If you have a few minutes you should watch it to the end. This is how the smart kids are doing it. Good curse. It totally worked and unnerved the officers. The cell phones are interesting too. Cool footage of the "hipster" middleclass set in action.
Actually. The mission was remove the sitters. They removed the sitters and moved back. They were not forced out. I did notice they were all arm with paintball guns. Now WATER will not remove the burning effect. Other then that law enforcement were pretty cool about it and the students did kept their distance. for both sides
I watched some of it. It's too loud for me to really focus on
Unrelated, but I wonder if police could use airsoft guns as crowd control? Just spray a crowd with .12s and pray no one gets an eye shot out, and everything should be alright Just thinking out loud, lol
I would recommend something else, rather than airsoft. Such as paintball guns with the paint pellet instead being filled with concentrated 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile mixed with a strong aerosol solvent (IE, tear gas) which would splatter and become highly volatile (and thus evaporate and get into the eyes and skin) upon breaking of the outer shell" of the paintball.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I watched some of it. It's too loud for me to really focus on
Unrelated, but I wonder if police could use airsoft guns as crowd control? Just spray a crowd with .12s and pray no one gets an eye shot out, and everything should be alright Just thinking out loud, lol
Alright..I did chuckle when I saw one from the sitting line high crawl slowly out. I did notice some bury their faces in their shirt to prevent getting hit in the face from the spray which is not going to work. Not sure but I think I saw some rubbing their faces which is the wrong thing to do with an irritant. Other then that it seems the law enforcement followed their establish SOP and executed it well within perameter. The chant "Shame on you" is not effecting the law enforcement officers nor me. In fact I did notice a few of them chuckling at the situation. What I was waiting for though towards the end. The officer with the spray gun kinda waving the pepperspray discharger and have an accident like popping the cannister off by hitting another officer. Other then that....what should they be ashame of?
Melissia wrote:I would recommend something else, rather than airsoft. Such as paintball guns with the paint pellet instead being filled with concentrated 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile mixed with a strong aerosol solvent (IE, tear gas) which would splatter and become highly volatile (and thus evaporate and get into the eyes and skin) upon breaking of the outer shell" of the paintball.
Capsaicin paintballs exist, so close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Alright..I did chuckle when I saw one from the sitting line high crawl slowly out. I did notice some bury their faces in their shirt to prevent getting hit in the face from the spray which is not going to work.
If they were smart, and they aren't, they would have soaked them in bleach.
Yeah, pepperball guns exist and they are GREAT. They actually really reduce the overspray and won't hit people behind them etc etc, plus longer range obv.
I was disappointed in the limited application of pepper spray. They needed to use much more.
I'm not sure paintball/pepperball guns are such a good idea. The pellets leave marks, and that's exactly what these fools are looking for - some concrete "evidence" that the police are using disproportionate force.
Bicat I agree with you. Though...it look thick as all hell coming out.
The paintball guns though are not lethal weapons so what can they say? I see no evidence of a baton in use.
Edit
Rad give me some issues here. The use of the pepperspray? The student chanting? Sitters on a sidewalk? Police moving back in a good formation? Students acting like mature protesters? Clarify for me...I'm just a grunt with some college.
BTW I will admit. The sitters knew what was going to happen and acted quite mature on being arrested. Wasn't like the three females that got sprayed when OWS got started up in NYC at Wall Street
Jihadin: You are seeing it clearly. I am not going to tell you what to think about it. Although I can't say I agree with riot cops using force on peaceful student protesters on campus, and I think that is what is going to be addressed by school officials. According to local news, the protest still continues outside of where talks are currently being held. I added this link to the original post. Looks like more information is going national. Enjoy.
Hang on, I thought protesting was legal in the US? I dont get it they allow those idots to picket servicemen funerals but if your sitting in a park your commiting a crime?
Wow you yanks dont feth around when it comes to foot paths. So you shoot people that litter on sight I assume? And the death penalty for a late library book?
Well ya...I shot at people littering...IED's are such an eye sore and it always leave a mess and generaly some P.O. people. As for a late library book....that goes on your credit report
Actually, if shot in the face, paintball guns can cause the loss of the eyes and facial features. I know because one of the paintball leaguers over here got capped in the eyes. Especially at a close range like this incident.
Jihadin wrote:Rad the link broke or CNN got rid of it
Are you sure? Try it again. It works for me.
The article elaborates on the use of force. UC Davis does not want further police force used against its students and has called the incident embarrassing and unfortunate. The campus police chief also acknowledged that the riot cops got surrounded and were forced to retreat in the only direction they had available to them. That was the original vibe I got from the video.
The administrators recognize that the campus as an academic institution is supposed to be free from violence and students are allowed to peacefully dissent without fear of violence.
Good luck keeping enrollment up if you keep pepper-spraying your own students.
Jihadin wrote:So...how the hell did the cops get involve?
Heheh...good question. It appears the blame is being directed at the campus Chancellor. She is being asked to resign for creating an unsafe environment under her leadership. She is refusing to step down at the moment saying she has broke no rules. She is also saying that the incident is "chilling" and "inappropriate," and that the police action was "unacceptable." I don't know how much of this is back peddling or what. The chief of campus police also says they are going to do a use of force review. There also appears to have been multiple warnings issued that camping was not allowed, although it looks like the administration hadn't prepared for this outcome. This is not the type of publicity the UC system wants. The budgets are already tight, now students at this campus are being pepper-sprayed.
