wouldn't have happened. The cops shouldn't have even been there as stated by the UCDAVIS CHANCELLOR. Every bit of the cops being there was wrong.
Privileged, middle-class university students deliberately disobey the law. Working class, campus police who probably make below the median salary, respond as they are trained to do. Privileged students complain loudly, cause several police officers to be put on leave, a detriment to their ability to care for their families. Images of one of the police officers with his phone number are distributed around the internet with the intent to harass him.
Yet another example of the Occupy movement not being about distributive justice, but about fulfilling the leftist, conspiratorial fantasies of rich, white kids.
I'm sure they were placed on administrative leave because UC Davis is doing the politically correct thing and removing them until a thorough investigation is complete. The apology is along the same lines. They have to at least look like they care when millions of ignorant people outcry over use of pepper spray.
You're.... sure? It doesn't matter what the staff privately feels on the inside, what matters is their actions. The actions they took was to show that the police being there, and especially what they did, was wrong. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been punishment. Let's take a look at the word: punishment.
I'm sure they were placed on administrative leave because UC Davis is doing the politically correct thing and removing them until a thorough investigation is complete. The apology is along the same lines. They have to at least look like they care when millions of ignorant people outcry over use of pepper spray.
You're.... sure? It doesn't matter what the staff privately feels on the inside, what matters is their actions. The actions they took was to show that the police being there, and especially what they did, was wrong. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been punishment. Let's take a look at the word: punishment.
Here's one of the definitions: "a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure "
Seems like these two officers were penalized for doing their job, I would have to say... Incorrectly. Otherwise, why would they be penalized?
I was saying that Im sure that the "ENTIRE staff of UC Davis" doesnt think that it was a bad call to bring in the cops, just like not everyone here does either.
And for all we know, those cops could be on paid leave, which is not really a punishment, its just a way to get them out of the spotlight until the investigation is over.
On November 22 2011 02:44 slappy wrote: I get a ticket for blocking my driveway, not pepper sprayed in the mouth
These people had they're chance for a ticket but they ripped it to shreds (metaphorically) so the next step was used.
So if they were peppersprayed and didn't disperse, would the next step of live ammunition be justified? Is it justified as long as you escalate "step by step".
You do realize also with what you are saying, that in order to "maintain the peace" that is not at risk, the POLICE are ESCALATING violence? Now what happens if people start feeling their lives are at risk in response to the police and start fighting back? Are they not justified to protect themselves, regardless of the whom is threatening their lives, if they truly feel their lives are in jeopardy?
You can't use the slippery slope argument here - the officers could either have physically removed the students by grabbing them (which they did at the end) or create an incentive for them to leave on their own accord. They thought the latter was a better choice than grabbing them, and chose what I believe is the least violent way to incentivize the students to leave. Only when that failed, they resorted to physically removing them. It does not escalate "step-by-step" into "live ammunition," you are over-generalizing the case and exaggerating.
I agree. I think the issue here is whether or not they should have removed them or not. Once that decision is made (not saying it was the right or wrong one) pepper spraying the students is I think an appropriate response.
If you try to physically remove them, you run the risk of an officer or a student being seriously injured. The beauty of pepper spray is that it HURTS like hell and make people very very uncomfortable; but it's a natural compound that does not leave any lasting physical injuries. In some ways, pepper spraying the students is for their protection and the police involved. It's the same reason cops use it to subdue criminals, so that the suspect can be arrested without getting hurt in a physical altercation with the cops.
At the time of the incident, the students had been entirely non-violent (and I believe they at least intended to stay that way), but you have to consider the situation from the viewpoint of the police. They have no idea what these people are going to do, they could start a riot or a fight and you could end up with a lot of injured people. It's so easy to make judgements from your computer chair, but I suspect it's entirely different when you are greatly outnumbered and surrounded by chanting protestors. I think you would also want to choose the option that will resolve the situation without anyone being permanently hurt.
Again, I'm not justifying the decision made to remove them in the first place, but the use of pepper spray I think is definetly justified.
Actually, pepper spray can leave tissue damage and even kill some people. Who knows, maybe someone will have an allergy to the peppers.
Well anything can run the risk of death. Tasers, tear gas, and physical confrontations can all end up deadly. The difference is physical confrontations are much more likely to cause harm, and in most cases the effects of Pepper Spray dissipate after a few hours. Physical confrontations can also lead to injury of both the police officers and the students, thus doubling the chances of such an occurance. There's no real good way to remove people, but some options are much better than others.
But why do they need to bring it to this point? The students HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE, EVEN IN THE UNIVERSITY. The university preserves that right except in the light of safety. Now, please, for the fucking love of god, WHAT IS SO DANGEROUS ABOUT SITTING?
Is handcuffing someone really so much more dangerous than pepper spraying? Shit, had the cops tried to use those FIRST, this video wouldn't have happened. The cops shouldn't have even been there as stated by the UCDAVIS CHANCELLOR. Every bit of the cops being there was wrong.
To handcuff someone you first have to get them to unlock their arms. If they choose not to cooperate you have to subdue them and hold them down. It's all messy business. If you are resigned to remove them, what they did was about the best option. It's a messy deal no matter how you slice it. And I'm not going to get into a debate about the morality of following immoral orders, that's another whole can of worms.
Should they have done it? Probably not, considering the PR nightmare that has ensued. This obviously ties into 1960s Vietnam Era protests that no one wants to see repeated. However, the question of whether they "should" have done it and whether they were "justified" in doing so are two separate things. Recieving bad PR does not affect the justification of the issue.
I'm not going to weigh in on whether it was justified or not, obviously the opinions in this thread are separated along strong ideological lines and no one is going to convince anyone of anything on that topic.
Actually, we do know for a fact that the cops are on administrative leave. As per the plethora of news articles that have come from this single indecent.
Actually, we do know that the staff of UCDavis thought that what happened was no good. As that's the reason this investigation is going underway.
And yeah, I'm going crazy. Like those crazy whacky inflatable arm men outside of car dealerships. It's so unique how you can sense so much emotion from text over the internet.
Interesting that this thread is aiming all their flak at the police and not the person who called in the police. Obviously if the police are called in to remove non-compliant lawbreakers there will be trouble of some sort.
If you really believe what OWS is saying, then the police are part of the 99% too. It just reeks of irony how most all posters in here are ignoring the Chancellor's role in this. Even funnier that the Chancellor's response completely directs responsibility away from herself. I'm sure people at UCD see this, but most people here are off the mark. The Chancellor had the option to allow the protests to continue, but decided to crack down on them. Police would have done nothing if not for her orders that the protesters be removed.
Come on people, give the police a break for once and focus on the real criminal. Someone in the upper echelon of society pitting the lower ones against each other? This is the real shame in my opinion. The police were not even particularly brutal in this case. The chancellor cannot even be bothered enough to take responsibility for sending the police out. I hate to say it again, but this situation is just rank with irony. Is the chancellor not supposed to be one of the most enlightened people at the university? That she is the one who ordered and instigated the entire topic of this thread is just unbelievable.
On November 22 2011 04:54 Fontong wrote: Interesting that this thread is aiming all their flak at the police and not the person who called in the police. Obviously if the police are called in to remove non-compliant lawbreakers there will be trouble of some sort.
If you really believe what OWS is saying, then the police are part of the 99% too. It just reeks of irony how most all posters in here are ignoring the Chancellor's role in this. Even funnier that the Chancellor's response completely directs responsibility away from herself. I'm sure people at UCD see this, but most people here are off the mark. The Chancellor had the option to allow the protests to continue, but decided to crack down on them. Police would have done nothing if not for her orders that the protesters be removed.
Come on people, give the police a break for once and focus on the real criminal. Someone in the upper echelon of society pitting the lower ones against each other? This is the real shame in my opinion. The police were not even particularly brutal in this case. The chancellor cannot even be bothered enough to take responsibility for sending the police out. I hate to say it again, but this situation is just rank with irony. Is the chancellor not supposed to be one of the most enlightened people at the university? That she is the one who ordered and instigated the entire topic of this thread is just unbelievable.
indeed! She signed off allowing the protests to happen in the first place..
On November 22 2011 04:54 DigiGnar wrote: Actually, we do know for a fact that the cops are on administrative leave. As per the plethora of news articles that have come from this single indecent.
Actually, we do know that the staff of UCDavis thought that what happened was no good. As that's the reason this investigation is going underway.
And yeah, I'm going crazy. Like those crazy whacky inflatable arm men outside of car dealerships. It's so unique how you can sense so much emotion from text over the internet.
Right, but typically with administrative leave, they are still paid. Like I said, they are not being punished yet, just relieved of duty until they determine whether or not their actions were appropriate, they may or may not be punished then.
And while the article says that the staff of UC Davis found it to be no good, Im sure it's not the "ENTIRE FUCKING staff" that you said it was....
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
On November 22 2011 04:54 Fontong wrote: Interesting that this thread is aiming all their flak at the police and not the person who called in the police. Obviously if the police are called in to remove non-compliant lawbreakers there will be trouble of some sort.
If you really believe what OWS is saying, then the police are part of the 99% too. It just reeks of irony how most all posters in here are ignoring the Chancellor's role in this. Even funnier that the Chancellor's response completely directs responsibility away from herself. I'm sure people at UCD see this, but most people here are off the mark. The Chancellor had the option to allow the protests to continue, but decided to crack down on them. Police would have done nothing if not for her orders that the protesters be removed.
Come on people, give the police a break for once and focus on the real criminal. Someone in the upper echelon of society pitting the lower ones against each other? This is the real shame in my opinion. The police were not even particularly brutal in this case. The chancellor cannot even be bothered enough to take responsibility for sending the police out. I hate to say it again, but this situation is just rank with irony. Is the chancellor not supposed to be one of the most enlightened people at the university? That she is the one who ordered and instigated the entire topic of this thread is just unbelievable.
Actually, watching the Chancellors apology video, the police weren't supposed to remove a single student. Only equipment. I didn't see them unable to get out of the quad in the video. So, really, are the cops here not to blame for their actions? The chancellor didn't want a camp, and some students did take down their tents. They (the cops) were only there to remove equipment, and ended up spraying students in the face. Students that were just sitting there. So really, who is to blame here?
I don't support (I don't think it's wrong, I take no opinion on) the #OWS movement.
I also think that the campus were perfectly justified in having police involvement, if nothing else but to oversee that nothing got out of hand.
That policeman should be fired, he is a disgrace to himself. Police are allowed to use acceptable force. Nonviolent people who could simply be dragged out of position do not require the force that was used. That is criminal use of force.
"If you don't move I'll shoot you"... does this need explanation?
On November 22 2011 04:54 DigiGnar wrote: Actually, we do know for a fact that the cops are on administrative leave. As per the plethora of news articles that have come from this single indecent.
Actually, we do know that the staff of UCDavis thought that what happened was no good. As that's the reason this investigation is going underway.
And yeah, I'm going crazy. Like those crazy whacky inflatable arm men outside of car dealerships. It's so unique how you can sense so much emotion from text over the internet.
Right, but typically with administrative leave, they are still paid. Like I said, they are not being punished yet, just relieved of duty until they determine whether or not their actions were appropriate, they may or may not be punished then.
And while the article says that the staff of UC Davis found it to be no good, Im sure it's not the "ENTIRE FUCKING staff" that you said it was....
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
People are arguing that it wasn't handled as well as it could be. It certainly could have been handled much, much, better. There is no reason at all to use pepper spray on people who are not in any way threatening or dangerous. Pepper spray is supposed to be used to help incapacitate dangerous individuals, not to punish people for refusing to follow orders.
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
Nobody was hurt except for that girl who had an asthma attack there and then, the guy with nerve damage in his hands/wrists, the people with potential tissue damage from the pepper spray. Hint, coughing up blood isn't healthy either.
Although I agree that pepper spray was a bad call, surrounding the police officers chanting "We will let you leave... if you let them go!" and "Set them free!" was a bad call too. Do not surround the police and demand them to do something. Even though it's not meant to be violent, it is an aggressive and threatening action by the students on the police.
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
Nobody was hurt except for that girl who had an asthma attack there and then, the guy with nerve damage in his hands/wrists, the people with potential tissue damage from the pepper spray. Hint, coughing up blood isn't healthy either.
So where's the "nothing but feelings were hurt" ?
I think this is trumped up. The two people who were taken to the hospital were already released. Likely they were taken to the hospital becaues they felt like they were dying, which is exactly what pepper spray is intended to do. I can't speak about the guy whose wrist was hurt, but the rest of these people are going to be perfectly fine, some may just have sensitive skin and eyes for a while.
If the police had tried to remove them with brute force, I gaurentee that there would be many way more serious injuries.
On November 22 2011 04:54 DigiGnar wrote: Actually, we do know for a fact that the cops are on administrative leave. As per the plethora of news articles that have come from this single indecent.
Actually, we do know that the staff of UCDavis thought that what happened was no good. As that's the reason this investigation is going underway.
And yeah, I'm going crazy. Like those crazy whacky inflatable arm men outside of car dealerships. It's so unique how you can sense so much emotion from text over the internet.
Right, but typically with administrative leave, they are still paid. Like I said, they are not being punished yet, just relieved of duty until they determine whether or not their actions were appropriate, they may or may not be punished then.
And while the article says that the staff of UC Davis found it to be no good, Im sure it's not the "ENTIRE FUCKING staff" that you said it was....
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
But typically? They were relieved of duty. Does that action not say something about the actions the cops took?
The staff at UCDavis, or the entire staff. Maybe I'm a little angry, just a bit, that this happened to people just fucking sitting there. Oh no, I care about my fellow man. But when the article states "staff of UCDavis", it means the staff. of. U.C.Davis. The staff that runs the university. It generalizes them all, so whether I say "entire fucking staff" or the article says "staff", it doesn't matter. The staff has been generalized, nor does it matter if one or two possible, remind you, possible opinions differ from the Chancellors.
Fact: Officers were placed on administrative leave and there is an investigation underway. Fact: Chancellor has issued an apology, backed by the staff of UCDavis.
Now, about the cops telling them to stop... Stop what? They (cops) were there to remove equipment, not to tell them they weren't allowed to demonstrate. That's their constitutional right, and a right preserved by the school. So, again, what where they (students) doing wrong?
Usually, an employee is placed on administrative leave when an allegation of misconduct is made against an employee, either by a co-worker, student or parent, a victim or police officer. During the leave, employers may investigate the situation before determining an appropriate course of action.
Note the word: MISCONDUCT. This isn't the same as paid leave, this is something different.
On November 22 2011 05:14 Pleiades wrote: Although I agree that pepper spray was a bad call, surrounding the police officers chanting "We will let you leave... if you let them go!" and "Set them free!" was a bad call too. Do not surround the police and demand them to do something. Even though it's not meant to be violent, it is an aggressive and threatening action by the students on the police.
We've already gone over this...
The police were not pepper spraying the people standing behind them. They were pepper spraying the students sitting on the ground. The claim that they felt threatened by the people sitting on the ground and not the people standing around them is ridiculous.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
What law were these students breaking? The cops were there to remove equipment, not students. Yet, they ended up spraying students in the face.
On November 22 2011 04:54 DigiGnar wrote: Actually, we do know for a fact that the cops are on administrative leave. As per the plethora of news articles that have come from this single indecent.
Actually, we do know that the staff of UCDavis thought that what happened was no good. As that's the reason this investigation is going underway.
And yeah, I'm going crazy. Like those crazy whacky inflatable arm men outside of car dealerships. It's so unique how you can sense so much emotion from text over the internet.
Right, but typically with administrative leave, they are still paid. Like I said, they are not being punished yet, just relieved of duty until they determine whether or not their actions were appropriate, they may or may not be punished then.
And while the article says that the staff of UC Davis found it to be no good, Im sure it's not the "ENTIRE FUCKING staff" that you said it was....
I personally see this as a adult spanking... Some adults were doing something inappropriate, a cop told them to stop as per order of the chancellor, and they continued to anyways so they got sprayed. At the end of the day nothing but feelings were hurt and the protest was over. This was handled about as well as it could be and we still have people going crazy... not just here but nationally. I think that is more sad than anything that happened on campus the other day.
People are arguing that it wasn't handled as well as it could be. It certainly could have been handled much, much, better. There is no reason at all to use pepper spray on people who are not in any way threatening or dangerous. Pepper spray is supposed to be used to help incapacitate dangerous individuals, not to punish people for refusing to follow orders.
Bingo. Pepper spray was way over the top and used inappropriately.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
The consequences for the students' actions were being arrested.
The consequences for a peaceful demonstration is NOT threats of being shot, followed by being pepper sprayed. Police can use that when they're threatened. Not when someone is sitting on the ground being probably as unthreatening as is humanly possible while still exercising their right to protest.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
Well, no but I would cry foul, if when I rolled down my window I was pepper sprayed in the face for speeding. That's vindictive and nothing to do with appropriate consequences nor deescalation. And that's the same deal I see here.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
What law were these students breaking? The cops were there to remove equipment, not students. Yet, they ended up spraying students in the face.
Whether or not the students were breaking any law is irrelevant to his statement and mine.
On November 22 2011 05:16 liberal wrote: We've already gone over this...
The police were not pepper spraying the people standing behind them. They were pepper spraying the students sitting on the ground. The claim that they felt threatened by the people sitting on the ground and not the people standing around them is ridiculous.
You forget the point to what I'm saying. It's not about why they felt threatened, but it's about the crowd should never surround police and give them demands.
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote: The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
Are you one of those people who goes over the speed limit then cry at the injustice of the system when you receive a ticket? If you're knowingly breaking a law then you should be ready for the consequences that entailed.
The consequences for the students' actions were being arrested.
The consequences for a peaceful demonstration is NOT threats of being shot, followed by being pepper sprayed. Police can use that when they're threatened. Not when someone is sitting on the ground being probably as unthreatening as is humanly possible while still exercising their right to protest.
If its their right to protest then the consequences wouldn't be for them to be arrested.
I don't understand how anyone can argue against the central point of contention that pepper-spraying non-violent protesters in this context is wrong. If the Chancellor is to be believed, the police weren't even called in to remove the protesters, just their camp equipment. How does the fact that what they did is technically legal and state-sanctioned have any bearing on the moral issue here? I hope I don't have to provide examples of the multitude of awful laws that have been in place across history and across the world. Apparently, these students were being clean, friendly and not obstructing foot traffic (before the police arrived, at least). People should not have to apply for a fucking permit to demonstrate; it defeats the entire purpose of the activity and gives the establishment the power to prevent your demonstration on a technicality (which they are apt to do as they are generally the target of the protests).
On November 22 2011 05:27 Pleiades wrote: It's not about why they felt threatened, but it's about the crowd should never surround police and give them demands.
This I can agree with. The crowd supporting them was probably going too far.
On November 22 2011 05:27 Pleiades wrote: It's not about why they felt threatened, but it's about the crowd should never surround police and give them demands.
This I can agree with. The crowd supporting them was probably going too far.
I'm not so sure... I mean these were hippies without weapons. I bet a crowd of 3 year olds would be more dangerous
why not just...oh i dont know, arrest them? there's 10 kids and like 20 cops there, you SERIOUSLY tell me that trying to separate some tiny asian girl from her friend is going to be more harmful then pepper spraying her in the face?
I have a feeling this is all gonna get very, very bloody in the coming months/years
I don't understand the perspective of the protestors. It seems like they were being dicks to the police just for the sake of being dicks. They could have just gotten out of the way, kept on going about their chanting and informing of everyone else there. Instead, someone had the bright idea that provoking police and being rude about it for the sake of being rude. It isn't like there is some big moral dilemma of getting off the sidewalk or not. All I see is stubbornness and arrogance from the protestors. As If refusing to get off the sidewalk on a college campus is the catalyst for societal change
Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
On November 22 2011 00:34 Mr Showtime wrote: 100% appropriate. This is one of the most retarded movements I think the world has ever seen. I can almost see what the "occupy wall street" people are trying to achieve, but even that is still retarded because they are essentially protesting the government policies..... while occupying wall street.
THIS here is just straight up stupid on a level I couldn't even fathom before now. They are occupying UC Davis? Seriously? You're not protesting anything; you are being a public nuisance. Wake up.
Police brutality would be the police immediately resorting to pepper spray because they are sitting down in the way of travel. They are getting sprayed to shit because of insubordination and refusal to follow the written laws of the state of California. Serves them right.
They are protesting the increase in tuition which has skyrocketed in the last decade. If you don't think police brutality includes walking up to people and spraying OC in directly into their eyes at point blank range I pray you never become a policeman. Not everyone's parents pay their tuition no matter what the cost. Lot's of people take out massive student loans to pay.
My apologies for posting an partially ignorant comment, as I was unclear as to what they were protesting. But my original opinion stands. But you and others who disagree with the orders given to these officers act like pepper-spray was the first response plan. Let me repeat that the spraying of the students was not the result their occupation, it was the result of insubordination and refusal to cooperate with the officer's requests as they were in DIRECT violation of state law. Officers get paid to uphold the law. I'd never support police "brutality", but in this case they are doing their job. There's no way in hell that these officers or myself wanted this situation to get to this point, but at some time you will run out of options. They did unfortunately.
Please...
Pepper spraying students is despicable. Any good-hearted, common-sense bound person can see this. The person who made the call to use pepper spray is in a leadership position, a position of responsibility. This person needs to be able to make moral calls, and not just blindly follow what are clearly archaic laws.
I mean, the argument they had to pepper spray these students because they were running out of options is repulsive to me. Some nearly insignificant, non-violent, non-obtrusive protest is such a massive breach of the law, that these officers were in such a panic they felt the need to spray and arrest them? Come on....
Don't start making shit up to create a defense. These officers were not in a "panic" and they did not take the impulsive action to use pepper spray on the students. These students were in violation of the law. They tried for a long while to get them to move along peacefully. The students REFUSED. They need to know that this was coming. The officers didn't panic. They were under ORDERS to remove the students. Peaceful negotiations were not working. Too bad for the idiots who thought they could sit there in violation of the law without consequence. It's called learning the hard way.
Um... what?
Let's say I am about to park in a handicapped spot. I am breaking the law. A policeman comes by and shoots me to stop me. Is that justified? Obviously not. The response is totally out of proportion to what I am doing.
This was a peaceful protest in a public space. Spraying with pepper spray and beating with batons is WAY WAY WAY disproportional.
Bad analogy is bad.
User was warned for this post
Inappropriate way to respond, but you're right. That's a shitty comparison. If you park in a handicap spot your car can get towed. You don't get shot. Use common sense. These people aren't getting shot.
And for the guy who said that the "peeling them apart from each other" was the proper solution. You don't know what you are talking about. Officers can't just use physical force. They were following orders, and they were given no choice up to the point where they had to resort to pepper spray. That's how it works.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
Because when you sign up to be a police officer you take on certain responsibilities and duties. Among those are protecting and serving your community. These cops have shown a complete disregard for the safety and well being of the people they swore to protect. I honestly don't care about the legality of the protests, as long as they weren't violent there is NO reason to employ weapons against them. Not to mention the way the police used the spray was clearly in an attempt to inflict harm and pain, otherwise you wouldn't be spraying kids down the mouth and from 2 feet away.
