|
On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 16:19 Fishgle wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 05 2011 11:15 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 10:01 Fishgle wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Linda P.B. Katehi
Chancellor
Nov 23rd
Dear UC Davis Students:
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.
Sincerely,
Linda P.B. Katehi
Chancellor
Dec 1st Dear UC Davis Community, 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 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 09:29 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 09:34 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 09:35 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:29 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 09:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 09:34 No_Roo wrote:On December 06 2011 09:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 09:16 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 06 2011 07:21 Kaitlin wrote:On December 06 2011 05:51 HULKAMANIA wrote: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. edit: Educate yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumIf 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 10:02 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Here's the Manual for U.S. Treasury Agents:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-002-003.html
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.
|
On December 06 2011 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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 10:30 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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.
|
Or maybe their policy dictates that they issue a warning before dispensing OC in such a situation ?
|
On December 06 2011 10:36 NakaNaide wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:30 muse5187 wrote:On December 06 2011 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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 10:40 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:36 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:30 muse5187 wrote:On December 06 2011 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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 10:40 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 10:36 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:30 muse5187 wrote:On December 06 2011 10:22 NakaNaide wrote:On December 06 2011 10:02 muse5187 wrote: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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