It's simply amazing and sad how tone-deaf the Occupy movement is. Rich, privileged college students harassing a blue collar police officer put in a stressful situation does not lend itself to the supposed 99% message the Occupy movement wants to make. The average American, for better or for worse, respect the police, and being anti-establishment douchebags is not going to win their support.
And the Occupy movement is fucking irrelevant if they cannot get the support of average voters to enact their desired policies. Protesting is not democracy. Voting is.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
Because when you sign up to be a police officer you take on certain responsibilities and duties. Among those are protecting and serving your community. These cops have shown a complete disregard for the safety and well being of the people they swore to protect. I honestly don't care about the legality of the protests, as long as they weren't violent there is NO reason to employ weapons against them. Not to mention the way the police used the spray was clearly in an attempt to inflict harm and pain, otherwise you wouldn't be spraying kids down the mouth and from 2 feet away.
Ok....I don't disagree with you, but you completely side-stepped my question. Not that I actually expected someone to try to answer it..It should be universally obvious that beating someone to death is a bit worse than spraying them with pepper spray.
On November 22 2011 05:57 domovoi wrote: It's simply amazing and sad how tone-deaf the Occupy movement is. Rich, privileged college students harassing a blue collar police officer put in a stressful situation does not lend itself to the supposed 99% message the Occupy movement wants to make. The average American, for better or for worse, respect the police, and being anti-establishment douchebags is not going to win their support.
And the Occupy movement is fucking irrelevant if they cannot get the support of average voters to enact their desired policies. Protesting is not democracy. Voting is.
lol at how biased your post is. "rich privileged college students". how do you know anything about them? that's complete assumptions.
"blue collar officer put in a stressful situation". you mean, doing their job???
ugh why am i even posting here. your post annoyed me though.
On November 22 2011 06:21 travis wrote: lol at how biased your post is. "rich privileged college students". how do you know anything about them? that's complete assumptions.
The vast majority of the students in the video are white. White college students are predominantly in the upper half of America's income bracket. Moreover, from a global income perspective, Americans at nearly all income levels are in the top 5%.
"blue collar officer put in a stressful situation". you mean, doing their job???
Yes, I mean doing their job. A lot of OWS supporters treat the police as if they are on the side of "THE MAN," which feeds into their narcissistic, anti-establishment world view. It certainly does not promote the 99% message OWS has tried but failed to express.
On November 22 2011 06:21 travis wrote: lol at how biased your post is. "rich privileged college students". how do you know anything about them? that's complete assumptions.
The vast majority of the students in the video are white. White college students are predominantly in the upper half of America's income bracket. Moreover, from a global income perspective, Americans at nearly all income levels are in the top 5%.
"blue collar officer put in a stressful situation". you mean, doing their job???
Yes, I mean doing their job. A lot of OWS supporters treat the police as if they are on the side of "THE MAN," which feeds into their narcissistic, anti-establishment world view. It certainly does not promote the 99% message OWS has tried but failed to express.
I wasn't aware that every single white person was rich. What a stunning revelation you have brought upon us.
On November 22 2011 06:21 travis wrote: lol at how biased your post is. "rich privileged college students". how do you know anything about them? that's complete assumptions.
The vast majority of the students in the video are white. White college students are predominantly in the upper half of America's income bracket. Moreover, from a global income perspective, Americans at nearly all income levels are in the top 5%.
"blue collar officer put in a stressful situation". you mean, doing their job???
Yes, I mean doing their job. A lot of OWS supporters treat the police as if they are on the side of "THE MAN," which feeds into their narcissistic, anti-establishment world view. It certainly does not promote the 99% message OWS has tried but failed to express.
I wasn't aware that every single white person was rich. What a stunning revelation you have brought upon us.
I wasn't aware that I claimed every single white person was rich. I wasn't aware that some people on TL.net do not understand the concept of generalities.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Not all, I know some past and present Vietnamese and Hmong students that go there that have parents who immigrated after the Vietnam war. Their families are technically living in poverty due to their income.
If I follow the assumption that every single one of those students(...) was rich and privileged, does that automatically negate any opinions they have on the matter? How does their status somehow invalidate their opinions about something they see as an outrage worth protesting? Were the white people who joined the civil rights movement and put police in "stressful" situations being ridiculous because it didn't really affect them?
On November 22 2011 06:47 Glam wrote: If I follow the assumption that every single one of those students(...) was rich and privileged, does that automatically negate any opinions they have on the matter? How does their status somehow invalidate their opinions about something they see as an outrage worth protesting? Are the white people who joined the civil rights movement and put police in "stressful" situations being ridiculous because it didn't really affect them?
Jesus Christ, I didn't say any of that stuff. How about rereading my comment.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans.
people who say there rich must not understand the current state of the economy, because after they graduate and have huge college loans they owe most of them can't find a job better than minimum wage anymore.
and top 5% income is irrelevant when you don't have a job! that's no income. people don't understand how bad its getting in America. job growth is not even keeping up with population growth anymore. and every month there is more jobless that don't count in statistics because they dint have work prior, but they just entered the workforce, and they don't count in umeployment statistics. US needs 150k new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth alone. and that means more and more unemployed who don't count every month who enter the workforce.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Not all, I know some past and present Vietnamese and Hmong students that go there that have parents who immigrated after the Vietnam war. Their families are technically living in poverty due to their income.
And sadly, you won't find a lot of them on a university campus.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Not all, I know some past and present Vietnamese and Hmong students that go there that have parents who immigrated after the Vietnam war. Their families are technically living in poverty due to their income.
Broad generalization countered by personal narrative. This has become a new meaning of futility.
At this point, I think everything that can be said has been said, I think all sides of this issue have been argued. All that's really left is to see what the university does next.
On November 22 2011 06:21 travis wrote: lol at how biased your post is. "rich privileged college students". how do you know anything about them? that's complete assumptions.
The vast majority of the students in the video are white. White college students are predominantly in the upper half of America's income bracket. Moreover, from a global income perspective, Americans at nearly all income levels are in the top 5%.
"blue collar officer put in a stressful situation". you mean, doing their job???
Yes, I mean doing their job. A lot of OWS supporters treat the police as if they are on the side of "THE MAN," which feeds into their narcissistic, anti-establishment world view. It certainly does not promote the 99% message OWS has tried but failed to express.
I wasn't aware that every single white person was rich. What a stunning revelation you have brought upon us.
My god, how easily threads get derailed by a single comment. The question of this thread is whether the police used excessive force, and that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's race, income, tuition...
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans.
Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family.
University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family.
Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family.
From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging.
If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies.
On November 22 2011 06:51 TheToast wrote: Broad generalization countered by personal narrative. This has become a new meaning of futility.
At this point, I think everything that can be said has been said, I think all sides of this issue have been argued. All that's really left is to see what the university does next.
Exactly the point I wanted to make. You can't generalize income with race.
EDIT: I meant you can't generalize income of everyone of that race. I wouldn't say that the average asian american I walked up to was doing better than the rest of america.
these kids have huge loans they have to repay after college but can't find a job after they graduate. i know people who graduated college working at mcdonalds, and another kid who graduated in criminal justice just reselling smartphones from craigslist. you guys don't understand how bad the American economy is. these newly graduated don't count in unemployment statistics. top 5% thats only if you can enter.
On November 22 2011 06:56 Pleiades wrote: I wouldn't say that the average asian american I walked up to was doing better than the rest of america.
That's probably untrue (it would depend on where you live), but it has nothing to do with my point. It is absolutely true that the average Asian is richer than the average American, as is the average white person. As an Asian, I have no problem with that, but in the context of OWS protests at universities, why the fuck do the protesters find it necessary to aggravate campus police? This isn't an isolated incident either, you're seeing it all over the country. And popular support for the movement is decreasing because of this image problem.
When the Tea Party was protesting, you didn't see any of this bullshit. And they were able to turn their movement into political power. It's really fucking sad that the OWS is too stupid to mimic their success, because for all the Tea Party's success, it's been a fucking a disaster for everyone else.
On November 22 2011 06:56 Pleiades wrote: I wouldn't say that the average asian american I walked up to was doing better than the rest of america.
That's probably untrue (it would depend on where you live), but it has nothing to do with my point. It is absolutely true that the average Asian is richer than the average American, as is the average white person. As an Asian, I have no problem with that, but in the context of OWS protests at universities, why the fuck do the protesters find it necessary to aggravate campus police? This isn't an isolated incident either, you're seeing it all over the country. And popular support for the movement is decreasing because of this image problem.
I give it until New Year's max before it totally dies down. Seems to me like they're running out of gas.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
Because when you sign up to be a police officer you take on certain responsibilities and duties. Among those are protecting and serving your community. These cops have shown a complete disregard for the safety and well being of the people they swore to protect. I honestly don't care about the legality of the protests, as long as they weren't violent there is NO reason to employ weapons against them. Not to mention the way the police used the spray was clearly in an attempt to inflict harm and pain, otherwise you wouldn't be spraying kids down the mouth and from 2 feet away.
Ok....I don't disagree with you, but you completely side-stepped my question. Not that I actually expected someone to try to answer it..It should be universally obvious that beating someone to death is a bit worse than spraying them with pepper spray.
Yea I didn't say that I agree with you on that. Obviously pepper spray is not the deadliest weapon police can employ but if the police deem it necessary to use that on seemingly docile college students then I have to disagree with their policy. Police should have every right to carry guns, they absolutely need these weapons to effectively do their job. They should also have the authority to make calls on what measure of force is necessary as it is them who are truly experts. But I just don't see how their actions are justified here.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
well... it would be self defence or at least retaliation, not unprovoked violence against people not posing any threat. i didn't read more than first page of this but the responses disgusted me too much to continue... How can people defend the police doing this? it's what you would expect in soviet russia.
I just want to add, that it seems strange to say that it shouldn't be hard to arrest non-violent protesters... The only reason a person assumes they will be non-violent during an upcoming arrest is because they said they would be... Maybe they will, I won't go as far as to say they won't, its just that they are clearly not cooperative (which is obviously the point of the protest)...
So now you have police officers having to arrest non-cooperative people who promise not to be violent, but can not safely be trusted to uphold that promise when arrests begin... Pepper spray is used as a non-lethal method of compliance and is considered safer (for the officer) than physically forcing someone to comply, which would have been required here due to their reluctance to leave on their own...
So in my (well trained) opinion, pepper spray use may or may not have been acceptable in this situation... It depends on the reason for use... If pepper spray was used to safely gain compliance of uncooperative individuals during an arrest, then it was an acceptable use... However, if pepper spray was used because the arresting officers wanted to inflict pain on protesters during the arrest, it is completely unacceptable...
In conclusion, pepper spraying of "non-violent" protesters, in and of itself, is neither acceptable nor unacceptable without knowing the reason for pepper spray usage, and from that reason, it can be determined the acceptability of the usage...
this shit makes me wish we could do something about horriblestuff like this, but sadly we cannot and these fuckers will probably just get a slap on the wrist as if nothing happened. such a fucking joke.
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
Because when you sign up to be a police officer you take on certain responsibilities and duties. Among those are protecting and serving your community. These cops have shown a complete disregard for the safety and well being of the people they swore to protect. I honestly don't care about the legality of the protests, as long as they weren't violent there is NO reason to employ weapons against them. Not to mention the way the police used the spray was clearly in an attempt to inflict harm and pain, otherwise you wouldn't be spraying kids down the mouth and from 2 feet away.
Ok....I don't disagree with you, but you completely side-stepped my question. Not that I actually expected someone to try to answer it..It should be universally obvious that beating someone to death is a bit worse than spraying them with pepper spray.
Yea I didn't say that I agree with you on that. Obviously pepper spray is not the deadliest weapon police can employ but if the police deem it necessary to use that on seemingly docile college students then I have to disagree with their policy. Police should have every right to carry guns, they absolutely need these weapons to effectively do their job. They should also have the authority to make calls on what measure of force is necessary as it is them who are truly experts. But I just don't see how their actions are justified here.
There was a huge rally today regarding the incident that took place last friday. There were many students at the rally, possibly +1000 in numbers (not sure of the exact number). It was a beautiful sight. Expect more information/news as the day goes on..the rally started at 12:00 and I left at around 2:00
On November 22 2011 05:42 KinosJourney2 wrote: Disgusting how people employed to protect peaceful civilians do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. What retard policeman had the idea to pepperspray people not posing a threat?
People like these should be fired and beaten to death in my opinion.
How is firing them and beating them to death any better than them pepper spraying people in the face?
well... it would be self defence or at least retaliation, not unprovoked violence against people not posing any threat. i didn't read more than first page of this but the responses disgusted me too much to continue... How can people defend the police doing this? it's what you would expect in soviet russia.
It's almost commonplace here in the US. At my school a police officer got caught on film beating a student for nothing. The kid's grandpa turned out to be a retired judge. My sophomore year on Halloween I saw seen officers beating a group of black males with their nightsticks after knocking them to the ground. I'm sure they had a reason but the way the cops attacked them I'd be surprised if one of them wasn't hospitalized. Its really scary sometimes.
On November 22 2011 07:02 domovoi wrote: That's probably untrue (it would depend on where you live), but it has nothing to do with my point. It is absolutely true that the average Asian is richer than the average American, as is the average white person. As an Asian, I have no problem with that, but in the context of OWS protests at universities, why the fuck do the protesters find it necessary to aggravate campus police? This isn't an isolated incident either, you're seeing it all over the country. And popular support for the movement is decreasing because of this image problem.
When the Tea Party was protesting, you didn't see any of this bullshit. And they were able to turn their movement into political power. It's really fucking sad that the OWS is too stupid to mimic their success, because for all the Tea Party's success, it's been a fucking a disaster for everyone else.
Overall, yes asian americans are more wealthier than the average american. However, in your other post you state that it is the rich kids harassing the officers, when in fact it is the ones who are struggling who are protesting. The UC system has seen an increased enrollment from low income families the past few years. Some students that go to UC Davis are not from rich families, and in fact, some go there because it's closer to Sacramento where their families are.
On November 22 2011 07:24 Pleiades wrote: However, in your other post you state that it is the rich kids harassing the officers, when in fact it is the ones who are struggling who are protesting.
Again, given all we know about the demographics of OWS protesters, university students, white students, etc., they are more likely be rich than not. From a world income perspective, they are most certainly rich. The more important point, however, is that Americans tend to view university students as privileged and police officers as working class. Watching students around the country continue to aggravate campus police only alienates Americans, and that will make OWS utterly irrelevant come election time, which is a fucking travesty given all the energy expended. OWS protesters are too enthralled by their anti-establishment delusions to realize this, however.
The UC system has seen an increased enrollment from low income families the past few years. Some students that go to UC Davis are not from rich families, and in fact, some go there because it's closer to Sacramento where their families are.
Sacramento has a pretty high median household income.
On November 22 2011 07:24 Pleiades wrote: However, in your other post you state that it is the rich kids harassing the officers, when in fact it is the ones who are struggling who are protesting.
Again, given all we know about the demographics of OWS protesters, university students, white students, etc., they are more likely be rich than not. From a world income perspective, they are most certainly rich. The more important point, however, is that Americans tend to view university students as privileged and police officers as working class. Watching students around the country continue to aggravate campus police only alienates Americans, and that will make OWS utterly irrelevant come election time, which is a fucking travesty given all the energy expended. OWS protesters are too enthralled by their anti-establishment delusions to realize this, however.
The UC system has seen an increased enrollment from low income families the past few years. Some students that go to UC Davis are not from rich families, and in fact, some go there because it's closer to Sacramento where their families are.
Sacramento has a pretty high median household income.
I don't think it matters how much money their families have or their ethnicity. They are active in a movement that has no direct outcome on their current situation. They are: A. College students who work in campus restaurants/odd jobs while having student loans/scholarships to pay for their tuition. B. Kids from more fortunate (hard working) households who are actually protesting against themselves.
This movement is a dump, if you're bitching about how much money you are going to make then; work harder, become a criminal, or keep protesting while other people advance their lives and you continue being the 99%
This was not an urgent issue to remove these kids. An on-site decision to pepper spray them was unnessesary. If the decision was called in downtown, and agreed upon, then it would be a different story. This is an example of how a quick rash decision is often influenced by emotion.
There is a reason police have to follow protocol on everything, why was there no protocol for this instance (non-urgent arrests need to be made on a group of protesters).
Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
On November 22 2011 07:33 domovoi wrote: Again, given all we know about the demographics of OWS protesters, university students, white students, etc., they are more likely be rich than not. From a world income perspective, they are most certainly rich. The more important point, however, is that Americans tend to view university students as privileged and police officers as working class. Watching students around the country continue to aggravate campus police only alienates Americans, and that will make OWS utterly irrelevant come election time, which is a fucking travesty given all the energy expended. OWS protesters are too enthralled by their anti-establishment delusions to realize this, however.
Sacramento has a pretty high median household income.
You are forgetting the main reason of the protests. Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about. One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens.
Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race.
So, all she did was state only that she wasn't going to resign? No other speaker on her behalf told anyone of a time and place for further in depth discussion? As a personal opinion, she's not done a good job at all with the whole ordeal and seems to be more of hiding away from attempting to solve any issues.
On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote: Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
Just curious... when did she arrive? I went there at 12pm and left around 12:45 since I felt she wasn't going to show up (and I had to go to office hours).
But wow, from what you said, that's kind of stupid of her just to speak up for 1-2 minutes and not explain or take questions from the crowd.
On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote: Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
I was there, too. It was the "announcement" part of the general assembly. All of them were supposed to be limited to one minute max, including Katehi.
On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote: Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
I was there, too. It was the "announcement" part of the general assembly. All of them were supposed to be limited to one minute max, including Katehi.
I will update the OP with pictures and new information I learned about at the rally. Responding to the earlier question, Katehi arrived around 1:10 iirc.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans.
Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family.
University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family.
Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family.
From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging.
If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies.
Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Playing the probabilities doesn't equate to racism. That term is thrown around far too liberally and as a result many people fail to realize what it actually means.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans.
Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family.
University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family.
Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family.
From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging.
If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies.
Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Also you're a racist.
Well you have to realize "rich" is a relative term. For instance, someone making $150,000 a year is top 15% of America, and surely top 10% of the world- justifiably called "rich". However, when college tuition alone gets to around $20k, thats a hefty amount still... factoring in books + residence + food + etc
On November 22 2011 08:51 killa_robot wrote: Your logic is invalid.
You obviously have no idea what "logic" means. My logic is quite valid given the axioms stated, as are most arguments. But logic has very little to say about the veracity of the axioms.
If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Like, here. This is not a counterargument to my logic, this is simply arguing for an axiom that would make my logical deductions no longer true. Unfortunately, I call bullshit. Rich and poor people alike care very much about rises in tuition.
On November 22 2011 07:58 Pleiades wrote: Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about.
It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens.
Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race.
It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors.
Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote: UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there.
Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket.
Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans.
Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family.
University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family.
Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family.
From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging.
If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies.
Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Also you're a racist.
Well you have to realize "rich" is a relative term. For instance, someone making $150,000 a year is top 15% of America, and surely top 10% of the world- justifiably called "rich". However, when college tuition alone gets to around $20k, thats a hefty amount still... factoring in books + residence + food + etc
This really has nothing to do with whether the protesters are rich or not. It is whether there protest is valid and if so whether the response from the University and the police was appropriate.
Does being rich mean that you should accept an 80% increase in tuition without protesting? That is a subjective call, particularly that "rich" is always based on comparison. Who exactly do you compare these rich students to? Students in africa can well say these guys are ridiculously ric but that has no bearing on the validity of their protest. So lets assume that an 80% increase is large enough to justify protesting.
What of the response from the University? Well they allowed the protest to run for a week, then requested that the protesters leave grounds on the basis of safety and health concerns.This is a reasonable request but of course the purpose of protesting is to demonstrate your willingness to put aside such concerns because you believe in what you are demonstrating about. Thus the protesters refused to comply.
The question then becomes was the University justified in calling in the cops? Yes, they were. They gave the students warning that this course of action would be followed. They had every right to do what they did. Should they have called in the cops, is much more debatable. The health and safety concerns with forcefully removing students, in my opinion, far outweigh the risks associated with letting them camp.
Yes, there are disruptions and other nuisances but those were not used as reasons to cancel the protest. Based on this it seems to me that the Chancellor overstepped by calling in the police and from there on it became inevitable that some form of violence would eventuate.
Was the police response appropriate? This has been much discussed and I will not delve into it any further. Suffice it to say that is boils down to whether you believe the use of pepper-spray is justified in removing the protesting students.
On November 22 2011 09:32 HTODethklok wrote: Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
I don't understand why people are advocating that the police use physical force. That's guaranteed to rile up the crowd and leads to a high chance of altercation if the person in any way fights back. You honestly think pushing them to the ground and arresting them will look better?
On November 22 2011 09:32 HTODethklok wrote: Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
I don't understand why people are advocating that the police use physical force. That's guaranteed to rile up the crowd and leads to a high chance of altercation if the person in any way fights back. You honestly think pushing them to the ground and arresting them will look better?
Because if they resist, THEN you use pepper spray. You don't just walk up to them and pepper spray them. Nor do you walk up to someone and taser them first. I'm using a slippery slope here but I think it's worth it. Should we just shoot the protesters first, since that would lead to the least chance of altercation? That'll look better, I'm sure.
On November 22 2011 07:58 Pleiades wrote: Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about.
It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
This is not a global protest. The protest is about local issues, again, why would a student in africa care about tuition in california? It has no relevance.
One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens.
Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
Fair enough, is there any evidence that they have not pursued other forms of communication to raise their grievances? Yes demonstrating may alienate some people but that hardly makes the demonstration pointless. As for the their behaviour immediately leading to police confrontations, that is debatable. Why could they not let them stay? The risks of trying to remove them far outweigh just letting them stay.
Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race.
It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors.
And you keep missing the point about image.
Since this is an image issue, would they be better served if they were poor? Are they not supposed to protest simply because they have enough money to go to college? Well pretty soon that may not be the case. Why does someone's background immediately invalidate what they are saying. I understand that you pushing this as an image issue, but in reality their image in not important to their concerns.
They would probably be better served by a more organised structure. Who knows that may arise out of this affair. But that hardly means you should dismiss them.
On November 22 2011 09:30 domovoi wrote: It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors.
And you keep missing the point about image.
I'm attacking your statement that you deem the protestors to be rich, not at them harrassing officers or the image of the outcomes of their actions.
Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
didn't read the thread, but the laws concerning the police officers' use of pepper spray very, VERY clearly states that they are ONLY permitted to do so when presented with the possibility of personal harm. The first cop to spray someone stepped easily over the line of teenagers SITTING in a circle around him, and a couple minutes earlier, was seen patting a student protester on the back.
I love cops (my hometown police are the bravest, most awesome guys I know. They know that a teenager doing 55 in a 45 isn't worth a ticket, because at least the teenager wasn't high on heroin, as is so common in the town. I was speeding one night, cop saw me, flicked his lights on and off just to let me know. Since he just saved me ~$200 in a speeding ticket, I went and bought him coffee and doughnuts. And I also don't speed there anymore. Good cops = people follow laws.) but what these guys did is wrong and illegal.
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf.
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf.
If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them.
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf.
If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them.
The problem is not that action was taken to remove the protesters. News flash, protesters protest. Their whole modus operandi is non-compliance. Saying that they should just comply is great but pointless.
The issue is this They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly . I think most people feel that they were not punished accordingly. The punishment far outweighed the crime.
On November 22 2011 11:40 Honeybadger wrote: didn't read the thread, but the laws concerning the police officers' use of pepper spray very, VERY clearly states that they are ONLY permitted to do so when presented with the possibility of personal harm. The first cop to spray someone stepped easily over the line of teenagers SITTING in a circle around him, and a couple minutes earlier, was seen patting a student protester on the back.
I love cops (my hometown police are the bravest, most awesome guys I know. They know that a teenager doing 55 in a 45 isn't worth a ticket, because at least the teenager wasn't high on heroin, as is so common in the town. I was speeding one night, cop saw me, flicked his lights on and off just to let me know. Since he just saved me ~$200 in a speeding ticket, I went and bought him coffee and doughnuts. And I also don't speed there anymore. Good cops = people follow laws.) but what these guys did is wrong and illegal.
Yea I was about to say a similar thing. If you can show me that the students were the ones who initiated the violence then I'll gladly swap my opinion around and say it was justified. As far as I can tell the students, while maybe violating a law, were still "peaceful" and non-aggressive. I just can't support the use of pepper spray on any one who is not acting in a threatening manner. These aren't genuine criminals, they aren't going to resist the officers arrest, how can you not think of a less violent means of breaking up this protest...
And how were they on someone elses property? Weren't they on their campus which they pay to attend?
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf.
If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them.
For fuck sakes people, get your story right.
>Police were called in to remove tent. >Protester park their ass on the ground and linked around to create a human wall around tent. >Police now have a hard time removing tent and ordered protesters to gtfo. >Protester ignore police order and continue to parked their ass on the group linked arm and not responding. >Police start arresting people 1 at a time like they were supposed to. >Someone called surrounding student to come and help shout off the cop. >Mob gathered >Mob surrounded police. >Police responded by macing protester who still parked their ass on the group and didn't moved since instead of the shouting mobs. (I will assume this was to make an example of for other and to expedite the process)
I think myself and I would like to say the majority of reasonable people on this forum would agree with the police all the way to the part where they decided to mace the non-violent, hell non-mobile protester.
Now for some stupid redundant argument. 1)Pepper Spray Prevent other more serious physical harm. Non of the protester who got arrested were putting up any kind of a fight other than linking arms; refusing to unlink them; and being dead weight to gives the officer a hard time. There were no kicking or any sign of aggression toward to police what so ever. Therefore the amount of physical damage done to the protester is solely at the police digression. Second, I've been maced by a crazy ex before, have the feeling that your face is peeling off, choking, and pretty much having the absolute worse time of my life ever is not a small thing. Hell, I got in car accident, broken bones, crack my head open, and god knows how many other stupid things that I've done. Nothing compare to the suffering I have to endure through the pepper spray, and that without having someone shoving the pepper spray down my throat. Until you experience the amount of pain and suffering caused by having that much mace sprayed at you, please shut the fuck up about how it is preferred over other treatment.
2) We live in a lawful society where there is a certain level of expectation from everyone in it. When you break a law, you get arrested. We you resist, a necessary amount of force will be taken to subdue you. When you act violent, more extreme force will be taken to subdue you. When you pull out a weapon that could endanger people around you, police have the authority and duty to shoot the crap out of you. Officer are only supposed to use necessary force to defuse and control the situation. Any more and it will and should be considered excessive for and brutality. You can't bash a criminal head on the ground and beat the living crap out of them once they lay down and surrender. You can't shoot a suspect in the back when they are running away. You can't mace a bunch of peaceful student performing civil disobedience just because they are making your job harder. Anyone argue that macing peaceful protester is okay is either retarded, ignorant, bias, or simple being a horrible human being.
Furthermore, those action need to be targeted toward the responsible party. For example, the officer can't mace or electrocute love one for your violent action. Just because the police feels threaten by the surround mob doesn't mean they can take it out on the non-violent protester and use them as an example. If a threat is previewed, use force against those who are threatening you. Not on those who you feels would be best to make an example of.
On November 22 2011 10:10 Supert0fu wrote: Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
What the protestors were doing was most certainly wrong. Protest is not an excuse to violate other people's property rights. For example, just because I have a right to protest does not mean I have a right to protest on your lawn. It's how the police handled the rights violates that is in question.
Did you go to university? I dunno what most people's experiences were like but there was a protest almost everyday on the quad at my undergrad institution. In fact, the current curriculum was spurred on by a 3 day sit-in at the presidents office. Occasionally people would get arrested for being dumbasses but it just kinda appears in the newspaper and that was it. I would expect it to be similar at UCD since its in a pretty liberal part of the country. The protest itself isn't surprising at all to me, the fact that they got peppersprayed is pretty lolwtf.
If police were called in, they would do what they were told. In that situation, the police were responding to dumbasses doing (maybe, not sure what event you're referring to) retarded things and deserving of punishment. In this situation, the police were told to remove the protesters (from what I've understood). The protesters did not comply, and were therefore sprayed in hopes that they would comply without the cops needing to get physical. People are saying that the cops could have handled the situation better. Well, guess what? The protesters could have handled the situation better as well. They chose disobedience, and were punished accordingly (not sure what else the police could have done, no one can get an ideal option that's not shot down in the thread). Also, yes pepper spray can be lethal, but the probability is rather low, compared to whatever injuries could have been taken through forced removal, which could also be lethal. Both have low chances of lethal harm, but I believe the physical violence has more of a chance to long-term damage them.
Protesters protest. Cops generally speaking are trained to deal with it. No ones gives a shit about cops arresting protesters and because most cops arrest nonviolent protesters without macing them in the face, and everyone realizes that what they're doing is illegal. You know why this is news? Because while its in the handbook for dealing with nonviolent protesters, cops pretty much never bring out the pepper spray. I mean following your train of thought, why didn't the cops just taser all of them? "less than lethal" and would make it easier to disentangle them. Or maybe just bomb them with tear gas. I mean, the obvious solution to a bunch of weakass students sitting around in a circle is to punish them with intense pain so that it makes your life easier. And seriously, if cops can't break a circle of nonviolent protesters apart without breaking bones and/or possibly killing people then maybe they shouldn't be there to "protect and serve".
On November 22 2011 15:26 MangoTango wrote: The comments in this thread are truly terrifying. Have none of you any idea what civil disobedience to police brutality is?
+1.
I have no fucking clue how anyone finds it acceptable to pepper spray non-violent protesters, regardless of whatever "illegal activity" they're sitting on a sidewalk constitutes.
Go ahead and check my post history. I've been hating on the hippies and the hipsters and the dorm-room humanitarians for as long as I can remember. Up until very recently, student protests ranked right below raw sewage in things that I would like to be immersed in. Nevertheless I find what happened at UC Davis absolutely infuriating. If you think that this is anything but a god damned outrage against your fellow citizens (or human beings, if you live outside the U.S.), I worry, to put it lightly, about the future of political discourse in our fine country. Tolerating non-violent dissent, even if you have to take great pains to do so, is a fucking core democratic value.
I don't think its as clearcut as the media is making it out to be. How do you clear out protesters who have gone beyond their right to exercise freedom of assembly? Camping out to me seems to go beyond that right, though some will disagree with this and I believe their is validity behind their arguments as well.
So for the sake of the case lets assume it was not okay for the protesters to be their and needed to leave. What are the police supposed to do? It seems that pepper spray might be one of the only ways to safely disperse a crowd. Pepper spray is one of the safest ways to disperse a protest barring voluntary dispersion. Maybe the police could have done something else but I can't think of anything, and officials and law enforcement didn't have the luxury of having extended time to make the decision. I sympathize with the protesters but i also don't think it was at face value wrong what the police did either. The amount of pepper spray was excessive, some of the protesters appeared as if they had taken a bath in it. tear gas might have been a better option (the effects are acute, but the pain doesn't last as long after leaving). The situation demanded action it seems, the chancellor made a good point that UC davis is not equipped to handle an encampment without safety and health risks. I don't think anyone can make a strong case for one or the other public perception is in favor of the protesters, but that isn't in my opinion the final word on the rightness or wrongness of an action.
On November 22 2011 17:13 johngalt90 wrote: I don't think its as clearcut as the media is making it out to be. How do you clear out protesters who have gone beyond their right to exercise freedom of assembly? Camping out to me seems to go beyond that right, though some will disagree with this and I believe their is validity behind their arguments as well.
So for the sake of the case lets assume it was not okay for the protesters to be their and needed to leave. What are the police supposed to do? It seems that pepper spray might be one of the only ways to safely disperse a crowd. Pepper spray is one of the safest ways to disperse a protest barring voluntary dispersion. Maybe the police could have done something else but I can't think of anything, and officials and law enforcement didn't have the luxury of having extended time to make the decision. I sympathize with the protesters but i also don't think it was at face value wrong what the police did either. The amount of pepper spray was excessive, some of the protesters appeared as if they had taken a bath in it. tear gas might have been a better option (the effects are acute, but the pain doesn't last as long after leaving). The situation demanded action it seems, the chancellor made a good point that UC davis is not equipped to handle an encampment without safety and health risks. I don't think anyone can make a strong case for one or the other public perception is in favor of the protesters, but that isn't in my opinion the final word on the rightness or wrongness of an action.
No, no, no, no, and no. What part of "do not employ violence against non-violent protesters" is so crazy to you? Honestly? "The police were in a tough situation!" Boo-fucking-hoo, man! That's they're fucking job. To serve, to protect, and to handle tough situations with as little violence as possible. So what if the protest made the job of the officers complicated and confusing and frustrating? They are civil servants who are supposed to have been trained to keep their heads in just such a situation. "It seemed like the best idea at the time" is not a valid excuse for pepper spraying a bunch of college kids on the quad. We should expect better of them. We should demand better of them. And when such expectations and demands are not met, well then heads should roll.
What happened there was not an understandable infraction on the part of the officers. It was gross misconduct.
By the logic that some of her use to defend the pepperspray usage the police could also have shot them in a leg with some "small" gun.
That is also "non-lethal" and would (most likely, just as pepper-spray and/or tasers) leave no long term damage. It also would not have been dangerous because.. Well, the Students were just sitting there so aiming wasn't a problem?... ...
Seriously, you don't use that kind of force against people that just sit there, you just don't. You drag them apart and arrest them for the night or something like that...
I have nothing against the police being called in to remove protesters, if the university deems it to be unsafe, then that's an administrative problem. However, pepper spray was completely uncalled for as a method to detain non-violent protesters.
Acceptable -> ganging up and removing protesters one-by-one by hand, a few bruises here and there, but eventually everybody gets removed and you keep a good reputation. Only if somebody actually threatens/attacks a police officer do you have a case for using pepper spray.
This just seemed to me like one of the officers wanted to take an easy route out and just incapacitate every protester so he could go home rather than expend time and energy removing them in an appropriate fashion. Definitely a case of extremely excessive force.
Im curious who made the call on the use of pepper spray. Was it a cop on the scene.. was it authorized in their briefing... was there even a briefing for these cops? what i saw was cops trying to do their job.. get surrounded and yelled at, let the pressure get to them and make a bad decision. I dont know how escalation of force works w/ police but im sure they have a order they have to go by. Im thinking they either dont have one or they failed to follow it. Besides what is lawfully right (being what they were briefed was allowed/not allowed and escalation of force) morally i feel that if the cop gave you clear warning on what was gonna happen if you didnt move, then its all good if there's no permanent damage. excessive force yea but i see it like slightly overstepping a boundry not extreme police brutality! Like velr said, the best way would be to
drag them apart and arrest them for the night or something like that...
. Personally if a cop told me to move or get sprayed, whether i thought he was right or not, i would fuckin move and if i stayed there and got sprayed i personally would be thinking shit that was a dumb move later on.
Also looks like some of the students after being sprayed still were being resistant so to me its like well shit the pepper spray wasnt convincing enough i guess on the other hand holy shit those protesters have some fighting spirit in em :O
On November 22 2011 18:09 bassa wrote: Im curious who made the call on the use of pepper spray. Was it a cop on the scene.. was it authorized in their briefing... was there even a briefing for these cops? what i saw was cops trying to do their job.. get surrounded and yelled at, let the pressure get to them and make a bad decision. I dont know how escalation of force works w/ police but im sure they have a order they have to go by. Im thinking they either dont have one or they failed to follow it. Besides what is lawfully right (being what they were briefed was allowed/not allowed and escalation of force) morally i feel that if the cop gave you clear warning on what was gonna happen if you didnt move, then its all good if there's no permanent damage. excessive force yea but i see it like slightly overstepping a boundry not extreme police brutality! Like velr said, the best way would be to
drag them apart and arrest them for the night or something like that...
. Personally if a cop told me to move or get sprayed, whether i thought he was right or not, i would fuckin move and if i stayed there and got sprayed i personally would be thinking shit that was a dumb move later on.
Also looks like some of the students after being sprayed still were being resistant so to me its like well shit the pepper spray wasnt convincing enough i guess on the other hand holy shit those protesters have some fighting spirit in em :O
First of all, I do not think it is legal or at least I hope to go it is not legal for police to mace people for not complying with orders. Giving a warning that you are doing something you shouldn't have done doesn't really makes your action any more justifiable. By your logic, it would be totally okay to start clubbing, tazing, or even shooting would totally be okay as long as the police gives the protester a warning first.
protesting is important in our democracy. it is important that people speak their minds. the problem is is, in 99,9% of protest only around 5 people know why are they protesting and the others just join to party. if protesting for a reason, make sure you can back it up, with arguments on a table, not by sitting down armlocked.
On November 22 2011 18:52 centinel4 wrote: protesting is important in our democracy. it is important that people speak their minds. the problem is is, in 99,9% of protest only around 5 people know why are they protesting and the others just join to party. if protesting for a reason, make sure you can back it up, with arguments on a table, not by sitting down armlocked.
just move hippie, or get sprayed.
They arm locked after being threatened to be removed..
talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
edit: my dad just made a good point about how stupid the police are for pepperspraying them ( im pro peepper spray for this)
his point was that by using pepper spray on the kids the kids efffectivly won this battle gaining amazing publicity.
it pains me to hear it but he's right. i these hipsters
On November 22 2011 19:08 Turbogangsta wrote: talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
Once again, who give a shit what they are protesting about. They could be protesting about how hard their class is for all I care. The problem is not what they are protesting about, but how the police react to peaceful protester. Your personal belief and weather you agree with what they are protesting about doesn't make the police action any less reprehensible.
talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
Once again, who give a shit what they are protesting about. They could be protesting about how hard their class is for all I care. The problem is not what they are protesting about, but how the police react to peaceful protester. Your personal belief and weather you agree with what they are protesting about doesn't make the police action any less reprehensible.
edit: my original point wassnt about justifying it either but about how embarasing these people are
talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
Once again, who give a shit what they are protesting about. They could be protesting about how hard their class is for all I care. The problem is not what they are protesting about, but how the police react to peaceful protester. Your personal belief and weather you agree with what they are protesting about doesn't make the police action any less reprehensible.
idk the law but is it peaceful to sit in the middle of a cerimonial thingy and scream and yell over the speakers?
i wouldve thought pepper spray would be justified if they are interupting an event because they didnt like it. what if a bunch of protestors sat "peacefully" across the road of a matigra
edit: my original point wassnt about justifying it either but about how embarasing these people are
First of all, pepper spray would not be justified if a person was being disruptive or interrupting and even. The correct course of action there would to remove those people from the even like you see when PETA running into a fur coat department store screaming, "fur is murder". I don't really know how fucked up the law are in Australia, but in the U.S., pepper stay was meant to only be use to disable people who might cause harm to the officer, the general public, or to themselves. Pepper spray is a tool to defuse a potential volatile situation, not as a form of discipline someone.
Edit to Turbo edit. Seriously? Your dad problem with the entire pepper spray fiasco was the by doing so, the protester got the public opinion on their side? That is like me saying I shouldn't poison my co-worker lunch cause how he gets to stay home and I don't.
I'm a cop in the military, and while we do have slightly different work ethics, we would never ever be given authorization to enforce pepper spray upon a group of peaceful protestors, i PROMISE. This is most definitely a case of unreasonable force. There is a Use of Force Model, in which you try to de-escelate situations and if the situation escelates, you adjust the amount of force you apply. ie: If someone is being compliant, you simply talk to them as well. if someone is ignoring youre vocal commands, you use contact controls (you detain them). While these group of people may have been asking to be arrested, they were never posing a threat for a police officer to use a self-defense mechanism (pepper spray) and while they may have had batons and riot shields as well (some people are complaining they would take those to a peaceful protest) they are definitely warranted to have them. 1000 students vs. 25 cops isn't a battle the cops will win. However, most riot gear is more for deterrence, not employment - in the best case scenario. This protest never got out of hand, it was a bunch of silly college kids yelling.
Those of you who defend the cops (i'm a cop - so you would think i would) are very silly to do so. The cops had absolutely no right employing the amount of force they did in this situation. It's a shame, it really puts a bad light on police officers and the work they do to help the public, save lives, and stop the bad people out there. Just like everything though, you have bad apples. and to be honest, this riot team seems to be lacking training big time, they either never experience protesting or they just don't train very well, most of what they're doing isn't right in the slightest, and they could have easily been overrun.
On November 22 2011 19:08 Turbogangsta wrote: talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
edit: my dad just made a good point about how stupid the police are for pepperspraying them ( im pro peepper spray for this)
his point was that by using pepper spray on the kids the kids efffectivly won this battle gaining amazing publicity.
it pains me to hear it but he's right. i these hipsters
There is a huge difference in the cost and payment method of tuition fees around the world. Being an Australian, you probably pay less than $10,000 a year in fees and you can use the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) which interest free (although subject to inflation indexation) to pay for your education. You also start paying off the HELP loan when you income crosses a certain threshold and I believe you even get a tax deduction on your repayment. Universities in Australia are also generally 3 year courses which means you total debt at the end is less than $30,000.
Compare this to the proposed $22,000 per year fee for a 4 year course which adds up to $88,000 at the end and I believe interest starts the moment you graduate, you will realize that Australians have it easy.
I am from Singapore and currently studying in Australia, formerly studied in Singapore and I can tell you that fees in Singapore are similar to Australia, slightly lower due to exchange rate but equalized by 4 year course instead of 3. Interest starts the year you graduate and are usually 4% p/a.
In Singapore, a fresh graduate gets around $35,000 a year while in Australia, $50,000 is what my friends are getting. Not sure about how much Americans make but with that horrible economy, they would be lucky if get a job at Macdonalds much less a proper one paying decently. The general feeling even in Singapore is that fees are beyond reasonable and people are having problems paying the fees. Australia has the mineral industry to turn to and if you cannot find a decent job, you do not have to worry much about your university fees. The protest of the insane 82% fee hike is totally reasonable and I understand how those students feel. It is hard to understand their feelings if you are not in their position and to generalize that they are hippies who only care for themselves is pretty insensitive on your part.
On the issue of police brutality, even though I am from a country where police have the right to arrest and detain you (indefinitely) without pressing charges, I feel that a certain line has been crossed here. If pepper spraying peaceful students sitting on the ground is acceptable police methods, does that mean rubber bullets or even live ammo for marching around the city? Even if the police are allowed to do what they did, the arrogance of the policeman who sprayed the students is totally disgusting. Just because you have the power to pepper spray someone does not mean you have to show the can of spray to everyone and spray multiple times on the students.
The legal system in most countries is setup such that you are innocent until proven guilty. The duty of the police is the arrest the suspect and the court will decide if the suspect is guilty or not and decide on the punishment. By saying the students are guilty without a proper trial is a miscarriage of justice and if we allow the police to decide what kind of punishment is suitable, isn't that judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one? The police should have power, but in this case, they seem to think they have absolute power. Quoting British historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
So what were the students with locked arms in the way of? If they were interupting something what actions had been taken by the police officers before spraying and how long were they obstructing?
On November 22 2011 20:56 Turbogangsta wrote: So what were the students with locked arms in the way of? If they were interupting something what actions had been taken by the police officers before spraying and how long were they obstructing?
According to some of the UC-Davis students who posted in the thread, they were not obstructing anything or anyone (maybe the police?) I believe the police warned them verbally and did nothing physically to try and separate the students before they started spraying.
On November 22 2011 20:56 Turbogangsta wrote: So what were the students with locked arms in the way of? If they were interupting something what actions had been taken by the police officers before spraying and how long were they obstructing?
According to some of the UC-Davis students who posted in the thread, they were not obstructing anything or anyone (maybe the police?) I believe the police warned them verbally and did nothing physically to try and separate the students before they started spraying.
Pretty disgusting. I'm not much of the protesting type but this seems a gross misuse of force. There is absolutely no need to use pepper spray against a completely nonviolent crowd. Sure a huge crowd of people yelling can be intimidating, but that is what police are paid for. That is why they have good equipment and have pepper spray to use if NECESSARY. If students started charging down the police and then were pepper sprayed I wouldn't object to it in the slightest. However that did not happen. What did happen was unreasonable, outrageous, and potentially criminal.
A lot of poorly informed and, frankly, frightening opinions about what constitutes an appropriate use of force when a person is in violation of the law are floating around in this thread.
I believe the actions performed by the police in this instance were wrong, and my heart goes out to the protesting UCD students. I am posting primarily in solidarity with them.
The UC-wide proposed tuition hikes are absurd, and, beyond condemning this police action, I believe the students have a righteous cause. To degrade them by calling them "whiny", "hippies", "hipsters", or anything of that nature diminishes the quality of the discussion.
On a related note, I am kind of shocked at the sheer amounts of drivel moderators are allowing to pass in this thread. This thread surprised me with the kind of content permissible on Team Liquid, as the mods typically perform their work both justly and diligently. In fact, it is part of why I love this site.
On November 22 2011 09:32 HTODethklok wrote: Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
I don't understand why people are advocating that the police use physical force. That's guaranteed to rile up the crowd and leads to a high chance of altercation if the person in any way fights back. You honestly think pushing them to the ground and arresting them will look better?
They had to use physical force after the pepper spraying to arrest the protesters anyways it's not as though the protesters just hand cuffed themselves after being pepper sprayed. I'm arguing they could skip the pepper spraying step and go straight to arresting people they shouldn't automaticlly assume the protesters will turn violent when they try to arrest them. The police are clearly abusing their power in this instance. No one can argue that being pushed to the ground while sitting so that the police can hand cuff you is more violent than being pepper sprayed the shoved to the ground and possibly beaten.
Seriously guys i could only read 2 pages of comments and im already filled with anger NOBODY who isnt threatening someone should EVER be done that to. Part of being a citizien is the right to remain unharmed by anyone ALSO THE POLICE as long as you dont thread anyone. And as i have read a lot of interviews etc. about this i cannot see how they threatened anyone. Its even arguable wheter or wheter not they have been doing anything that was against the law because at that point in time they were no longer camping. to make this clear i just lost a lot of respect for some of you guys.... also have been reading a lot on tl since sc2 came out but never made an account just made one to say that some of you should read a book about democracy or about what a government is there for. (Spoiler: its not for attacking people demonstrating peacefully)
look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
I agree that the use of pepper spray was extreme, but I don't think it was out of the question. People are acting like this causes permanent damage and serious injury, and if it had lead to some serious health hazard it would have become public knowledge by know. While these kids were not violently attacking the policemen, they had formed a circle around them and were chanting at them. I feel like that is a very stressful situation to any cop, and all it takes is one thrown rock to lead to them shooting their rubber bullets. Just spraying them down seemed to be a none lethal way to disperse the crowd and did not lead to any more conflict. If they had walked up and started beating them with their batons, then that would have definitely been an issue.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Sounds clever. Let's apply to Syria:
On November 23 2011 00:00 Pridereallyshoulddiesometimes wrote look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are Bashar Al'Assad army and snipers giving explicit orders to stop protesting the trolls are protesters who march in the streets although it's forbidden by the authorities the banhammer is the bullets. Perm ban is lethal shot, temp ban are injuries
Yeah, great success! I said something really dumb and made the most brainless analogy!!!
Peppers spray is not to be used in that situation. tear gas yes, pepper spray no. Its been all over the news, and many experts have stated pepper spray should have never been used.
Its what happens when you get a bunch of power tripping cops.
w/e happened to the right to assemble? Last time I checked our bill of rights trumped the penal code.
On November 23 2011 03:06 purecarnagge wrote: Peppers spray is not to be used in that situation. tear gas yes, pepper spray no. Its been all over the news, and many experts have stated pepper spray should have never been used.
Its what happens when you get a bunch of power tripping cops.
w/e happened to the right to assemble? Last time I checked our bill of rights trumped the penal code.
just an opinion.
Its private property therefore you can't protest there apparently though I guess as a public institution its public space. Oh wait, you can't protest in public spaces either unless you get the valid permits to protest. So nope, can't protest unless you get the legal documents. Without the legal documents you deserve to get pepper sprayed and tear gassed apparently.
On November 23 2011 03:06 purecarnagge wrote: Peppers spray is not to be used in that situation. tear gas yes, pepper spray no. Its been all over the news, and many experts have stated pepper spray should have never been used.
Its what happens when you get a bunch of power tripping cops.
w/e happened to the right to assemble? Last time I checked our bill of rights trumped the penal code.
just an opinion.
Its private property therefore you can't protest there apparently though I guess as a public institution its public space. Oh wait, you can't protest in public spaces either unless you get the valid permits to protest. So nope, can't protest unless you get the legal documents. Without the legal documents you deserve to get pepper sprayed and tear gassed apparently.
they got permission to protest from the bitch in charge
Ok, so from a recent post, apparently the students only locked arms after they were told to leave. This is obviously stupid, but of course, not deserving of pepper spray. Before people look at my recent posts and say I was a hypocrite, no, I did not say I thought pepper-spray was the best thing they could have done, I only said that they were allowed to (but with the recent cop giving his perspective, I've changed my opinion on that), but please, someone give an alternative that's not shot down. People keep saying "oh, just pull them away" but that gets shot down because that may cause more harm (not sure if it's true). Also, yes, I was not there so I don't have all the clear info on the subject, but why didn't they move? Are you telling me there's no other way to protest? The cops gave their warning and did something rather overblown, but why? Yes, the protest does need to happen, but having people on your side by being compliant and reasonable is probably better than having pepperspray in your face. If you've noticed, I haven't given examples on better ways the cops could have handled it or how else they could have protested. I'll leave that up to you guys. Also, if they just came to remove the tents, what the hell happened? It's like: 1. Remove tents 2. ??? 3. Remove students 4. Pepper spray after noncompliance.
This whole thing made me think of a quote by my beloved Carlin:
“The violence of the Left is symbolic, the injuries are not intended. The violence of the Right is real - directed at people, designed to cause injuries. Vietnam, nuclear weapons, police out of control are intentional forms of violence. The violence from the Right is aimed directly at people and the violence from the Left is aimed at institutions and symbols.”
Right wing era, with young people here celebrating police using violence at peaceful protesters because they didn't obey. Some of you guys realize that civil disobedience is what Gandhi did and advocated?
This is really such a disgusting disgrace, the worse they handle these situations, the shittier they end up looking, and the more support OWS ends up gaining.
Holy sweet mother of god. It takes a special kind of stupidity or shamelessness for anyone to considered pepper spray to be a food product. I'm not sure what is sadder, having someone with the gal to make this kind of ridiculous or having people stupid enough to believe it.
Why are people that stupid allowed to talk on television? I mean reality shows are set up to show stupid people do stupid stuff which entertains others and makes money, but here I don't think they even believe what they say,which shows they think that the viewers will be stupid enough to believe them.
"hey, a bullet is made of metal just like forks, so when we shoot you it's like eating"
Why are people that stupid allowed to talk on television? I mean reality shows are set up to show stupid people do stupid stuff which entertains others and makes money, but here I don't think they even believe what they say,which shows they think that the viewers will be stupid enough to believe them.
"hey, a bullet is made of metal just like forks, so when we shoot you it's like eating"
Seriously, their Anonymous report was both the biggest facepalm I ever had and the most infuriating propaganda piece of shit I've ever witnessed. And I don't even like Anonymous:
There is a very nice book by philosopher Alexander Koyré, about propaganda lies, that he wrote during the war. He said that the most striking thing about modern propaganda is how much one must despise his own troops, his own people, supporters or audience to lie them in such an obvious way or to feed them with reasoning they know are stupid or fallacious. He was concluding by saying that this anthropology, this belief that people are that stupid applied only to the one who were listening, that if totalitarian regimes proved something about stupidity, they proved it on their own people and certainly not on humanity as a whole.
Fox News and Murdoch are just a conservative version of what Goebbels was to Hitler or what Zhdanov was to Stalin. And I would apply the same reasoning: by lying so blatantly, by treating people like brainless idiots that would believe anything you serve them, what Fox News does is just to demonstrate who really vote for the Republicans, and how much ignorance and stupidity benefit this party and the ideas it carries.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
there are more effective and legal ways to speak up. if everyone 18-24 voted, politicians would take our opinions a lot more seriously. donating to political campaigns and forming groups that will lobby politicians would definitely change politicians to listen to our needs. showing up to every public forum and voicing our opinions would definitely help our cause.
the fact is that those college students wanted an instant gratification solution. they saw a potential injustice (they have to take bigger loans out) and instead of doing the hard work and fighting it through legal means they made a hasty rally. then they refused police orders because they wanted to emulate their heroes in the past and get attention and street cred from their peers and got a harsh dose of reality. overall, it was a good learning experience for them.
Seriously? 'A good learning experience'? Peaceful protest as the 'instant gratification solution'? That's the reading you're giving of this?
This thread is infuriating. The political dimension of this sort of thing should be secondary. The fact of the matter is that your police force inflicted violence on your fellow citizens for blocking a sidewalk in a quad without any attempt to negotiate.
Edit: All these kids learned is that it turns out the system really is rigged against them. That'll sure encourage them to vote.
On November 24 2011 15:49 ikl2 wrote: Seriously? 'A good learning experience'? Peaceful protest as the 'instant gratification solution'? That's the reading you're giving of this?
This thread is infuriating. The political dimension of this sort of thing should be secondary. The fact of the matter is that your police force inflicted violence on your fellow citizens for blocking a sidewalk in a quad without any attempt to negotiate.
Edit: All these kids learned is that it turns out the system really is rigged against them. That'll sure encourage them to vote.
Why should the political dimension be secondary? Pride is completely right in that politicians take the older population more seriously because they turn out in larger numbers on election day. They should be happy that they brought the situation at hand to a national audience because that will give them more sway when it comes to voting. Displeased with the system = vote less? Then cry oppression? That doesn't sound like a plan to me. Why would politicians even try to please someone that admits they aren't going to vote?
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
there are more effective and legal ways to speak up. if everyone 18-24 voted, politicians would take our opinions a lot more seriously. donating to political campaigns and forming groups that will lobby politicians would definitely change politicians to listen to our needs. showing up to every public forum and voicing our opinions would definitely help our cause.
the fact is that those college students wanted an instant gratification solution. they saw a potential injustice (they have to take bigger loans out) and instead of doing the hard work and fighting it through legal means they made a hasty rally. then they refused police orders because they wanted to emulate their heroes in the past and get attention and street cred from their peers and got a harsh dose of reality. overall, it was a good learning experience for them.
the fact that people think this action was at any point justified absolutely boggles my mind, the police were never surrounded in a dangerous sense, there was never a thread of being mobbed, the crowd gave them plenty of space, and really everyone seems so worried about people being blocked off, did you notice how the circle of people was like 5 deep and there was clearly room around the sides, there was absolutely no reason for the cops to be there in the first place, and there was no reason to use pepper spray
On November 24 2011 15:49 ikl2 wrote: Seriously? 'A good learning experience'? Peaceful protest as the 'instant gratification solution'? That's the reading you're giving of this?
This thread is infuriating. The political dimension of this sort of thing should be secondary. The fact of the matter is that your police force inflicted violence on your fellow citizens for blocking a sidewalk in a quad without any attempt to negotiate.
Edit: All these kids learned is that it turns out the system really is rigged against them. That'll sure encourage them to vote.
Why should the political dimension be secondary? Pride is completely right in that politicians take the older population more seriously because they turn out in larger numbers on election day. They should be happy that they brought the situation at hand to a national audience because that will give them more sway when it comes to voting. Displeased with the system = vote less? Then cry oppression? That doesn't sound like a plan to me. Why would politicians even try to please someone that admits they aren't going to vote?
There is a huge assumption in your position.
Who says these protesters don't vote? Just because that demographic has a lower turnout doesn't mean that people who protest from that demographic should not be listened to. I would argue that the people most likely to vote are the one's risking their safety by attending these protests. I am sure they are the few in their age group that do attend voting rallys and push for certain candidates. Just because their peers are apathetic doesn't mean they are.
How you go from protester -> don't vote is beyond me.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. However, if the police did in face say they felt threatened by a group of young adults sitting down in a line not saying a word and linking arms then that is just absurd. I can't condemn the police because they were doing their job against people breaking the law however I do believe there were probably 50 different and more harmless ways to remove the protestors than to pepper spray them and then arrest them. I mean take the video of them being pepper sprayed, just arrest them like you did in that video without the pepper spray. Not like they students would of revolted and fought back.
But if this flagrant disregard for the right to peaceful assembly is continued eventually we'll see an escalation. One nutjob in the crowd, one psycho in the police (they already have nutjobs, like Pike) and it will eventually result in casualties.
In all of this where is Obama though? These are his constituents and his people and yet he hasn't spoken up against this violence. At the least he should address the protesters if only to tell them to go home but he is ignoring them.
Those who think this demographic isn't important will see when the GOTV campaigns flounder for lack of volunteers and even Obama's billion+ campaign is unable to pull people to the polls. Ofcourse I could be wrong, but I know that Obama has lost atleast 1 vote and 1 volunteer for his lack of support for the democratic base.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
talk about first world problems "the whole world is watching" this is really embarassing to watch lol. they all look very well off to me. if they want to make a difference they should be focusing their efforts on less fortunate comunities imo. not that i help anyone beyond my direct social life.
there are plenty of other universities that are less then 1/4 the price of this university, and i doubt anyone in that crowd wont be able to make the same money by going to a different uni ( yes made up statistic but in my experience it holds true).
also i cant speak for america but in australia you can take a loan out from the bank for uni and you only pay for every year you attend. its a good investment because once you leave uni if u did a decent corse then you will be on more then enough to pay off your loan within the first 1-3 years. (hard parts getting a job but thats got nothing to do with my point)
these hipsters make me mad
Once again, who give a shit what they are protesting about. They could be protesting about how hard their class is for all I care. The problem is not what they are protesting about, but how the police react to peaceful protester. Your personal belief and weather you agree with what they are protesting about doesn't make the police action any less reprehensible.
edit: my original point wassnt about justifying it either but about how embarasing these people are
dw i dont know enough about what happened
Lol? Make up statistics more? From the sounds of it this was already a cheap university 5k in 2005 and 12k now going onto 22k soon.. but its ok cos theycan just find another uni or they can just borrow more money!!!
On November 24 2011 15:49 ikl2 wrote: Seriously? 'A good learning experience'? Peaceful protest as the 'instant gratification solution'? That's the reading you're giving of this?
This thread is infuriating. The political dimension of this sort of thing should be secondary. The fact of the matter is that your police force inflicted violence on your fellow citizens for blocking a sidewalk in a quad without any attempt to negotiate.
Edit: All these kids learned is that it turns out the system really is rigged against them. That'll sure encourage them to vote.
Why should the political dimension be secondary? Pride is completely right in that politicians take the older population more seriously because they turn out in larger numbers on election day. They should be happy that they brought the situation at hand to a national audience because that will give them more sway when it comes to voting. Displeased with the system = vote less? Then cry oppression? That doesn't sound like a plan to me. Why would politicians even try to please someone that admits they aren't going to vote?
There is a huge assumption in your position.
Who says these protesters don't vote? Just because that demographic has a lower turnout doesn't mean that people who protest from that demographic should not be listened to. I would argue that the people most likely to vote are the one's risking their safety by attending these protests. I am sure they are the few in their age group that do attend voting rallys and push for certain candidates. Just because their peers are apathetic doesn't mean they are.
How you go from protester -> don't vote is beyond me.
That wasn't my assumption, that was the person I quoted under the mentality of "We are being oppressed therefore we will not vote."
No big deal, but you should read what people are actually responding too. I'm also sorry if I wasn't clear.
I'm seeing the following statement predominate this thread:
"If you're in violation of the law, you're in violation of the law, and it warrants a response."
This statement is generally correct. It is also not the logical basis for pepper spraying peaceful students like that. You don't call SWAT to handle a jaywalker. This is another (the list is long) example of what appears to be a lack of restraint or a very inappropriate response by the police. We train police to handle violent thugs and criminals and etc. so they are told to often respond with pepper spray etc. but those responses are not always the best response for the general public, and certainly not for peaceful protesters.
Has nobody considered the fact that there was no immediate danger of having these kids remain sitting on the ground? What was the worst thing that could happen if they remained on the ground? It's not a ticking clock situation or a hostage situation where immediate and possibly lethal police action might be justified. It's students blocking a path. And I suppose it was the only path? Here's what you can do. Tell them they are under arrest. If they don't move, find out their identity, arrest them later, and charge them for resisting arrest. Or if for whatever reason it is critically important to move these peaceful students immediately, then do what Micronesia said and be smart about it.
Frankly, this notion that any resistance to police should be met with brutality whether said opposition is with a gun, a knife, or sitting students is ridiculous. It's overly absolutist and doesn't really work very well in a real society with real people. In my opinion, the greatest attribute of the police should be good judgement, not impulsive violence. When did we decide it was reasonable to meet peaceful expression with violent expression?
Let me finish by adding that the long-term toxicity of pepper spray is still being studied.
the aftermath pepper spray cop meme is hilarious. Notably the photoshopped picture of pepper spraying the constitution/declaration. Also the amazon pepper spray review comments. XD god i love the internets
A great way to remove politics from this issue... Tell your ultra conservative/ultra liberal friends who haven't heard of this yet that these people were protesting the Obama Administration. Then show them this video. See the ultra conservatives be outraged and the ultra liberals find nothing wrong with it. Then tell them the truth. If their opinion about the pepper spraying flip flops after you tell them, then they have no idea what this issue is really about.
This is about the appropriate level of force to apply to put down a bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters. The public outrage/debate should have nothing to do with why they were protesting.
Er... does anyone know what the protocol of removing peaceful protesters who are resisting is? From what I've read they were obviously resisting arrest/moving from the area that was illegal for assembly. When anyone else resists arrest I know police are allowed to bring them to the ground and then drag them to the car so I have no problems with them using force - it's not like the police just have to keep asking until the protester feels like obeying - but I guess pepper spray is excessive.
Though it could have been problematic with the amount of people there if they tried to forcefully drag someone from the group if they were interlocking arms and someone could have become violent if they saw one of their friends getting put face down on the ground and try to pull officers off his friend. I guess I have less of a problem with this, if you have a protest and do it in an illegal place, when the police come don't resist arrest or be prepared to face consequences. Go to jail and let that be your story.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
But both are crimes... are they not?
That's horrendous logic.
Murdering someone and taking a $0.50 candy bar are both crimes, but both don't warrant the death penalty.
This thread needs to die like the last one. Police tell you to stop doing what you're doing. You don't. You get pepper sprayed. Nothing to see or discuss here.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
But both are crimes... are they not?
That's horrendous logic.
Murdering someone and taking a $0.50 candy bar are both crimes, but both don't warrant the death penalty.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
But both are crimes... are they not?
That's horrendous logic.
Murdering someone and taking a $0.50 candy bar are both crimes, but both don't warrant the death penalty.
On November 23 2011 00:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: look at how peaceful TL is under the harsh and sometimes unfairly quick actions of the moderators
maybe we need to use these measures more in real life for better results
TL mods are the cops giving explicit orders to stop obstructing the sidewalk the trolls are the armlocked students sitting on the ground the banhammer is the pepper spray
Yeah.. i got an even better idea. Lets set up watchtowers for our snipers, then we could just headshot everyone that speaks up. That will keep the troublemakers silent.
Shame on you.
just curious how you turned people being pepper sprayed to being shot dead..
In this case, they both can be filed into the category of excessive use of force.
ok i can see how its being categorized but thats still like saying if i stole a candy bar and i stole millions of dollars as both being theft. one is a little more of a big deal than the other i would say
But both are crimes... are they not?
That's horrendous logic.
Murdering someone and taking a $0.50 candy bar are both crimes, but both don't warrant the death penalty.
Police are trained to only use force when needed. if the police feel threatened or feel like they are in danger they are allowed to use force. pepper spray actually counts as using force, in a non life threatening force. they must also make sure ever person they pepper spray get medical attention after. it is their DUTY to do so. that is part of their job.
regardless of what the student were doing wrong or right, using force lethal or now lethal should not of been used as you can clearly see that they were peaceful protestors. also they were not breaking any rules either on campus as the first night was allowed and it was in the middle of the second day.
i think people need to understand how the system works, and you would be just as outraged and feeling helpless as these people. change clearly needs to happen and it will only happen when the 1% percent choose too.
People need to understand that police are NOT law MAKERS just law enforcers. so saying that the police say something and if you dont do it, then they have a right to do whatever is clearly not right. thats like them saying you cant dance in public and if you do they can arrest you or use force to make you stop.
Waterboarding is pretty much just washing your face!
It's washing your face with the end result of a qualification and certificate in drown-proofing yourself.
So, you guys are saying pepper is not a food product? I mean, listen to the very next sentence she says. She's on the side of the 'victims.'
I don't even watch fox news, but if they're as bad as you want them to be, you shouldn't try so hard.
Here's the quote in question:
It's like a derivative of actual pepper, it's a food product, essentially.
This makes it sound like Mrs. Kelly is referring to pepper spray as a food product, which it is not. What she probably meant to say is that the active ingredient in pepper spray (capsaicin) is found in chili peppers, and people do ingest this chemical. She simply went about expressing this idea in an exaggerated and distorted fashion.
However, just take out those 5 words: "it's a food product essentially," and most people probably wouldn't have a problem with her report.
On November 21 2011 13:45 Bouo wrote: In all honesty, follow the law. If you want to protest or demonstrate, get the proper permits to do so. I completely understand the rising tuition costs as my schools board of trustees just voted to up our tuition 40% over the next 5 years, but if sitting in a line isn't going to fix the problem, e-mails, talking to representatives and school leaders is how its going to get fixed.
I know you're stating non violent protest so allow to to explain if I may. Just because its non violent does not mean its peaceful by any means. Once they are asked to leave and refuse they are now no longer a non violent or peaceful protest. The very fact that the students formed a wall around the police officers is considered aggression towards a law enforcement officer. The police had every right to do what they did and I applaud them for holding such restraint.
One question for the people shocked and appalled at how the police handled this. What would you do instead?
I've heard a bunch of "oh just move then physically" or "arrest them one at at time" or "just make them all get up and walk away."
None of that has any realistic chance of happening. Have you ever tried to retrain and move somebody that really doesn't want to go anywhere? It's not an ezpz thing. Then, there are way too many students to move physically.
Can't arrest them one at a time, thats why they linked arms.
Obviously the goal is to make them get out of the way.... the question is HOW.
Pepper spray is a good idea in this case because that means you don't need to go hands on or use batons. Dependant on the police department, it is generally lower then use of hands on (pressure point compliance, locks, etc which can break things if people don't want to comply), or batons on the use of force continuum. It's not harmful (maybe some people have allergies?) but it is painful and ...uncomfortable isn't quite the word i'm looking for but nothing else really fits. Uncomfortable on steriods maybe. I've been pepper sprayed and maced before... OC is worse, but it's still not able to physically break anything like a cop going hands on or using a baton can.
On November 21 2011 14:18 micronesia wrote: The thing that confuses me is why the police sprayed the protesters. If the police have justification to spray them, they also have justification to arrest them, right? If so, arrest them. Have the spray on hand in case the protesters do something that justifies getting sprayed (like get threatening/violent). In the meantime, start arresting the students on by one for violating the law.
The systematic spraying of students with harmful chemicals... when all the students are doing is sitting on the sidewalk, seems like blatant incompetence of the police to me.
Yeah.
They were arm locked, but for fuck sake, they are grown police officers, they can pry two college students apart and cuff them, but they are so lazy they have to pull out the chemicals =/
and risk a police brutality suit? yeah right, lol.....
yeah ... my sarcasm detector must be wrong. Or, you are not really smart are you ? The raise of the education in britain and in usa is really hard on students. I don't think we can blame them for doing a peaceful, non violent manifestation. Isnt it an abuse from the policemen ? (the spray) For the poster above me, pepper spray shouldnt be used from less than 15feets(?).
On November 25 2011 15:52 dogabutila wrote: One question for the people shocked and appalled at how the police handled this. What would you do instead?
I've heard a bunch of "oh just move then physically" or "arrest them one at at time" or "just make them all get up and walk away."
None of that has any realistic chance of happening. Have you ever tried to retrain and move somebody that really doesn't want to go anywhere? It's not an ezpz thing. Then, there are way too many students to move physically.
Can't arrest them one at a time, thats why they linked arms.
Obviously the goal is to make them get out of the way.... the question is HOW.
Pepper spray is a good idea in this case because that means you don't need to go hands on or use batons. Dependant on the police department, it is generally lower then use of hands on (pressure point compliance, locks, etc which can break things if people don't want to comply), or batons on the use of force continuum. It's not harmful (maybe some people have allergies?) but it is painful and ...uncomfortable isn't quite the word i'm looking for but nothing else really fits. Uncomfortable on steriods maybe. I've been pepper sprayed and maced before... OC is worse, but it's still not able to physically break anything like a cop going hands on or using a baton can.
Pepper spray being brutal? Jesus.....
Ahm.. Moving demonstrants by "hand" is pretty "common" practise against peaceful demonstrants? I don't see why this should not have been done here or should not have been possible.
Except that it was easyer and most probably more fun with the pepper spray.
On November 25 2011 15:52 dogabutila wrote: One question for the people shocked and appalled at how the police handled this. What would you do instead?
I've heard a bunch of "oh just move then physically" or "arrest them one at at time" or "just make them all get up and walk away."
None of that has any realistic chance of happening. Have you ever tried to retrain and move somebody that really doesn't want to go anywhere? It's not an ezpz thing. Then, there are way too many students to move physically.
Can't arrest them one at a time, thats why they linked arms.
Obviously the goal is to make them get out of the way.... the question is HOW.
Pepper spray is a good idea in this case because that means you don't need to go hands on or use batons. Dependant on the police department, it is generally lower then use of hands on (pressure point compliance, locks, etc which can break things if people don't want to comply), or batons on the use of force continuum. It's not harmful (maybe some people have allergies?) but it is painful and ...uncomfortable isn't quite the word i'm looking for but nothing else really fits. Uncomfortable on steriods maybe. I've been pepper sprayed and maced before... OC is worse, but it's still not able to physically break anything like a cop going hands on or using a baton can.
Pepper spray being brutal? Jesus.....
Ahm.. Moving demonstrants by "hand" is pretty "common" practise against peaceful demonstrants? I don't see why this should not have been done here or should not have been possible.
Except that it was easyer and most probably more fun with the pepper spray.
Well with locked arms I can see how it would have been impossible to move them without the potential for permanent damage (since you need to unlock their arms... leading to possible joint/bone damage). Less possibility for permanent damage seems to come from reducing their resistance (either through pain or anesthetizing them, and I'm not sure of any anesthetization that wouldn't have a high risk of death)
Pepper spray may have been the least brutal way of getting them to move. However it would have been ideal to find some other way to deal with the situation without getting them to move. Perhaps a warning before the pepper spray (or an escalating cost (ie refusal to move in the next minute= expulsion from the UC.. no refunds.. of course you still would have to move the people left to determine who gets expelled)
On November 25 2011 15:52 dogabutila wrote: One question for the people shocked and appalled at how the police handled this. What would you do instead?
I've heard a bunch of "oh just move then physically" or "arrest them one at at time" or "just make them all get up and walk away."
None of that has any realistic chance of happening. Have you ever tried to retrain and move somebody that really doesn't want to go anywhere? It's not an ezpz thing. Then, there are way too many students to move physically.
Can't arrest them one at a time, thats why they linked arms.
Obviously the goal is to make them get out of the way.... the question is HOW.
Pepper spray is a good idea in this case because that means you don't need to go hands on or use batons. Dependant on the police department, it is generally lower then use of hands on (pressure point compliance, locks, etc which can break things if people don't want to comply), or batons on the use of force continuum. It's not harmful (maybe some people have allergies?) but it is painful and ...uncomfortable isn't quite the word i'm looking for but nothing else really fits. Uncomfortable on steriods maybe. I've been pepper sprayed and maced before... OC is worse, but it's still not able to physically break anything like a cop going hands on or using a baton can.
Pepper spray being brutal? Jesus.....
Ahm.. Moving demonstrants by "hand" is pretty "common" practise against peaceful demonstrants? I don't see why this should not have been done here or should not have been possible.
Except that it was easyer and most probably more fun with the pepper spray.
Well with locked arms I can see how it would have been impossible to move them without the potential for permanent damage (since you need to unlock their arms... leading to possible joint/bone damage). Less possibility for permanent damage seems to come from reducing their resistance (either through pain or anesthetizing them, and I'm not sure of any anesthetization that wouldn't have a high risk of death)
Pepper spray may have been the least brutal way of getting them to move. However it would have been ideal to find some other way to deal with the situation without getting them to move. Perhaps a warning before the pepper spray (or an escalating cost (ie refusal to move in the next minute= expulsion from the UC.. no refunds.. of course you still would have to move the people left to determine who gets expelled)
Using deadly or less-than-lethal force is only permissible according to specific escalation of force policies. It is under no circumstances permissible as a compliance mechanism against non-compliant suspects who do not prevent an immediate threat to an officer or to others. This is something that all officers are told explicitly and repeatedly. They are tested on it.
Please specify the immediate physical threat the protestors posed.
Does UC Davis not have a campus police? I think the correct response would have been to call the campus police first. If for some reason it doesn't work, then calling in the riot force would've been the ideal thing to do. And why pepper spray? Couldn't they have handcuffed a handful of individuals and put them in a police vehicle to show others the consequences? Or something less threatening than pepper spray? Did the chief, if he's the one who issued the pepper spray, seriously not think of a scenario in which he's being asked why exactly he resorted to pepper spray - chief: oh, that's simple; since they didn't comply to our requests, we just pepper sprayed 'em.
On November 26 2011 20:32 billy5000 wrote: Does UC Davis not have a campus police? I think the correct response would have been to call the campus police first. If for some reason it doesn't work, then calling in the riot force would've been the ideal thing to do. And why pepper spray? Couldn't they have handcuffed a handful of individuals and put them in a police vehicle to show others the consequences? Or something less threatening than pepper spray? Did the chief, if he's the one who issued the pepper spray, seriously not think of a scenario in which he's being asked why exactly he resorted to pepper spray - chief: oh, that's simple; since they didn't comply to our requests, we just pepper sprayed 'em.
Their logic baffles me.
This was the campus police, that's what's so insane about it!
I dearly wish the discussion I was reading wasn't focused on Fox News or whether what the students were doing was illegal or not. Fox is a tabloid on television and any simpering fool that dislikes higher reasoning will find themselves in agreance with Fox 100% of the time. The protesters represent the opposite side of the political spectrum under the same ignorant power movement. The students were doing something illegal. Whether it should be illegal or shouldn't be illegal was not the reason for protest and they were rightfully arrested.
That, I wish dearly, could be agreed upon and moved on to the issue that is important to me: Did the police use exessive, even brutal force, without trying alternative measures with a more deft hand? If they did not- did they feel threatened? Were they in any danger from the protest? If they tried to move the students after arresting and handcuffing them, were they at risk?
If they were not in a reasonable amount of danger- the usage of pepper spray was as unlawful as the protest, violating their 8th Amendment Right?
To quote the reddit title and more importantly, the report by Nathan Brown of UC Davis, "When students covered their eyes with clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.".
I easily contend that undue suffering, no, torture was the intent of the police officers arresting the students. Not only did this violate their Constitutional Rights, but it violated a host of other procedural and State ratified laws. I am not a legal expert. In fact I am a layman in every sense. I'm speaking from my emotions when I say this:
The arresting officers violated the law so grievously with their brutality that mere expulsion from their rank and job is not enough. They abused their power so heinously that they deserve fair and equal treatment. Prison.
This is my sincere belief. I am open to being disagreed with and more open to reading my opinions be refuted with legal or logical reasoning. I doubt any exist that I cannot denounce in turn.
ouch i hope their eyes are okay... just wondering though how much could really get in if their eyes were closed?
edit: after reading a lot more, i agree with probe1, this is fucking horrible it's supposed to minumum 15 feet but it was in their face and down their throat? it hought it was like, normal pepper spray
Also, permanentnly damaging (possibly) someone's wrist nerves? What the fuck are you kidding? Imagine if he was a piano performance major, in his fourth year, about to graduate. I guess he's just fucked for life =/
Also how the fuck can police officers be so violent. They were protesting non peacefully. It looks like a bunch of these police officers are corrupt with power and/or they (or at least the john pike guy) is a police officer not to just protect people and serve the law sincerely but to abuse power for satisfaction.
On November 27 2011 06:59 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ouch i hope their eyes are okay... just wondering though how much could really get in if their eyes were closed?
edit: after reading a lot more, i agree with probe1, this is fucking horrible it's supposed to minumum 15 feet but it was in their face and down their throat? it hought it was like, normal pepper spray
Also, permanentnly damaging (possibly) someone's wrist nerves? What the fuck are you kidding? Imagine if he was a piano performance major, in his fourth year, about to graduate. I guess he's just fucked for life =/
Also how the fuck can police officers be so violent. They were protesting non peacefully. It looks like a bunch of these police officers are corrupt with power and/or they (or at least the john pike guy) is a police officer not to just protect people and serve the law sincerely but to abuse power for satisfaction.
In fact the 9th circuit court has ruled that at ranges of less than three feet, pepper spray is deadly force, on par with using a gun or striking the head or neck with a baton, unlike less than lethal force, such as using a taser or rubber bullets aimed at the body from a distance.
Well, after reading a bit more into the article and knowing a bit more about what exactly the police did, I'm supporting the protesters in this. Pepper spray at point blank range is bad enough, but maybe the cops were simply making a mistake, which should result in being taken off the force due to causing excessive harm to the students, however shooting it at their throats is something that is unjustifiable and unbelievably cruel. I agree with probe1, jail time is exactly what they need.
15 chronological minutes of what happened that day. Bias towards the police in the video, but after watching it I tend to agree. The police were far more reasonable than they originally appeared to be.
On November 27 2011 06:44 Probe1 wrote: I dearly wish the discussion I was reading wasn't focused on Fox News or whether what the students were doing was illegal or not. Fox is a tabloid on television and any simpering fool that dislikes higher reasoning will find themselves in agreance with Fox 100% of the time. The protesters represent the opposite side of the political spectrum under the same ignorant power movement. The students were doing something illegal. Whether it should be illegal or shouldn't be illegal was not the reason for protest and they were rightfully arrested.
That, I wish dearly, could be agreed upon and moved on to the issue that is important to me: Did the police use exessive, even brutal force, without trying alternative measures with a more deft hand? If they did not- did they feel threatened? Were they in any danger from the protest? If they tried to move the students after arresting and handcuffing them, were they at risk?
If they were not in a reasonable amount of danger- the usage of pepper spray was as unlawful as the protest, violating their 8th Amendment Right?
To quote the reddit title and more importantly, the report by Nathan Brown of UC Davis, "When students covered their eyes with clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.".
I easily contend that undue suffering, no, torture was the intent of the police officers arresting the students. Not only did this violate their Constitutional Rights, but it violated a host of other procedural and State ratified laws. I am not a legal expert. In fact I am a layman in every sense. I'm speaking from my emotions when I say this:
The arresting officers violated the law so grievously with their brutality that mere expulsion from their rank and job is not enough. They abused their power so heinously that they deserve fair and equal treatment. Prison.
This is my sincere belief. I am open to being disagreed with and more open to reading my opinions be refuted with legal or logical reasoning. I doubt any exist that I cannot denounce in turn.
Obviously the police were far to physical than they should have been, but you post concerns me. When you say that all idiots are conservative, you risk people thinking that you dislike higher reasoning. Is Fox biased? Yes. Is every cable news station biased? absolutely. The point is that if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, then you are, and nothing can be done to come to an understanding. I am very good friends with a communist and someone who watches Bill O'reilly every night. They are both intelligent, but they have different mindsets about humanity. Political extremism is actually not a bad thing as long as the holder of the extreme viewpoint be willing to have a frank discussion and be willing to change his views if proven incorrect.
On December 03 2011 12:27 dudeman001 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y 15 chronological minutes of what happened that day. Bias towards the police in the video, but after watching it I tend to agree. The police were far more reasonable than they originally appeared to be.
What? That made them seem far more unreasonable to me. Before I was willing to give them some benefit of the doubt regarding the fact that they were in a hostile situation, but that video makes it clear that the protesters were not encroaching on them or behaving in any hostile fashion.
Yes the police officers should have been more responsible with the power and authority that they are given in responding to this protest. However I feel the protestors should be held to the same standard of being responsible with the use of their own rights. What they were doing was illegal. The police did what they could to resolve the situation without force but these kids weren't having it. It sounds completely backwards but I feel the protestors were in the wrong here, completely.
If you want to protest something there are ways to do it tactfully and legally. They could have easily moved when the police told them they were breaking the law. They didn't and now despite all their attempts to diffuse the situation without incident the police have to put up with the exaggerated cries of police brutality. Its a shame some people got pepper sprayed but it is their own fault.
Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
On December 03 2011 12:27 dudeman001 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y 15 chronological minutes of what happened that day. Bias towards the police in the video, but after watching it I tend to agree. The police were far more reasonable than they originally appeared to be.
What? That made them seem far more unreasonable to me. Before I was willing to give them some benefit of the doubt regarding the fact that they were in a hostile situation, but that video makes it clear that the protesters were not encroaching on them or behaving in any hostile fashion.
did you even watch it? They clearly where advancing on the people who where arrested as the police attempted to leave. they moved like a mob clearly and then surrounded the cops.
The fact that they think the people will just be majestically set free in opposition to the law is laughable. They wouldn't allow the cops to leave. The guy who peper sprayed the people clearly went up to every single one of them and said that if they stayed they would be pepper sprayed. Notice they're "peaceful" shouting of fuck the police. They think its some type of funny joke that they are sitting there and not doing anything wrong. If any of them ANY of them would have left they would have had no problem. One of them says loudly lieing that the cop said that he was going to shoot him.
Yet another instance of people editing video to make their side look good and the other side look bad. The whole event is completely justified by this.
On December 03 2011 12:27 dudeman001 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y 15 chronological minutes of what happened that day. Bias towards the police in the video, but after watching it I tend to agree. The police were far more reasonable than they originally appeared to be.
What? That made them seem far more unreasonable to me. Before I was willing to give them some benefit of the doubt regarding the fact that they were in a hostile situation, but that video makes it clear that the protesters were not encroaching on them or behaving in any hostile fashion.
did you even watch it? They clearly where advancing on the people who where arrested as the police attempted to leave. they moved like a mob clearly and then surrounded the cops.
The fact that they think the people will just be majestically set free in opposition to the law is laughable. They wouldn't allow the cops to leave. The guy who peper sprayed the people clearly went up to every single one of them and said that if they stayed they would be pepper sprayed. Notice they're "peaceful" shouting of fuck the police. They think its some type of funny joke that they are sitting there and not doing anything wrong. If any of them ANY of them would have left they would have had no problem. One of them says loudly lieing that the cop said that he was going to shoot him.
Yet another instance of people editing video to make their side look good and the other side look bad. The whole event is completely justified by this.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
And also, makes me annoyed when protesters whine and complain about how abused they are and yell obscenities at police. Then parallel themselves to ghandi. Who advocated being a nuisance, putting up with police brutality, not complaining, and being righteous and pure... I know it may not be effective in this case but stop drawing parallels darnit.
I would love to see some of the people in this thread pose as the police officers in a situation like this, with the actual officers involved posing as the "peaceful protestors". Fucking buffoons not knowing anything about appropriate usage of force would starve to death inside that circle of protestors.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
And also, makes me annoyed when protesters whine and complain about how abused they are and yell obscenities at police. Then parallel themselves to ghandi. Who advocated being a nuisance, putting up with police brutality, not complaining, and being righteous and pure... I know it may not be effective in this case but stop drawing parallels darnit.
I agree 100% This type of protest can not be paralleled to Ghandi's approach in almost any sense. To really protest in that style, I would think you would simply not acknowledge validity of the injustice in question, state the non violent action you would and will take and protest, and dissemble if you could not do it peacefully. This was either a poorly organized attempt by some students, or a mob of bad apples decided to jump on the bandwagon. You really need a strong voice and strong leaders for any kind of non violent approach to protesting, and this protest clearly had neither.
Then again, they are just college students, and American culture is naturally pretty volatile in my opinion. I like the initiative these students took, but there execution was their downfall. The cops just did their job, and trying to act like the supposed "brutality" of these police reflects or is analogous to the hardship of the system they protest against, is very very self defeating.
One of Ghandi's many great quotes stated "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind." When protestors fight the injustice they see by immorally claiming "brutality", they fight against their own cause, and nothing is truly accomplished.
On December 03 2011 12:27 dudeman001 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y 15 chronological minutes of what happened that day. Bias towards the police in the video, but after watching it I tend to agree. The police were far more reasonable than they originally appeared to be.
What? That made them seem far more unreasonable to me. Before I was willing to give them some benefit of the doubt regarding the fact that they were in a hostile situation, but that video makes it clear that the protesters were not encroaching on them or behaving in any hostile fashion.
did you even watch it? They clearly where advancing on the people who where arrested as the police attempted to leave. they moved like a mob clearly and then surrounded the cops.
The fact that they think the people will just be majestically set free in opposition to the law is laughable. They wouldn't allow the cops to leave. The guy who peper sprayed the people clearly went up to every single one of them and said that if they stayed they would be pepper sprayed. Notice they're "peaceful" shouting of fuck the police. They think its some type of funny joke that they are sitting there and not doing anything wrong. If any of them ANY of them would have left they would have had no problem. One of them says loudly lieing that the cop said that he was going to shoot him.
Yet another instance of people editing video to make their side look good and the other side look bad. The whole event is completely justified by this.
I don't know about it being completely justified by this but it has changed my opinion on the events somewhat. Not sure how I feel about it all now. Pepper-spraying, in a vacuum, is pretty fucked up and I think I still disagree with it's use here but the situation was not as cut-and-dry as it was made out to be.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."[/QUOTE]
Some of us spend upwards of $50k a year on education. It's bullshit, but that's a private school.
wow those kids just sat there and took it. im not agreeing with the police use of mace but this whole occupy movement is stupid and its going to accomplish nothing. its actually counter productive because of all the over time police have to be paid to watch over the protestors. also the amount of sanitation personnel that must be hired to clean up after the protestors (this is primarily happening at wall street). my idea of a silent protest is sitting quietly in my room while i write my thesis paper because it will get me a degree.
i suggest everyone watch dudeman001's video on page 23. It's a chronology of what happened. The students claim to be peaceful protesting yet they blockade the police from leaving campus and make demands. police warned the students that got sprayed a number of times and even gave them one last chance to leave. The students seem to very clearly lose focus of their "occupy" protest and turn their attention toward harassing the police.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
So what your saying is that police should give into the demands of a mob and let go of people that where legaly arrested? That the law enforcement should give into the demands of protesters in the face of due process? What if the mob wanted to harm the people that the police had in custody? Its happened a lot of times before and it'll happen again so you'd better decide if you really want to believe that.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
So what your saying is that police should give into the demands of a mob and let go of people that where legaly arrested? That the law enforcement should give into the demands of protesters in the face of due process? What if the mob wanted to harm the people that the police had in custody? Its happened a lot of times before and it'll happen again so you'd better decide if you really want to believe that.
What if's, is a great way to make shit up. What if the police officer shot the protests with real bullets instead of pepper spray putting a hole though one of the protesters head at which point it starts to go back and we find out he's a mutant and x-men is historical documentary, asking hypothetical outside of the reality is just full of shit.
The UC Davis protest were in the wake of the uc Berkeley protests the protesters were not going to have people, both student and faculty (in the uc Berkeley protests) were beat up, dragged by the hair etc.
Your what if is so full of shit it's the opposite, they wanted to free the people so they wouldn't be harmed by the police =p. And knowing how police work they were being arrested to be taken in cited and released, they were not put under protective custody.
The point is the officers were never in any real danger and so their response was poor.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
So what your saying is that police should give into the demands of a mob and let go of people that where legaly arrested? That the law enforcement should give into the demands of protesters in the face of due process? What if the mob wanted to harm the people that the police had in custody? Its happened a lot of times before and it'll happen again so you'd better decide if you really want to believe that.
What if's, is a great way to make shit up. What if the police officer shot the protests with real bullets instead of pepper spray putting a hole though one of the protesters head at which point it starts to go back and we find out he's a mutant and x-men is historical documentary, asking hypothetical outside of the reality is just full of shit.
The UC Davis protest were in the wake of the uc Berkeley protests the protesters were not going to have people, both student and faculty (in the uc Berkeley protests) were beat up, dragged by the hair etc.
Your what if is so full of shit it's the opposite, they wanted to free the people so they wouldn't be harmed by the police =p. And knowing how police work they were being arrested to be taken in cited and released, they were not put under protective custody.
The point is the officers were never in any real danger and so their response was poor.
Um, pretty sure it's possible for threats to escalate into violence relatively easily. Also, arguments involving x-men when concerning real life not really the best way to argue. And your argument that they wanted their friends to be free so they wouldn't be harmed is a what if statement in itself. What if the students were thinking that instead? And it's assuming a lot saying that the police would most definitely hurt the kids.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
On December 03 2011 12:57 Azerbaijan wrote: Also I find it ridiculous they are even protesting the rising cost of education. If you want a pricey education man up and save or risk the loans. College is expensive and its not getting cheaper anytime soon. If they`re worried about not being able to afford tuition their time would have been better spent looking for jobs, applying for scholarships, or pretty much anything else besides essentially baiting "police brutality" and then crying about it.
This whole thing was completely unnecessary; a waste of time and pepper spray.
Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
On December 05 2011 07:36 rotinegg wrote: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
Yeah. I got even more sure how stupid the protesters were after watching it.
On December 03 2011 14:39 FirmTofu wrote: [quote] Right, because the amount of money your parents made during their lives should directly determine whether you are worthy of an education. Let's watch the rich get richer and the the poor get poorer. Long live the American Dream!
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
On December 05 2011 07:36 rotinegg wrote: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
Just another reminder how all media is subject to bias... It's really nice that someone took the time out to represent the opposite perspective with their own video. Previous videos were quite uninformative, and they mostly just made it seem as though the police just said "Move" and then sprayed.
The media of course portrayed the event in certain sensationalist ways and didn't paint the whole picture, but this video itself is biased. Not only that, but it doesn't justify the use of pepper spray at all.
We can see more of where the police are coming from and understand their perspective more (although it was possible to find that out by doing research aside from the media) but the use of pepper spray and the manner in which it was used was clearly excessive.
On December 05 2011 07:36 rotinegg wrote: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
Just another reminder how all media is subject to bias... It's really nice that someone took the time out to represent the opposite perspective with their own video. Previous videos were quite uninformative, and they mostly just made it seem as though the police just said "Move" and then sprayed.
The problem with the spray is that if you spray someone with pepper spray they can't move that kind of pepper spray makes you numb then sets your skin on fire after suffering 30 mins to 2 hours of temporary blindness, so the order to move doesn't make sense as when you spray then the last thing they can do is move, in California state prisons you can't spray a sitting down prisoner like that as it would be considered unnecessary force. So to say that the police were in the right in doing so is also wrong, both parties have problems to how they handled it but you have to remember the protesters never threw a rock at the police.
Huh, when did I say it wasn't excessive? And I said that all media is subject to bias, which kind of assumes that the video I quoted is also biased? I only said that previous videos were taken out of context. Nothing more.
...look the students were rowdy. If the police felt the need to arrest them, I would not be against it. But spraying pepper spray down the throats of people? And we call ourselves civilized people? You and I would not be too pleased if that happened to us either. And don't you all dare go "I'm smart so that will never happen to me." It's still unjustified. Perfect, what the news media wants, to split the normal Americans against one another. Always you vs me. I hate this two way system.
On December 05 2011 07:36 rotinegg wrote: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
Just another reminder how all media is subject to bias... It's really nice that someone took the time out to represent the opposite perspective with their own video. Previous videos were quite uninformative, and they mostly just made it seem as though the police just said "Move" and then sprayed.
Now they say move quite a few times. It wouldn't be much of a protest if it disperses after a warning or two would it? They still weren't being threatened and the student "wall" was still plenty thin. They had officers on both sides of the wall, so they of course would have to resort to pepper spraying. The students to seem like a bunch of sheep in this video, but that's irrelevant in regards to the justification of the response.
On December 05 2011 09:21 Fontong wrote: Huh, when did I say it wasn't excessive? And I said that all media is subject to bias, which kind of assumes that the video I quoted is also biased? I only said that previous videos were taken out of context. Nothing more.
I was responding pretty much to everyone above me, not you in particular.
On December 05 2011 09:16 Superiorwolf wrote: The media of course portrayed the event in certain sensationalist ways and didn't paint the whole picture, but this video itself is biased. Not only that, but it doesn't justify the use of pepper spray at all.
We can see more of where the police are coming from and understand their perspective more (although it was possible to find that out by doing research aside from the media) but the use of pepper spray and the manner in which it was used was clearly excessive.
Upon what standard are you basing your assessment of "excessive force" ? Is it based on how law enforcement officers are trained or is it pulled straight out of your ass, and completely full of shit ?
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.
On December 05 2011 09:16 Superiorwolf wrote: The media of course portrayed the event in certain sensationalist ways and didn't paint the whole picture, but this video itself is biased. Not only that, but it doesn't justify the use of pepper spray at all.
We can see more of where the police are coming from and understand their perspective more (although it was possible to find that out by doing research aside from the media) but the use of pepper spray and the manner in which it was used was clearly excessive.
Yep.
Additionally as some have sort of articulated. "peaceful protesters move, or protesters get pepper sprayed." Is of course a false dichotomy. The police had many obvious solutions to their situation other than to just use excessive force force.
Police officers have hard job, it's difficult to not crack and break your departments policy in front of protesters that are antagonizing you. Some of the officers from this event have demonstrated they aren't up to the task, and might want to consider working somewhere else.
On December 05 2011 07:36 rotinegg wrote: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y It's a 16 minute video showing what ACTUALLY happened that forced the police into a situation where they had to use pepper spray. I can now say the police were 100% justified in what they did without an inkling of doubt.
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
Just another reminder how all media is subject to bias... It's really nice that someone took the time out to represent the opposite perspective with their own video. Previous videos were quite uninformative, and they mostly just made it seem as though the police just said "Move" and then sprayed.
The problem with the spray is that if you spray someone with pepper spray they can't move that kind of pepper spray makes you numb then sets your skin on fire after suffering 30 mins to 2 hours of temporary blindness, so the order to move doesn't make sense as when you spray then the last thing they can do is move, in California state prisons you can't spray a sitting down prisoner like that as it would be considered unnecessary force. So to say that the police were in the right in doing so is also wrong, both parties have problems to how they handled it but you have to remember the protesters never threw a rock at the police.
Throw a rock at a cop and you'll get more than pepper spray in response. Believe me. Law enforcement deals with the reality that a rock that hits them right, rendering them unconscious, makes it impossible for them to retain their weapon. Therefore, what you consider merely 'rock throwing' is much more. Wasn't it rocks being thrown at Border Patrol that not too long ago that saw the BP open fire in return ?
Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
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.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
Besides the fact that they formed a circle around them....
So they would have need to pick people up and move them to move.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
Then how to you explain the protestors' offer to allow the cops to leave if they release the arrestees ? It seems if the cops could have left, that would be a real silly thing to say. Well, it [i]was[/] a pretty stupid thing to say, but at least it's contextually accurate, since the cops were surrounded.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
Besides the fact that they formed a circle around them....
So they would have need to pick people up and move them to move.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
Besides the fact that they formed a circle around them....
So they would have need to pick people up and move them to move.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
the police car had to move i think. not 100% sure.
On December 05 2011 09:16 Superiorwolf wrote: The media of course portrayed the event in certain sensationalist ways and didn't paint the whole picture, but this video itself is biased. Not only that, but it doesn't justify the use of pepper spray at all.
We can see more of where the police are coming from and understand their perspective more (although it was possible to find that out by doing research aside from the media) but the use of pepper spray and the manner in which it was used was clearly excessive.
Upon what standard are you basing your assessment of "excessive force" ? Is it based on how law enforcement officers are trained or is it pulled straight out of your ass, and completely full of shit ?
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
What the police should have done is at least attempted to arrest the protesters one at a time by removing them from the chain. If there was any resistance, THEN pepper spray may be justified. But before even attempting that, using pepper spray on people who are simply sitting down is completely unwarranted. ESPECIALLY when the pepper spray is military grade and supposed to be sprayed from a minimum of 15 feet. It was sprayed from near point blank range and multiple times at that, which in my opinion constitutes unnecessary use of force.
You don't taser someone for jaywalking, nor do you shoot them either. Then why do you pepper spray these protesters? It's obvious they should have been arrested. The manner in which they were arrested was not appropriate for the situation at all though.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
The people sitting on the ground weren't exactly blocking em from leaving.
Besides the fact that they formed a circle around them....
So they would have need to pick people up and move them to move.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
Well they were bringing people with them who were arrested... If i was a cop i wouldn't give the situation a chance for one of the arrested persons to decide to make a bigger deal and decide he was gonna fall onto his fellow protesters and give the protesters a chance to get within arms reach of the arrested personal. Murphy's Law is the name of the game. I mean yea i can agree that they could have just tried pushing out at a different point in the circle I guess.
On December 03 2011 15:38 Azerbaijan wrote: [quote]
There are limitless ways to obtain a college education without needing wealthy parents. It makes absolutely zero sense to go to a college where tuition is $12,000 a semester and then protest the cost of your education. Again either save up, risk the loans, or settle for a less pricey institution. These occupy movements blow my mind; the argument boils down to "few people control of most the money, that's not fair, I want free money."
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
Please make a real argument instead of taking words out of my mouth. First off, I expressed my opinion in my first post that I disagree with the methods of protest that the protesters in the video. Then i expressed my opinion, if people like us (maybe half of the 53% of americans who can pay federal taxes because some have to scrape by) help and educate the poor, then perhaps we would be a lot better off. I also expressed my opinion that we have it good compared to the rest of the world and are in no real danger.
Why do i say help and educate the poor? Many who have suffered have made, not to be mean or anything, bad choices in life. Some make bad choice due to pure laziness and selfsatisfaction, but many make bad decisions due to lack of knowledge. They do not study hard in school to maintain a good GPA and do not actively look for scholarships to pay for college. And for those who try but cannot, they choose to go to an expensive college anyways and take out loans without evaluating the ramifications of such actions. Then some of them decide to do an easy major or a major that they really like that does not have good job outlooks. There is nothing wrong with that, but they don't research their majors extensively and realize that the jobs they can get are really competitive and/or low paying. Psychology degrees are a classical example of this. I am a psych major, and read an article on how Psychology majors are the unhappiest majors in America. Further research found that the only job most considered was becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist, which is VERY competitive and requires grad school. They don't research other jobs they can get and when they realize after not getting into grad school that their remaining choice are not what they wanted. Then they find out they have massive debts and are screwed. If you want to get into college for less money, study hard and/or look for scholarships and go to a school that you can afford. Even a lower end college can get you a high paycheck if you try hard and get the right degree. And don't forget to research your degree! This basically sums up the unhappy college graduates situation.
There are more examples and it looks like i'm bashing on people in college for being idiots, but its not their fault. They are young, and more importantly, UNEXPERIENCED. If those who had experienced gave them good advice, they would perhaps change their degree, sacrifice a bit of happiness for a healthier future, and gone for delayed gratification. Many in poverty are in similar situations. They are stuck in that cycle because no one tells them they can escape, no one educates them because they are stuck in shit schools, and no one tells them any better. My argument? Instead of protesting inciting police pepper spray attacks and wasting taxpayers dollars, peacefully protest, help those who need help, and the government will notice.
This is just my opinion of course and how I think we should approach the situation, what is yours?
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.
My problem is that we have the protesters acting relatively stupid and threatening police officers, and police incorrectly using pepper spray, and yet only the cops are getting shit? I'm a college student and I'll also have to deal with rising tuition fees, but what are they trying to accomplish? Good, they brought attention to this issue, but what exactly is arguing with police who may not even know why they're protesting going to do? They made it seem as if they didn't expect that some people would most likely get arrested, and they begin to yell at the police for doing their job. And police, yes they did give out several warnings, but there were definitely some steps in between warnings and pepper spray.
On December 05 2011 11:52 Dark_Chill wrote: ...I'm a college student and I'll also have to deal with rising tuition fees, but what are they trying to accomplish? Good, they brought attention to this issue, but what exactly is arguing with police who may not even know why they're protesting going to do?...
Just on this site alone. 501 replies; over 25,000 views. The goal might have been change, but the outcome was visibility of the tuition increases, not just for one university, but all across the board for a generation of students who can't get jobs outside of the ivory tower, let alone pay tuition without some sort of financial aid. If things had gone another way, the community currently discussing probably wouldn't. Sure teamliquid keeps up good discussions on seemingly esoteric topics, but it's such a minor population relative to the whole of the net. This story and message of the protest spread like wildfire, whether or not you feel the cops were justified.
On December 03 2011 16:16 Nightfall.589 wrote: [quote]
Actually, their argument goes down to "The system is unfairly stacked in favour of people who control most of the money."
Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
Please make a real argument instead of taking words out of my mouth. First off, I expressed my opinion in my first post that I disagree with the methods of protest that the protesters in the video. Then i expressed my opinion, if people like us (maybe half of the 53% of americans who can pay federal taxes because some have to scrape by) help and educate the poor, then perhaps we would be a lot better off. I also expressed my opinion that we have it good compared to the rest of the world and are in no real danger.
Why do i say help and educate the poor? Many who have suffered have made, not to be mean or anything, bad choices in life. Some make bad choice due to pure laziness and selfsatisfaction, but many make bad decisions due to lack of knowledge. They do not study hard in school to maintain a good GPA and do not actively look for scholarships to pay for college. And for those who try but cannot, they choose to go to an expensive college anyways and take out loans without evaluating the ramifications of such actions. Then some of them decide to do an easy major or a major that they really like that does not have good job outlooks. There is nothing wrong with that, but they don't research their majors extensively and realize that the jobs they can get are really competitive and/or low paying. Psychology degrees are a classical example of this. I am a psych major, and read an article on how Psychology majors are the unhappiest majors in America. Further research found that the only job most considered was becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist, which is VERY competitive and requires grad school. They don't research other jobs they can get and when they realize after not getting into grad school that their remaining choice are not what they wanted. Then they find out they have massive debts and are screwed. If you want to get into college for less money, study hard and/or look for scholarships and go to a school that you can afford. Even a lower end college can get you a high paycheck if you try hard and get the right degree. And don't forget to research your degree! This basically sums up the unhappy college graduates situation.
There are more examples and it looks like i'm bashing on people in college for being idiots, but its not their fault. They are young, and more importantly, UNEXPERIENCED. If those who had experienced gave them good advice, they would perhaps change their degree, sacrifice a bit of happiness for a healthier future, and gone for delayed gratification. Many in poverty are in similar situations. They are stuck in that cycle because no one tells them they can escape, no one educates them because they are stuck in shit schools, and no one tells them any better. My argument? Instead of protesting inciting police pepper spray attacks and wasting taxpayers dollars, peacefully protest, help those who need help, and the government will notice.
This is just my opinion of course and how I think we should approach the situation, what is yours?
To be honest, I can't really make heads or tails of your argument, especially the conclusion, which I have bolded. So you say instead of participating in protests like OWS and its UC counterparts, we should "peacefully protest" (which I assume to you means not yelling things? or else I don't really understand how the UC Davis protest doesn't qualify), help those in need, and wait for the government to notice? And also we should educate the poor about financial aid for college and the job prospects that accompany their future majors?
I have to admit, right now I'm pretty much clueless as to what you're getting at and I remain clueless as to the relevance of your earlier image macro.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
Why not? They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave. There really was no pressing reason to get rid of them just then. The tents were going down and the protestors were hardly obstructing people from going to or from the university. Sure pepper spray gets compliance, but what exactly was the rush? There's no threat to anyone and no escalating situation with people sitting on the ground.
On December 03 2011 16:33 Froadac wrote: [quote] Same damn thing. few people control money who stack the system etc etc.
I won't comment on the morality, but I really feel bad for the cop. He isn't a malicious person. He clearly thought at the time that was the correct course of action. According to the Miami approach that is possibly justified under current police thought. Don't make the man out to be a monster: he is simply a man doing what guidelines tell him to.
Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
Please make a real argument instead of taking words out of my mouth. First off, I expressed my opinion in my first post that I disagree with the methods of protest that the protesters in the video. Then i expressed my opinion, if people like us (maybe half of the 53% of americans who can pay federal taxes because some have to scrape by) help and educate the poor, then perhaps we would be a lot better off. I also expressed my opinion that we have it good compared to the rest of the world and are in no real danger.
Why do i say help and educate the poor? Many who have suffered have made, not to be mean or anything, bad choices in life. Some make bad choice due to pure laziness and selfsatisfaction, but many make bad decisions due to lack of knowledge. They do not study hard in school to maintain a good GPA and do not actively look for scholarships to pay for college. And for those who try but cannot, they choose to go to an expensive college anyways and take out loans without evaluating the ramifications of such actions. Then some of them decide to do an easy major or a major that they really like that does not have good job outlooks. There is nothing wrong with that, but they don't research their majors extensively and realize that the jobs they can get are really competitive and/or low paying. Psychology degrees are a classical example of this. I am a psych major, and read an article on how Psychology majors are the unhappiest majors in America. Further research found that the only job most considered was becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist, which is VERY competitive and requires grad school. They don't research other jobs they can get and when they realize after not getting into grad school that their remaining choice are not what they wanted. Then they find out they have massive debts and are screwed. If you want to get into college for less money, study hard and/or look for scholarships and go to a school that you can afford. Even a lower end college can get you a high paycheck if you try hard and get the right degree. And don't forget to research your degree! This basically sums up the unhappy college graduates situation.
There are more examples and it looks like i'm bashing on people in college for being idiots, but its not their fault. They are young, and more importantly, UNEXPERIENCED. If those who had experienced gave them good advice, they would perhaps change their degree, sacrifice a bit of happiness for a healthier future, and gone for delayed gratification. Many in poverty are in similar situations. They are stuck in that cycle because no one tells them they can escape, no one educates them because they are stuck in shit schools, and no one tells them any better. My argument? Instead of protesting inciting police pepper spray attacks and wasting taxpayers dollars, peacefully protest, help those who need help, and the government will notice.
This is just my opinion of course and how I think we should approach the situation, what is yours?
To be honest, I can't really make heads or tails of your argument, especially the conclusion, which I have bolded. So you say instead of participating in protests like OWS and its UC counterparts, we should "peacefully protest" (which I assume to you means not yelling things? or else I don't really understand how the UC Davis protest doesn't qualify), help those in need, and wait for the government to notice? And also we should educate the poor about financial aid for college and the job prospects that accompany their future majors?
I have to admit, right now I'm pretty much clueless as to what you're getting at and I remain clueless as to the relevance of your earlier image macro.
I am confused as to how you cannot understand a simple argument such as that. Its pretty simple really, so i'll put it in list format to help.
1. I disagree with how the people in the video decided to protest. It was not peaceful in any way despite the police attacking them. If I talk shit to a guy at school and he punches me, I am as much in the wrong as he is. Now if you talk shit to a police officer, impede his progress, disregard his warnings, and still incite him, you are clearly in the wrong and he did right. If you say that was a 'peaceful' protest, i personally believe you are mistaken.
2. Please read my entire bulk paragraph that argues for how educating and helping the poor will make america better. I will further this argument. Look at finland's education system. they focus on stimulating their people from birth and the results show. Best education system got them most livable country and most peaceful with some of the happiest people. They keep the kids interested and informed every step of the way. In Amierca? Lack of accountability in public schools. Arguably, a harmful culture with the wrong mindset and goals along with lack of passion and focus amongst youth. This leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to making terrible decisions. Terrible decisions leads to situations you see where people find out that their degree in philosophy and the grades they got isn't gonna let them live in two story house with a family of four. If we want to change america, we have to change it from the bottom up. We can't change our education system overnight, but we can help those who don't have the same opportunities as us know that they can grow up successful and happy if they make the right decisions and stay focused.
3. My picture is another argument claiming that we have it better off then 99% of the people on earth. On a mission trip to costa rica, i saw children living in wooden huts on mountains that slept on planks. But they were 100 times happier then any child i have seen in america without the comfort. Do I like how I live? hell yeah! But can I live without it? you bet your sweet ass i can. I personally find it stupid that we protest rising college fees when people in the world are being oppressed by the government, starve, and live through natural disasters when we have the opportunity to go to college, play starcraft for fun, and can eat so much that we have the highest obesity levels in the world.
On December 04 2011 07:35 Nightfall.589 wrote: [quote] Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
Please make a real argument instead of taking words out of my mouth. First off, I expressed my opinion in my first post that I disagree with the methods of protest that the protesters in the video. Then i expressed my opinion, if people like us (maybe half of the 53% of americans who can pay federal taxes because some have to scrape by) help and educate the poor, then perhaps we would be a lot better off. I also expressed my opinion that we have it good compared to the rest of the world and are in no real danger.
Why do i say help and educate the poor? Many who have suffered have made, not to be mean or anything, bad choices in life. Some make bad choice due to pure laziness and selfsatisfaction, but many make bad decisions due to lack of knowledge. They do not study hard in school to maintain a good GPA and do not actively look for scholarships to pay for college. And for those who try but cannot, they choose to go to an expensive college anyways and take out loans without evaluating the ramifications of such actions. Then some of them decide to do an easy major or a major that they really like that does not have good job outlooks. There is nothing wrong with that, but they don't research their majors extensively and realize that the jobs they can get are really competitive and/or low paying. Psychology degrees are a classical example of this. I am a psych major, and read an article on how Psychology majors are the unhappiest majors in America. Further research found that the only job most considered was becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist, which is VERY competitive and requires grad school. They don't research other jobs they can get and when they realize after not getting into grad school that their remaining choice are not what they wanted. Then they find out they have massive debts and are screwed. If you want to get into college for less money, study hard and/or look for scholarships and go to a school that you can afford. Even a lower end college can get you a high paycheck if you try hard and get the right degree. And don't forget to research your degree! This basically sums up the unhappy college graduates situation.
There are more examples and it looks like i'm bashing on people in college for being idiots, but its not their fault. They are young, and more importantly, UNEXPERIENCED. If those who had experienced gave them good advice, they would perhaps change their degree, sacrifice a bit of happiness for a healthier future, and gone for delayed gratification. Many in poverty are in similar situations. They are stuck in that cycle because no one tells them they can escape, no one educates them because they are stuck in shit schools, and no one tells them any better. My argument? Instead of protesting inciting police pepper spray attacks and wasting taxpayers dollars, peacefully protest, help those who need help, and the government will notice.
This is just my opinion of course and how I think we should approach the situation, what is yours?
To be honest, I can't really make heads or tails of your argument, especially the conclusion, which I have bolded. So you say instead of participating in protests like OWS and its UC counterparts, we should "peacefully protest" (which I assume to you means not yelling things? or else I don't really understand how the UC Davis protest doesn't qualify), help those in need, and wait for the government to notice? And also we should educate the poor about financial aid for college and the job prospects that accompany their future majors?
I have to admit, right now I'm pretty much clueless as to what you're getting at and I remain clueless as to the relevance of your earlier image macro.
I am confused as to how you cannot understand a simple argument such as that. Its pretty simple really, so i'll put it in list format to help.
1. I disagree with how the people in the video decided to protest. It was not peaceful in any way despite the police attacking them. If I talk shit to a guy at school and he punches me, I am as much in the wrong as he is. Now if you talk shit to a police officer, impede his progress, disregard his warnings, and still incite him, you are clearly in the wrong and he did right. If you say that was a 'peaceful' protest, i personally believe you are mistaken.
2. Please read my entire bulk paragraph that argues for how educating and helping the poor will make america better. I will further this argument. Look at finland's education system. they focus on stimulating their people from birth and the results show. Best education system got them most livable country and most peaceful with some of the happiest people. They keep the kids interested and informed every step of the way. In Amierca? Lack of accountability in public schools. Arguably, a harmful culture with the wrong mindset and goals along with lack of passion and focus amongst youth. This leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to making terrible decisions. Terrible decisions leads to situations you see where people find out that their degree in philosophy and the grades they got isn't gonna let them live in two story house with a family of four. If we want to change america, we have to change it from the bottom up. We can't change our education system overnight, but we can help those who don't have the same opportunities as us know that they can grow up successful and happy if they make the right decisions and stay focused.
3. My picture is another argument claiming that we have it better off then 99% of the people on earth. On a mission trip to costa rica, i saw children living in wooden huts on mountains that slept on planks. But they were 100 times happier then any child i have seen in america without the comfort. Do I like how I live? hell yeah! But can I live without it? you bet your sweet ass i can. I personally find it stupid that we protest rising college fees when people in the world are being oppressed by the government, starve, and live through natural disasters when we have the opportunity to go to college, play starcraft for fun, and can eat so much that we have the highest obesity levels in the world.
P.S. you still lack an argument at all.
Not using violence means non violent. Talking shit is annoying and non-violent. Blocking a sidewalk or whatever it was is annoying and non-violent. Playing your music too loud is annoying and non-violent. Being annoying does not imply violent. Do you even know what non-violent means?
On December 04 2011 07:35 Nightfall.589 wrote: [quote] Following orders is not a morally acceptable defense.
But morally is surrounding police and telling them they can't leave acceptable?
I'm just saying: the man is not inherently evil. But is it morally incorrect to pepper spray those trying to obstruct the arrest of others?
They said they can't leave with the people they arrested, they could have left any time they wanted.
No offense but that is complete bull. You're saying that police should just give into the demands of protesters and leave because they are obviously right? Who made the protesters god? I guess they should just march up to the police station and tell them they can't leave unless they leave 100,000 dollars for a guy who needs a college fee because he's poor. That's moral right?
This kind of protest solves nothing. You waste taxpayers dollars on clean up and police watch while you achieve nothing because the way you protest causes so much controversy. If these guys really want to make a difference, go work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, volunteer to non-profit organizations that help the community.
Also, on the topic of higher college expenses, if you keep your GPA up, then some states give you a scholarship that pays for room/board, books, and pretty much everything besides the tuition. If you then go look up the amount of scholarships out there and apply, then you can potentially pay off your entire college tuition. And don't even get me started on government financial aid. If you do your research and work hard in high school, on academics and extraciriculars, then you can go to college for free. My friend went to emory, whos tuition is 50k+, on a full ride due to scholarships and government aid.
I will admit thought not everyone can do this. This is where going to the right school and getting the right major is important.
Ya, let's just ignore all the problems wrong with the country, continue to take it up the ass, and just work in soup kitchens to make a real difference. The logic is strong in this one.
yeah and what is your solution, protest? Lobby? You have to realize by now they don't care and won't change. And if we do go violent, that would just make us rebels that are selfish. What have you taken up the ass that ha physically or mentally harmed you? Stop being such a pansy,I hate when people claim our country has so many problems and they suffer when they live comfortably and have time to play starcraft when people die like every seven seconds of hunger in the world. Yeah we do have problems, so what? Is it gonna cause us to die? Or is it gonna potentially cause us to not have enough money for internet? People have been saying this since our country was started. They claimed their children are in danger. Is our country still intact? Does their children eat and manage to get money every day? We blow so many things out of proportion, its ridiculous. When we have a serious problem, like North Korea or something is gonna nuke us, call me.
In summary
Are you serious?
Hey guys everything in Europe and America is fine because we have a higher average quality of life than certain people in Africa and North Korea. We should thank our governments for the status quo rather than work to improve it! Political activism is just self-indulgence!
Please make a real argument instead of taking words out of my mouth. First off, I expressed my opinion in my first post that I disagree with the methods of protest that the protesters in the video. Then i expressed my opinion, if people like us (maybe half of the 53% of americans who can pay federal taxes because some have to scrape by) help and educate the poor, then perhaps we would be a lot better off. I also expressed my opinion that we have it good compared to the rest of the world and are in no real danger.
Why do i say help and educate the poor? Many who have suffered have made, not to be mean or anything, bad choices in life. Some make bad choice due to pure laziness and selfsatisfaction, but many make bad decisions due to lack of knowledge. They do not study hard in school to maintain a good GPA and do not actively look for scholarships to pay for college. And for those who try but cannot, they choose to go to an expensive college anyways and take out loans without evaluating the ramifications of such actions. Then some of them decide to do an easy major or a major that they really like that does not have good job outlooks. There is nothing wrong with that, but they don't research their majors extensively and realize that the jobs they can get are really competitive and/or low paying. Psychology degrees are a classical example of this. I am a psych major, and read an article on how Psychology majors are the unhappiest majors in America. Further research found that the only job most considered was becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist, which is VERY competitive and requires grad school. They don't research other jobs they can get and when they realize after not getting into grad school that their remaining choice are not what they wanted. Then they find out they have massive debts and are screwed. If you want to get into college for less money, study hard and/or look for scholarships and go to a school that you can afford. Even a lower end college can get you a high paycheck if you try hard and get the right degree. And don't forget to research your degree! This basically sums up the unhappy college graduates situation.
There are more examples and it looks like i'm bashing on people in college for being idiots, but its not their fault. They are young, and more importantly, UNEXPERIENCED. If those who had experienced gave them good advice, they would perhaps change their degree, sacrifice a bit of happiness for a healthier future, and gone for delayed gratification. Many in poverty are in similar situations. They are stuck in that cycle because no one tells them they can escape, no one educates them because they are stuck in shit schools, and no one tells them any better. My argument? Instead of protesting inciting police pepper spray attacks and wasting taxpayers dollars, peacefully protest, help those who need help, and the government will notice.
This is just my opinion of course and how I think we should approach the situation, what is yours?
To be honest, I can't really make heads or tails of your argument, especially the conclusion, which I have bolded. So you say instead of participating in protests like OWS and its UC counterparts, we should "peacefully protest" (which I assume to you means not yelling things? or else I don't really understand how the UC Davis protest doesn't qualify), help those in need, and wait for the government to notice? And also we should educate the poor about financial aid for college and the job prospects that accompany their future majors?
I have to admit, right now I'm pretty much clueless as to what you're getting at and I remain clueless as to the relevance of your earlier image macro.
I am confused as to how you cannot understand a simple argument such as that. Its pretty simple really, so i'll put it in list format to help.
1. I disagree with how the people in the video decided to protest. It was not peaceful in any way despite the police attacking them. If I talk shit to a guy at school and he punches me, I am as much in the wrong as he is. Now if you talk shit to a police officer, impede his progress, disregard his warnings, and still incite him, you are clearly in the wrong and he did right. If you say that was a 'peaceful' protest, i personally believe you are mistaken.
2. Please read my entire bulk paragraph that argues for how educating and helping the poor will make america better. I will further this argument. Look at finland's education system. they focus on stimulating their people from birth and the results show. Best education system got them most livable country and most peaceful with some of the happiest people. They keep the kids interested and informed every step of the way. In Amierca? Lack of accountability in public schools. Arguably, a harmful culture with the wrong mindset and goals along with lack of passion and focus amongst youth. This leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to making terrible decisions. Terrible decisions leads to situations you see where people find out that their degree in philosophy and the grades they got isn't gonna let them live in two story house with a family of four. If we want to change america, we have to change it from the bottom up. We can't change our education system overnight, but we can help those who don't have the same opportunities as us know that they can grow up successful and happy if they make the right decisions and stay focused.
3. My picture is another argument claiming that we have it better off then 99% of the people on earth. On a mission trip to costa rica, i saw children living in wooden huts on mountains that slept on planks. But they were 100 times happier then any child i have seen in america without the comfort. Do I like how I live? hell yeah! But can I live without it? you bet your sweet ass i can. I personally find it stupid that we protest rising college fees when people in the world are being oppressed by the government, starve, and live through natural disasters when we have the opportunity to go to college, play starcraft for fun, and can eat so much that we have the highest obesity levels in the world.
P.S. you still lack an argument at all.
1. So in your estimation, police should be allowed to physically attack protesters who yell hurtful things at them? At what volume level (or is more of a meanness rating sort of thing) does someone cross the line from peaceful protester to non-peaceful protester?
2. I think you're confusing the poor, who rarely attend college at all, with the middle and upper class, who attend college and take out large loans to attain non- or semi-profitable degrees. And at any rate "educating the poor" would require tremendous political resources and a upheaval of the status quo, which leaves a great deal of impoverished children trapped in underfunded and shitty inner-city schools. Your line of argument is an old and frankly insulting one: "If only poor people knew how to live their lives as intelligently as us better off people, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands."
And we should look to Finland? Nothing but love for Finland, but their entire population is a million or so over half that of New York City's. And they are much more culturally and ethnically homogenous than the U.S.A. You could say that the educational system of America faces a different set of obstacles than the educational system of Finland and it would be a gross understatement.
3. Once again I am stumped. Yes, we are better off than a lot of other countries. No, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address perceived injustices or imperfections in the sphere of higher education or politics. Rising tuition costs have farther reaching consequences than merely pissing off self-entitled college kids. Just off the top of my head, they could, I dunno, pose problems for getting the poor their much needed education on how to properly run their lives.
And also saying that the UC Davis protests at which the kids were pepper sprayed were simply about rising tuition is a bit reductionist. But I have a sneaking suspicion that overly reductionist might be a habitual disposition where you're concerned.
i just wanna throw this out there... the protesters were indeed non violent... but on the other hand their stance, the shouting, surrounding, blocking the path of police, is all considered a aggressive stance... well at least i would take it as a aggressive stance. so yea... the crowd wasn't violent but it definitely was aggressive. I think this is a pretty safe statement at least
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
Why not? They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave. There really was no pressing reason to get rid of them just then. The tents were going down and the protestors were hardly obstructing people from going to or from the university. Sure pepper spray gets compliance, but what exactly was the rush? There's no threat to anyone and no escalating situation with people sitting on the ground.
Why not ? How about because they are fucking law enforcement officers, not babysitters. They were called there to clear up the illegal protest. Are you telling me that if you get pulled over in Canada, instead of giving your driver's license and insurance or whatever, you can simply sit there peacefully and the officer can't do anything but wait by the side of the road until such time as you need to take a piss or get hungry. That is fucking retarded. In OWS, the cops were called there simply to maintain order, a just in case scenario, so they just kept a presence on the scene. At Davis, those cops were called to remove the tents, not to fucking babysit a bunch of entitled brats. Unbelievable stupidity these days.
I could understand where they were coming from. As financial aid is not rising in the same line that college tuition is going up, it makes sense to protest against these costs. Many of the cost increases are not needed, I would know, I work closely with my schools business department. The increases of cost for my school are because they recently converted from a community college to a state college and are now looking at increasing campus size, providing on-campus dorms, and increased facilities. Are these changes needed? Not necessarily. With the increase in revenue for being able to offer a cheaper education and more students coming to our new state college, the school should've secured loans or relied on current funds allocated for these changes. However they wanted to do it all up front and my tuition alone has increased by 2,000 in 1 year alone. I agree it was illegal, but seriously... People are saying they were blocking walkways (well go around), and if you want let them sit there all day if you want. The even was peaceful to try getting a peaceful resolution or at least an audience to voice concerns to the chancellor. For the chancellor to throw the power-card on them seems a little overzealous of her position.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
Why not? They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave. There really was no pressing reason to get rid of them just then. The tents were going down and the protestors were hardly obstructing people from going to or from the university. Sure pepper spray gets compliance, but what exactly was the rush? There's no threat to anyone and no escalating situation with people sitting on the ground.
Why not ? How about because they are fucking law enforcement officers, not babysitters. They were called there to clear up the illegal protest. Are you telling me that if you get pulled over in Canada, instead of giving your driver's license and insurance or whatever, you can simply sit there peacefully and the officer can't do anything but wait by the side of the road until such time as you need to take a piss or get hungry. That is fucking retarded. In OWS, the cops were called there simply to maintain order, a just in case scenario, so they just kept a presence on the scene. At Davis, those cops were called to remove the tents, not to fucking babysit a bunch of entitled brats. Unbelievable stupidity these days.
They could just carry the ones they want to arrest into the police van. The pepper spray and beatings with batons are just lazy.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
Why not? They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave. There really was no pressing reason to get rid of them just then. The tents were going down and the protestors were hardly obstructing people from going to or from the university. Sure pepper spray gets compliance, but what exactly was the rush? There's no threat to anyone and no escalating situation with people sitting on the ground.
Why not ? How about because they are fucking law enforcement officers, not babysitters. They were called there to clear up the illegal protest. Are you telling me that if you get pulled over in Canada, instead of giving your driver's license and insurance or whatever, you can simply sit there peacefully and the officer can't do anything but wait by the side of the road until such time as you need to take a piss or get hungry. That is fucking retarded. In OWS, the cops were called there simply to maintain order, a just in case scenario, so they just kept a presence on the scene. At Davis, those cops were called to remove the tents, not to fucking babysit a bunch of entitled brats. Unbelievable stupidity these days.
They could just carry the ones they want to arrest into the police van. The pepper spray and beatings with batons are just lazy.
The cops were surrounded. People seem to think cops are supposed to follow a set of rules pulled out of a critique's ass. Cops are trained on Usage of Force and they applied their training to the situation. If you haven't made any effort to actually learn what cops are actually trained to do, there really is no validity to criticism.
Instead of watching the edited video in OP, watch the whole thing. Protesters surrounded cops and demanded they release arrested individuals. That is on the level of assaulting officer and domestic terrorism.
Let's ignore the questions about the Chancellor for a second and focus on John Pike.
Whether what the protesters were doing was illegal or not is irrelevant. Whether they needed to be removed is irrelevant. The cops were in no real danger. People saying that the cops were "surrounded" (like Kaitlin) are either mistaken or idiots. The students were chanting "you can leave." You can hear it in a lot of the videos. The only issue here is whether pepperspraying a bunch of kids who were sitting down was an appropriate use of force.
Obviously it wasn't. Anyone who thinks it was is a lunatic. I don't even have to explain why. There was no danger to anyone, no harm being done, and no major crime. The cop should be fired (at the very least) for extreme excessive use of force.
Edit: From Wikipedia, Ron Christie described it as "excessive force" saying, "I wouldn't call that pepper-spray, I'd say that was a pepper-hose."
Pepper-hose. I like that. They used it against people that easily could have been moved aside.
On December 05 2011 09:53 Paperplane wrote: Pepper spraying the people sitting down because you feel threatened makes no sense. Those guys are the least of your worries. Using it on the people standing behind the cops would've made more sense to me. I can understand you're very nervous as a cop if there's a crowd standing behind you. This course of action just made them look like a bunch of powertripping idiots.
Cops have a job to do. They have arrested people and are now responsible for their safety, as well as their own. A bunch of assholes blocks them from being able to leave the scene. Police have experience and training in situations getting out of control. What would you suggest they have done ? Stand there all night until the protestors got bored ? No. This entire argument is so stupid it's remarkable.
Why not? They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave. There really was no pressing reason to get rid of them just then. The tents were going down and the protestors were hardly obstructing people from going to or from the university. Sure pepper spray gets compliance, but what exactly was the rush? There's no threat to anyone and no escalating situation with people sitting on the ground.
Why not ? How about because they are fucking law enforcement officers, not babysitters. They were called there to clear up the illegal protest. Are you telling me that if you get pulled over in Canada, instead of giving your driver's license and insurance or whatever, you can simply sit there peacefully and the officer can't do anything but wait by the side of the road until such time as you need to take a piss or get hungry. That is fucking retarded. In OWS, the cops were called there simply to maintain order, a just in case scenario, so they just kept a presence on the scene. At Davis, those cops were called to remove the tents, not to fucking babysit a bunch of entitled brats. Unbelievable stupidity these days.
They could just carry the ones they want to arrest into the police van. The pepper spray and beatings with batons are just lazy.
The cops were surrounded. People seem to think cops are supposed to follow a set of rules pulled out of a critique's ass. Cops are trained on Usage of Force and they applied their training to the situation. If you haven't made any effort to actually learn what cops are actually trained to do, there really is no validity to criticism.
I was thinking of your last sentence "unbelievable stupidity these days", and I happen to think the US cops nowadays produce weirdly stupid stories, like taser use against old, handicapped people, for example, which is pure laziness. If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent. There is something broken about the lack of empathy there. Why use shit that hurts if you can get by without it?
On December 05 2011 15:50 Ripps wrote: Let's ignore the questions about the Chancellor for a second and focus on John Pike.
Whether what the protesters were doing was illegal or not is irrelevant. Whether they needed to be removed is irrelevant. The cops were in no real danger. People saying that the cops were "surrounded" (like Kaitlin) are either mistaken or idiots. The students were chanting "you can leave." You can hear it in a lot of the videos. The only issue here is whether pepperspraying a bunch of kids who were sitting down was an appropriate use of force.
Obviously it wasn't. Anyone who thinks it was is a lunatic. I don't even have to explain why. There was no danger to anyone, no harm being done, and no major crime. The cop should be fired (at the very least) for extreme excessive use of force.
They were chanting you can leave while surrounding the cops and demanding they release arrested individuals.
The protesters were warned multiple times to let the Police through.
Reading through many of these posts i must be missing something.... Some of the reasons put forward for the cops actions seem to be that the protesters were if not violent, very aggressive and threatening as a group... so thats why they decided to pepper spray the handful of people sitting on the ground?
On November 23 2011 00:13 hongo wrote: I agree that the use of pepper spray was extreme, but I don't think it was out of the question. People are acting like this causes permanent damage and serious injury, and if it had lead to some serious health hazard it would have become public knowledge by know. While these kids were not violently attacking the policemen, they had formed a circle around them and were chanting at them. I feel like that is a very stressful situation to any cop, and all it takes is one thrown rock to lead to them shooting their rubber bullets. Just spraying them down seemed to be a none lethal way to disperse the crowd and did not lead to any more conflict. If they had walked up and started beating them with their batons, then that would have definitely been an issue.
Two people needed to be hospitalized. Overnight. One was coughing up blood for 45 minutes. It's an acid burn.
The cops were surrounded by students sitting down with their arms locked with each other. This should be edited into the OP, as some people leave the latter of that sentence out. How are arms going to punch if they are locked with other arms that belong to sitting bodies? Is there really any threat to interlocked arms?
And can the cops not walk over the arms? They would have a hard time walking over a full body, but there's some space in between the bodies.
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.
I definitely agree with the OP's opinion. They definitely should've been arrested in a better way; after all, it was a non-violent protest, I doubt any of the students would've resisted being handcuffed and led out. In my opinion, if they had resisted it would have been okay to use this kind of force. BUT, I'm a little biased towards law enforcement, so I don't feel bad for any of those students.
Having read the emails posted above, I'm glad to see investigations being conducted and officers being placed on "administrative leave" (paid, I'm sure). Of course, the students attending UC Davis will be absorbing these additional costs, which is perhaps ironic, as they seem to be protesting, in part at least, the costs of tuition ...
1. So in your estimation, police should be allowed to physically attack protesters who yell hurtful things at them? At what volume level (or is more of a meanness rating sort of thing) does someone cross the line from peaceful protester to non-peaceful protester?
2. I think you're confusing the poor, who rarely attend college at all, with the middle and upper class, who attend college and take out large loans to attain non- or semi-profitable degrees. And at any rate "educating the poor" would require tremendous political resources and a upheaval of the status quo, which leaves a great deal of impoverished children trapped in underfunded and shitty inner-city schools. Your line of argument is an old and frankly insulting one: "If only poor people knew how to live their lives as intelligently as us better off people, we wouldn't have this mess on our hands."
And we should look to Finland? Nothing but love for Finland, but their entire population is a million or so over half that of New York City's. And they are much more culturally and ethnically homogenous than the U.S.A. You could say that the educational system of America faces a different set of obstacles than the educational system of Finland and it would be a gross understatement.
3. Once again I am stumped. Yes, we are better off than a lot of other countries. No, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address perceived injustices or imperfections in the sphere of higher education or politics. Rising tuition costs have farther reaching consequences than merely pissing off self-entitled college kids. Just off the top of my head, they could, I dunno, pose problems for getting the poor their much needed education on how to properly run their lives.
And also saying that the UC Davis protests at which the kids were pepper sprayed were simply about rising tuition is a bit reductionist. But I have a sneaking suspicion that overly reductionist might be a habitual disposition where you're concerned.[/QUOTE]
1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
I don't really see a problem with this. They were violating laws, and police told them to leave. They refused and the response was less than lethal force to break up the "event".
The alternative would have been to arrest every single one of them with use of physical force.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
#1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant.
#2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees.
#3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ?
Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
that. I certainly hope you weren't implying the protestors were in fact violent, that would be pretty dumb!
I put it in quotes because everybody locks onto that "non-violent" phrase and automatically concludes that pepper spray was excessive. The people sitting down, encircling the cops, with arms interlocked were physically resistant to law enforcement. If they weren't non-violent, they would have been classified as "assaultive" in the Use of Force model, which would have resulted in an ass beating, not merely pepper spray. The physical resistance, the interlocking of the arms, is what brought us to the level of pepper spray. They weren't just individuals sitting down around a field, who the cops could have picked up easily. They were grouped together with locked arms preventing such low-level law enforcement response.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
#1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant.
#2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees.
#3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ?
Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that.
On November 21 2011 13:54 YoureFired wrote: I'm not sure if pepper spray was correct in this instance, although I can't see any other way for the police to move the students barring physically accosting them. I agree with what the students are arguing for but they definitely could have found a better method.
Well, I mean, physically moving someone is a given. They aren't gonna be asked to get up and leave. But I mean, come on, couldn't they just have just handcuffed all of them at once (they were in a chain), make them stand up and leave. Do you really have to resort to pepper spraying someone when you are a phsyically fit Police Officer who can probably take on a full grown man any day.
perhaps there is a Police officer (active or retired) on Teamliquid that can give some insight into this?
You can try this at home:
You- sit on the gound and go limp, interlock your arms with 2 other people. Team of Friends- Try to 'just pick you up and move you'.
Anyone with kids will tell you that once a kid goes 'limp' when he/she's upset, it's damn near impossible to pick the kid up or hold him without great effort.
OC spray is for non-compliance when force 'may' be used.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
#1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant.
#2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees.
#3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ?
Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that.
How many officers were on the scene ? Is that not enough to handle a bunch of "non-violent" protestors who were doing nothing but sitting down ? How many do you suggest should be called upon to handle this situation ? Perhaps they could bring in the National Guard as well ? Shit, we have troops coming back from Iraq, perhaps we should enlist their support too. Or maybe we just accept that sometimes someone who actively attempts to prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs gets dealt with.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
#1) They had arrestees to transport, for whose safety they are responsible. You expect the police to carry or drag the arrestees through a ring of people with locked arms ? Completely unreasonable and ignorant.
#2) Again, not taking into account the transport of the arrestees.
#3) And what would "more back up" accomplish ? More people to beg the protestors ? How many fucking resources should the taxpayers expend to get some punks to stand the fuck up and let the cops leave the area with the arrestees ?
Why didn't they simply get the fuck up for 2 minutes so the cops could leave ? At some point, people are going to learn who is in charge, and it's not protestors. There are plenty of reasonable people who support the rule of law in this country, and it's not just 1%.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers. But of course, you already knew that.
How many officers were on the scene ? Is that not enough to handle a bunch of "non-violent" protestors who were doing nothing but sitting down ? How many do you suggest should be called upon to handle this situation ? Perhaps they could bring in the National Guard as well ? Shit, we have troops coming back from Iraq, perhaps we should enlist their support too. Or maybe we just accept that sometimes someone who actively attempts to prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs gets dealt with.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed. At this point, as a courtesy I'll go ahead and inform you that your hyperbole is showing.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
If someone got their face bashed in or killed I think a discussion about unnecessary or brutal use of force would be fair; however, since that didn't happen, this really won't go anywhere. I'd like to think if someone were "camping" on my property and I asked the police to do something about it, that the police would actually have some sort of power to REMOVE THE FUCKER. No offence to any of you who feel some personal vendetta against police for doing their jobs, but think of yourself as a property or business owner (however difficult that may be) trying to get some assholes off your own property for just a second. I applaud the police for not going overboard. A little pep / mace to the face? Bring it on protesters. Maybe wear gogs / a gas mask next time you stage a peaceful "camping". Just be glad you didn't die and can live to protest another day.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
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.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
Correction: you're posting your interpretation of a wikipedia article about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. Like I've said, if you have information specific to the UC Davis police department, I would love to hear it. Otherwise all you're doing is contributing another opinion.
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
Thanks for the reply. At least this issue makes sense to discuss. Pepper spray theatrics has been done to death.
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.
How does this square with this
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.
You say the requests for her resignation should be about tuition (the top quote) but your previous quote say she has no power over it. Contradiction? People want her to resign because of her actions in response to the protest, not because of the tuition hike.
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.
There is a saying for this "There is one in every bunch" You can't seriously expect protesters to just meekly move on when told to. The whole point of protests is to disobey. My point is simple. The Chancellor either knew the protesters would not budge or she didn't. If she did know, why raise the risk of harm by calling in the police? If she didn't know, then why not find out. Ask them to leave, like she did, and when the few hard core people refuse to, deal with them later. The problem I have with her actions, is that she seems to have the decision to remove the students very lightly. She chose to escalate the confrontation in the hope it would go away easily and it backfired. Chancellors are supposed to make difficult decisions in the interests of students safety, she did the opposite.
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 why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk. Again actively choosing to use force to remove protesters increases the risk of a confrontation. The students chose a peaceful sit in as their method of protest. They did not start a riot or march into class rooms actively disrupting the teaching. They were being a nuisance but that was it. The Chancellor had options open to her that would not have resulted in this confrontation, but she chose the easy route.
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.
This is the crux of the issue. The protest's objectives have been drowned out by the actions of the Chancellor and subsequently the police. I fully agree that this is shameful, but that doesn't absolve the Chancellor of her responsibilities.
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.
This is the source of my problem with her actions. Why is this coming out after the fact. Where is the explanation by the Chancellor before she calls in the police? This is a huge call to say that the university could not afford to have someone monitoring the place over the weekend.
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.
This is all well and good in hindsight, but the fact is, she chose to remove the protesters. It is her responsibility. Using the police as a scapegoat does not wash with me. If you want to to be Chancellor you have to accept that what happens on campus is you responsibility, especially when it concerns student safety.
Finally
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.
If she is accountable, she should resign. Anything else is a hollow placation. Actions speak louder than words and her actions say that she puts removing nuisance protests over student safety. This is why people are calling for her resignation.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
You didn't post anything useful, at least to your argument any way. Further more look at the revision history on that page for some serious laughs. up until 2 days ago every list on there shows pepper spray directly above deadly force and threat of deadly force. Typically wrestling, punching, kicking, striking, baton swinging all come it to play well before use of pepper spray, so there you have it, these police officers acted well outside this use of force continuum.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
Correction: you're posting your interpretation of a wikipedia article about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. Like I've said, if you have information specific to the UC Davis police department, I would love to hear it. Otherwise all you're doing is contributing another opinion.
Correction: My post has nothing to do with an "interpretation of a wikipedia article".
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
You didn't post anything useful, at least to your argument any way. Further more look at the revision history on that page for some serious laughs. up until 2 days ago every list on there shows pepper spray directly above deadly force and threat of deadly force. Typically wrestling, punching, kicking, striking, baton swinging all come it to play well before use of pepper spray, so there you have it, these police officers acted well outside this use of force continuum.
Actually, at least in the Federal model, OC is at or below all those you listed, not higher.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
Correction: you're posting your interpretation of a wikipedia article about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. Like I've said, if you have information specific to the UC Davis police department, I would love to hear it. Otherwise all you're doing is contributing another opinion.
Correction: My post has nothing to do with an "interpretation of a wikipedia article".
You posted this:
"The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives."
Then you linked a source that doesn't say that, and in fact before today's mysterious edits explicitly disagreed with that. Your statement is either a very curious interpretation of that wikipedia article, or you didn't bother to site your actual source.
On December 06 2011 00:44 omgimonfire15 wrote:1. You are very good at twisting words to suit your needs. I do not recall saying that the police should be allowed to attack protesters that yell things. Please watch the entire video as to what happened, the protesters did not only yell at the police. I'll make concessions, the police were wrong to a certain extent but it is primarily the students fault. Please explain to me how surrounding the police, and telling them they can't leave unless they release the prisoners is acceptable. What should the police do? Wait? yeah the crowd could leave. But they also could not. They are more numerous and were planning to spend the night anyways and have access to food, water and did have access to limited shelter. the police do not. Should they force their way through by other methods? Like what? Physically pushing them aside? That would have worked out perfectly, the mob would just let them peacefully through right? When the civil rights movement protesters were protesting, when they did peaceful sit ins at dining halls, they didn't yell obscenities at the people who poured food on them. They didn't physically resist police who took them off buses. They took the fire hoses and attack dogs quietly and let the media do the rest of the work. That's what the protesters should have done. They could have let the police leave and just keep protesting afterwards. I see no reason to surround the police and incite a standoff that would have gone badly in the long run.
2. I do not only mention poor, you are once again making up things i said. I said that we should go around and help those who NEED HELP. Those that are IGNORANT of important factors that can affect their future. Not only the poor, but your average run of the mill college guy who attends a public college. The same guy who decides to live his life to the fullest in college and get a history degree then realizes he doesn't know what to do with the degree because he isn't really passionate about history. Then he realizes he has loans to pay back and he can't find a job. Please READ my argument before twisting it by reading the gist to suit your needs. You then say that my 'supposed help the poor idea' would cost billions in government dollars when I am arguing that we do it ourselves, the government will notice, then help organize and maybe fund our activities. I am not arguing that 'poor people are poor because they are not as smart'. This is sometimes the case. I am saying there are a lot of people who have found themselves after their education is over in bad economic situations AKA poor because of the terrible decisions they made in life. You say that's insulting. I say its fact. But is it THEIR fault? NO. They didn't know what would happen, and no one told them because the people who knew didn't care. As I said before, it is the responsibility of those who know to help those who don't know. That is what I am arguing. We need to help and inform those who do not have the same opportunities as us. You are blind if you think an boy that goes to a shit high school in the center of downtown knows the financial decision he will have to make if applying to college and that he fully understands how important his grades are when the school is lazy and doesn't stimulate him at all.
Then you say educate the poor would leave tons of people in shit schools. Thats why i said we need to change our education system. However, I did not say become like finland, but cite finalnd as an example of a fairly successful and happy country that focuses on informing, stimulating, and helping their youth every step of the way. I see a fundamental difference with how we approach our youth, our most valuable resource, and believe this is one reason why are our economy is sucking right now (and will keep getting suckier) and why so many people need help.
3. I laugh again at how you twist my argument. I clearly state this is another argument all together about fundamental human survival. It is merely a personal opinion. I never said that we don't need to perceive injustices, i said earlier that perhaps we can do it in a better way.
You seem to be hell bent on twisting my arguments to make me seem like an elitist pig who looks down on the poor. Both my parents immigrated from Korea. My dad's family had NOTHING when they arrived. However, my dad and my uncle worked their ass off in their shitty high school (that had a 50% drop out rate) and got into the university of louisville. My dad worked as a truck driver in college over the summer while getting an engineering degree to pay for college and my uncle dropped out to help support the family. My dad graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and got a successful job. My mom came from Korea beause they were so poor, their three meals a day sometimes consisted of solely kimchi. But she still worked her ass off to be successful. She came over and went to University of Indiana for her doctorate and raised me and my brother while getting it. If two immigrants who can barely speak English can come over, work hard, research the right decisions, and rise out of poverty can become successful enough to afford a two story house and allow their kids to play starcraft, then I personally believe that if we help those that do not have the same opportunities and knowledge, it can make a BIG difference.
A group of protesters link arms and sit on the ground, illegally blocking a sidewalk. The police show up and order them to move, but they refuse. Then another group of onlookers/protesters forms around the police and the sidewalk blockers. Then the police pepper spray the original sidewalk blockers, who have remained seated throughout the entire ordeal.
When, in your opinion, did it become alright to pepper spray people who were not involved with the only action throughout the whole incident (the infamous surrounding of riot-gear glad police officers by ferocious undergraduates with cellphones!) that could be remotely construed as physically threatening? When?
As for the rest of your ideas, I'm pretty much done talking about them. You're absolutely correct. If we teach people to avoid "terrible decisions" and we "inform," "stimulate," and support our children "every step of the way," we would be way better off. I applaud your acumen.
Here's the thing. The usage of the pepper spray is not justified based on our "opinion". It's based on a specific Use of Force model which all law enforcement officers are trained to understand. Law enforcement ALWAYS deals with resistance by using a level of force that EXCEEDS that which the resistors are using. Cops don't "fight" even handed, they escalate to get the upper hand. THAT is how it works. That is why when someone doesn't comply with VERBAL COMMANDS, police don't continue merely talking, they go hands on. If the hands on is resisted by someone who is sitting down with arms interlocked with a group of people, the hands on level fails, and again, cops escalate. The next level is a set of techniques such as pressure point manipulation, baton strikes to the body, PEPPER SPRAY, etc. The police in this case chose pepper spray, which is considered preferable to other more physical alternatives.
Making whiny comments claiming the cops used excessive force against these "non-violent" protestors demonstrates a complete ignorance of how law enforcement officers are trained to do their jobs.
If you disagree with the cops' actions, explain why within the confines of the Use of Force Continuum.
Do you happen to have access to the use of force guidelines that govern the police department responsible for the UC Davis pepper spray incident? Or are you simply gesturing towards a wikipedia article that includes, for the sake of example, a clearly generalized and admittedly incomplete model adapted from a 1999 report in which tools like pepper spray were considered "new technologies"? (A study that, by the way, avers a need for further research on the question of where pepper spray should fit into the use of force continuum, as well as on the question of whether pepper spray is "abused and thus [is] contributing in some way to the excessive force problem.")
If you do have access to such a document, I would love to see it. If not, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass as to whether or not these officers violated their own policies.
I'm posting actual information about law enforcement training and use of force guidelines. People criticizing the cops are posting nothing but their own (untrained) opinions about what the cops should have done, The idea that cops are supposed to play tug of war with a ring of interlocked retards is befuddling.
You didn't post anything useful, at least to your argument any way. Further more look at the revision history on that page for some serious laughs. up until 2 days ago every list on there shows pepper spray directly above deadly force and threat of deadly force. Typically wrestling, punching, kicking, striking, baton swinging all come it to play well before use of pepper spray, so there you have it, these police officers acted well outside this use of force continuum.
Actually, at least in the Federal model, OC is at or below all those you listed, not higher.
Citation needed. Of course you will also have to cite how this hypothetical federal model despite not being legislation is mandated to local law enforcement officers. Oops!
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.
Warning something you're going to do something abhorrent doesnt make it right.
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?
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.
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. A strange case of police acting the victim? Maybe, it sounds more like a case of the typical TL Police apologists. You would know all this already though right? You're very open minded after all right?
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.
He made an valid analogy to point out the absurdity of the previous posters suggestion that the act of warning some one of an action is justification for the action.
He is suggesting, as many have been, that maybe the police did not have the correct justification for that level of force, and warning people does not create that justification.
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.
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. It's just another case of police abusing their power and not being held responsible for it. Grim fucking future ahead when people will justify the most vile actions of people JUST because they are police.
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.
Could and should. Arguing over whether the actions of the police followed the protocol becomes a matter of interpretation of reasonable force. It is a valid discussion but has been done over and over and over. The fact is, the police should not have been told to remove the protesters. Once that happened there had to be some kind of confrontation. Whether it is pepper spray or physical removal; it would look bad for both the police and the Uni. The focus is on the wrong thing here.
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.
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.
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.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
The students deserved to be pepper sprayed. After the police arrested the students who refused to move, a crowd of students surrounded the police and began to threaten them. The students who surrounded the police chanted that they would allow the police to leave if they let the students go, and chanted that if the police let them go, they would continue to protest peacefully. This was a mob who was threatening the police and they all deserved a lot more than they got.
The students who were pepper sprayed in the face were part of the circle that was surrounding the police and keeping them contained in the center. You can see from the following video clip that those students were pepper sprayed to clear a path for the surrounded officers to leave.
The Occupiers are desperate to portray themselves as victims in order to accomplish their agenda. And the liberal media is playing right along with it. Which is why the clip you see on TV only shows the actual act of the pepper spraying, and leaves out all of the other context. The angle shown and the portion shown completely exclude the students who are surrounding the police officers, and completely excludes the officers who are surrounded. All that is shown are the officers walking up to these students and pepper spraying them.
This is the art of all liberal attacks on freedom. Emphasize all isolated concretes and drop all context necessary in order to make it look like you're the good guys and the people doing their jobs are the bad guys. Don't show the things you did to cause the disaster, only show the disaster and make it look like it's not your fault.
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.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
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.
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.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
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.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
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.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
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.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Let's add to the list, shall we ?
I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
30-40 officers grappling would do the trick
Tug of war
We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
But, to answer that question, only if they went to Berkeley.
Also, I'm not sure if it's your own Strawman or failure at reading comprehension, but I never said
throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were
I said:
2) call upon an infinite number of resources
which only implies the existence of infinite resources to draw from, not that they should all be used for that purpose.
Oh, and btw, officers don't "grapple". It's called Officer Safety. If it's a choice between pepper spray to the face of some dumbass and a physical altercation, it's pepper spray every time, unless of course it's the baton.
I feel bad for anyone that got sprayed, because being sprayed does suck (though not nearly as bad as they are making it out to be)
But I also feel like I can understand how the police may have felt they had no choice, and do believe that the proper actions were most likely taken by the OFFICERS in question. That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to say yay or nay. I usually don't support the OWS protestors as a rule, but without all the facts I will reserve my judgement. However, I will say that being pepper-sprayed hurts... but that's all. It hurts a bit and then you get over it. Not THAT big a deal.
This thread is so fucked. Tug of war?! What does that even mean? The fact that cops would need to exert some kind of effort to seperate students in no way justifies pepper-hosing an entire row of sitting non-violent protesters. Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
I am obsolutely mindblown by the mental gymnastics that people like Kaitlyn are going through to try to justify this obviously over-the-line response. I commend you for the effort that combing through this whole thread would have taken, but your post has no real footing to stand on.
The police were not subject to any physical attacks. They could have pepper-sprayed a single student so that there path was cleared. They could have called in more police. They could have tried to leave over the row of sitting students. They could have at least TRIED to seperate the students. They could have used a few police offivers to focus on a single area.
There were a million options, but the one Jon Pike chose was a gartuitously excessive use of force. It is not acceptable. He should be fired.
On December 07 2011 09:15 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I feel bad for anyone that got sprayed, because being sprayed does suck (though not nearly as bad as they are making it out to be)
But I also feel like I can understand how the police may have felt they had no choice, and do believe that the proper actions were most likely taken by the OFFICERS in question. That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to say yay or nay. I usually don't support the OWS protestors as a rule, but without all the facts I will reserve my judgement. However, I will say that being pepper-sprayed hurts... but that's all. It hurts a bit and then you get over it. Not THAT big a deal.
You always have a choice. I take it you've had pepperspray sprayed down your throat and into your eyes from point blank range?
Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
As I already explained, I have no real dog in this hunt, but I'll try to explain this one from my point of view at least:
What if one of those students had been waiting for a cop to grab him, so he could pull a knife out and slash the cop in the face? Sure, we can say "Oh but none of them did!" but how will you feel when you say that and the cop still gets slashed?
Officer safety is extremely important and no police officer should ever just "trust" a perp. Even if they have no reason to believe that they are in danger, they should always act as if they are in danger, and as if every person they may have to touch or grab is a deadly threat. It's the same reason why they are rough with people who have already laid down and given up. Because officers HAVE gotten stabbed, slashed, shot and hurt before while attempting to arrest someone who was being "peaceful".
edit: I have had some experience with pepper spray. As have many people I know. The general consensus is that it hurts, but is pretty harmless and more of a nuisance than an actual threat.
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.
On December 07 2011 09:24 Ripps wrote: This thread is so fucked. Tug of war?! What does that even mean? The fact that cops would need to exert some kind of effort to seperate students in no way justifies pepper-hosing an entire row of sitting non-violent protesters. Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
I am obsolutely mindblown by the mental gymnastics that people like Kaitlyn are going through to try to justify this obviously over-the-line response. I commend you for the effort that combing through this whole thread would have taken, but your post has no real footing to stand on.
The police were not subject to any physical attacks. They could have pepper-sprayed a single student so that there path was cleared. They could have called in more police. They could have tried to leave over the row of sitting students. They could have at least TRIED to seperate the students. They could have used a few police offivers to focus on a single area.
There were a million options, but the one Jon Pike chose was a gartuitously excessive use of force. It is not acceptable. He should be fired.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
As I already explained, I have no real dog in this hunt, but I'll try to explain this one from my point of view at least:
What if one of those students had been waiting for a cop to grab him, so he could pull a knife out and slash the cop in the face? Sure, we can say "Oh but none of them did!" but how will you feel when you say that and the cop still gets slashed?
Officer safety is extremely important and no police officer should ever just "trust" a perp. Even if they have no reason to believe that they are in danger, they should always act as if they are in danger, and as if every person they may have to touch or grab is a deadly threat. It's the same reason why they are rough with people who have already laid down and given up. Because officers HAVE gotten stabbed, slashed, shot and hurt before while attempting to arrest someone who was being "peaceful".
edit: I have had some experience with pepper spray. As have many people I know. The general consensus is that it hurts, but is pretty harmless and more of a nuisance than an actual threat.
Really? Is that really the scenario you're giving to defend the police? Should police pepper spray EVERY person they arrest JUST IN CASE they have a knife? Just step back and think about how stupid this is.
I'm not even a liberal guy. I'm just dumbfounded by the intellectual lengths people are going to try to defend this really clear-cut case of excessive force. Maybe you all need to watch the video and read the scenario again. It's really really really simple.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
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.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone
We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers
I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
But, to answer that question, only if they went to Berkeley.
Also, I'm not sure if it's your own Strawman or failure at reading comprehension, but I never said
which only implies the existence of infinite resources to draw from, not that they should all be used for that purpose.
Oh, and btw, officers don't "grapple". It's called Officer Safety. If it's a choice between pepper spray to the face of some dumbass and a physical altercation, it's pepper spray every time, unless of course it's the baton.
I don't see much of a distinction in the choice of wording used, but if you actually think that's a straw man, my statement can be revised with your exact wording and I'm fine standing behind that for now. That said if it makes you feel better I'll revise that statement to:
I don't see a single person in this list that is suggesting to "call upon an infinite number of resources" as a reasonable solution like you claimed they were.
Also "failure to acknowledge limited resources" doesn't actually invalidate any claim by the way, these statements fail to acknowledge many things. I believe you're trying to suggest that by not explicitly stating something about resources being finite (which no one has disputed) then the statement assumes that resources are infinite. Why you would make this assumption is beyond me. If you're suggesting that by labeling those suggestions with that statement invalidates them then you are once again denying the antecedent, another formal fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Also also, labeling suggestions as "tug-of-war" some cute term you use to describe using physical force to separate protesters and clear a path for the officers does not invalidate them. It's not uncommon for police officers to separate protesters with their hands, in fact most of the time that's how they go about breaking up human chains like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6u2fTYUjpmU#t=768s 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.
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
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.
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 03:13 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: That protest was about an illegal, immoral war of aggression, not about a bunch of yuppies whining about how tuition costs are too high.
You can disagree with a cause without committing a hasty_generalization by labeling everyone involved with some derogatory label.
In regards to your previous post, if protesters redirected violence away from others and to themselves instead, that sounds if any thing selfless and honorable (Not that I think they actually do that or are capable of doing that).
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: 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.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Being selfless isn't honorable. It's perverse. No one is actually selfless anyway, people just preach selflessness in order to exploit you. That is to say sacrificing for someone you love is noble, but sacrificing for a stranger or an enemy is stupid and perverse. It's not noble to be a victim of violence. Really it's just cowardly to not fight back against aggression.
On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote: 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.
Exactly my thoughts on the whole issue. This is a story that indeed has two sides to it, one side unfortunately is practically ignored making this whole ordeal seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is. After watching the videos in the OP as well as a few others it's pretty clear to me that the police acted in a way that was appropriate. This wasn't a bunch of students sitting in a circle holding hands singing Kumbaya and then were all of the sudden pepper sprayed for no reason. There are videos posted of these police officers individually coming up to each of the kids in that line and asking them if they understand what can happen to them if they don't move. These kids made it as difficult as possible for the police to do their job. They stopped protesting for tuition or war or w/e their original cause was when they formed that line to specifically not allow the police to escort the students they arrested off the campus.
Except your entire argument rests on the thesis that people should be arrested for protesting. Personally I am in favour of the 1st Amendment but I guess you're right it is silly and outdated. Bring on the police state!
The whole thing is just very unfortunate. There's virtually nothing the students can do about the rising tuition costs other than write angry letters. Yes, the police's actions were constituted, so I'm not going to badmouth them, but most of the students looked like they felt they had no choice. I'm in the "getting an education shouldn't be a debt sentence" pool, so this just sucks :/
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: 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.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality.
Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path
Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
Lasting more than an hour, a standoff between Occupy Wall Street protesters and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department resulted in at least three dozen arrests near Franklin Square at 14th and K Streets NW. Police used horses for crowd control, and picked apart protesters who linked arms and went limp with their bodies.
Protesters decided to link arms and were arrested without major conflict.
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: 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.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality.
Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path
Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best.
Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention.
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: 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.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality.
Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path
Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best.
Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention.
1) The previous comment talked about the black rights movement, hence why I used Rosa Parks as an example. 2) No chemicals or over-violent action was taken against her because she went along quietly after making her point. 3) I never said the police action was justified. If you had read my comments before, you'd know that I believe both sides were in the wrong
On December 08 2011 04:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: 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.
Except the protests of the 60's I'm talking about are the ones for civil rights for blacks. Of course, they were just a bunch of yuppies that were complaining about having to use separate bathrooms and restaurants.
Oh yeah, because I bet the black people back then were screaming fuck the police and directly disobeying the police right before resisting arrest. If that happened, then you could call the police response there, police brutality.
Let's take Rosa Parks for example. She said no, she would not move. The police took her away. What didn't happen was: Rosa resisting arrest Black people crowding around the police and blocking their path
Now let's see how that worked out. Rosa became one of the most important figures in the protest movement. Nuff said
She wasn't beaten or sprayed with toxic chemicals either, what is your point? The students obviously decided that protesting was their best way of getting their message across. Just because they refused to come meekly means they were wrong to protest? Or that the police action was justified? There are arguments that support that point of view but the one you are trying to provide is weak at best.
Rosa Parks has nothing to do with this, except that a peaceful demonstration has gained national (and international) attention.
1) The previous comment talked about the black rights movement, hence why I used Rosa Parks as an example. 2) No chemicals or over-violent action was taken against her because she went along quietly after making her point. 3) I never said the police action was justified. If you had read my comments before, you'd know that I believe both sides were in the wrong
The civil rights movement would have been nothing without the brutality by the police against peaceful civil disobedient americans. you miss the intended example
pepper spray was not used during the civil rights movement simply becuase it did not exist but tear gas was extensively used simply put more chemical agents would have been used if they were available, not becuase they are the right device but becuase of hate. It was not the things like the bus strike which caught national attention although in retrospect it's those things which people wish to remember it was the unquestioned brutality used that caught national attention.
Good point, the situation there was incredibly different. I should have used a better analogy. My main point however, was that you could still make your point without threatening the police and resisting, which I believe still stands. She was fully aware of what would happen to her, took the consequences of her actions, yet still made an impact. All I am saying is if these people want to model themselves after well known revolutionary figures, then they should follow that model completely.
Who they model after such figures? We only speculate that they do. In truth actions of non violence stand on their own merits and to say to not resist the police goes against peaceful political movements the only way to protest unjust things peacefully is to disobey the police else you'll never get any attention and traction, the point is to inconvenience the officer and inconvenience the system. You say they were threating the police, which they were, they were threating the police with captivity not with violence that they could leave but they cannot take those who they arrested with them. But you say threat under the premise of threat of violence which never was the case. Also to say that the whole has to emulate a figure who is remembered for their virtues rather then their faults is too high of an expectation, in reality it's that they try to follow to their interpretation of core principles of non violent resistance which is arguable to what is acceptable based on culture.
On December 08 2011 03:13 natebreen wrote: 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.
Exactly my thoughts on the whole issue. This is a story that indeed has two sides to it, one side unfortunately is practically ignored making this whole ordeal seem like a much bigger deal than it actually is. After watching the videos in the OP as well as a few others it's pretty clear to me that the police acted in a way that was appropriate. This wasn't a bunch of students sitting in a circle holding hands singing Kumbaya and then were all of the sudden pepper sprayed for no reason. There are videos posted of these police officers individually coming up to each of the kids in that line and asking them if they understand what can happen to them if they don't move. These kids made it as difficult as possible for the police to do their job. They stopped protesting for tuition or war or w/e their original cause was when they formed that line to specifically not allow the police to escort the students they arrested off the campus.
The job of the police is not to use deadly force (as legally defined) in response to a non-deadly level of violence, much less no violence whatsoever.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2175/img0678ac.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7219/img0682qk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/3443/img0687cer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1553/img0692t.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7088/img0691a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://neuroscience.ucdavis.edu/files/u9/the_quad.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/20/article-2063706-0EDE406400000578-305_634x357.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/20/article-2063706-0EDE406800000578-574_634x415.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CprQ3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Nl1T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2011/10/6a00d83451c45669e2014e8c12624c970d-550wi.png)
Chancelor made a huge mistake and the police are paying for it. ![[image loading]](http://www.reallifesuperheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/force.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G9XNy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YJUw8.jpg)