I saw on another thread that campus cops are like regular cops. I'm not actually sure though on the campus cops there are like rent a cops. What gets me though...I didn't see any campus cops in with the regular cops. What also concern me...it built up to that point and no reps from the college were on hand with the law enforcement leadership on scene? Now the perception is that the law enforcement rolled onto a college campus and took matters on themselves. Somebody from campus security needs to step up and and figure out where the break down in communication happen and who was the point man/woman who are suppose to be the liason
I'm something of a paintball player, and I'm curious about these paintballs that won't harm you if you, say, get shot in the eye. Paintballs don't function quite like bullets, and being accurate with a marker is a mixture of ball quality and luck.
I'm sure law enforcement will aim center mass at the crowd if they really got out of hand and endanger the law enforcement officers themselves. Also I highly doubt they aim for heads due to the fact of eye injuries. If they're like me I aim a bit lower and get groin shots just to put down a person for zero threat level status
Necroshea wrote:I'm something of a paintball player, and I'm curious about these paintballs that won't harm you if you, say, get shot in the eye. Paintballs don't function quite like bullets, and being accurate with a marker is a mixture of ball quality and luck.
They are not just regular paintballs, they are smaller, faster and harder. We are not just talking about different balls in the same gun here. Same basic design, different actual gun.
The problem here is that the cops are just not doing their job, and that "less-than-lethal" force makes it easier for cops to be lazy and break the rules.
"Less-than-lethal" force is still force, and needs to follow the appropriate escalation protocol. These kids did not fight the cops, they were not even threatening to fight the cops, they were simply sitting there. Every person that was arrested by the cops prior to the pepper-spraying was arrested without struggle.
The argument given by the cops is that they "were scared" because they were being circled in by the students, and that they had no choice but to use the pepper spray. That argument is bogus for a few reasons. First, there was no sense of urgency in the spraying. If the cops were scared or in immediate danger they would have acted a lot more swiftly instead of simply walking up and down the line a few times, casually spraying the protesters. Secondly, if there was any threat it would have come from the group surrounding the cops, and not the group sitting on the ground. At best the cops were holding the inside group hostage.
The second argument here is that the cops should simply spray and beat everyone that is protesting. Guess what, that is not the job of the cops. The cops are here to enforce the law, not to punish violators. How about next time you speed and get pulled over you just have the cop walk up to your window and punch you in the face. That would be the same thing as advocating that all protesters get pepper sprayed by default.
Cops are supposed to arrest people and bring them in front of a judge who will decide if they were guilty and hand out punishment. Cops are not judges, as much as they want to be like Judge Dread. To many of them have a mindset of "I will punish you myself" instead of "I will take you to get punished".
Maybe if these kids had some lawyers like the Westborough Folks or some rich backers like the Tea Party, they would not get maced at point blank range.
You may now resume your enjoyment of your regular scheduled police state.
d-usa wrote:
"Less-than-lethal" force is still force, and needs to follow the appropriate escalation protocol. These kids did not fight the cops, they were not even threatening to fight the cops, they were simply sitting there. Every person that was arrested by the cops prior to the pepper-spraying was arrested without struggle.
Here is the thing. Force is not just for people fighting cops and resistance is not just "struggle"
There's a really cool demo the police do that shows this. They pull a person out of a crowd and have them walk a "suspect" around in a circle. They give them a wiffle club or a ruler or something and tell the person to hit the suspect when they begin to resist them. They walk around in a circle and it APPEARS that they are just hitting them randomly when in reality they are feeling them start to pull away before it is visible.
This isn't that exact situation, but it's an example of how police force is not always how it looks in a 30 second video.
People always want to say that the cops shouldn't use force unless they are scared or in danger. No, if the cops are scared or in danger, their GUNS should be out. Lower levels of force are for when people aren't obeying verbal orders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Cops are supposed to arrest people and bring them in front of a judge who will decide if they were guilty and hand out punishment. Cops are not judges, as much as they want to be like Judge Dread. To many of them have a mindset of "I will punish you myself" instead of "I will take you to get punished".
If you believe the police are "punishing" people, then that's just what you're going to see in every use of force situation.
Maybe if these kids had some lawyers like the Westborough Folks or some rich backers like the Tea Party, they would not get maced at point blank range.
The argument given by the cops is that they "were scared" because they were being circled in by the students, and that they had no choice but to use the pepper spray. That argument is bogus for a few reasons. First, there was no sense of urgency in the spraying. If the cops were scared or in immediate danger they would have acted a lot more swiftly instead of simply walking up and down the line a few times, casually spraying the protesters. Secondly, if there was any threat it would have come from the group surrounding the cops, and not the group sitting on the ground. At best the cops were holding the inside group hostage.
Situational awareness. Work on it people
"The students had encircled the officers," she said. "They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out."
As you can see. This was the campus security rep stating this. From the look of it. The law enforcement removed the sitters and withdrew from the area in good order. While the students were chanting. Already went over this on 1st page.
It's totally disgusting. I wonder where the pepper spray is when the tea partiers are calling for violent uprising against the 'socialist/nazi/muslim/somehowalloftheaboveinonenegroinourwhitehousethehorrorthehorror' whilst carrying guns? Instead it gets used on a bunch of students, hipsters and old hippies.
The treatment of many of these protestors by several police forces has been totally and unnecessarily overboard.
This 84 year old woman was pepper sprayed by someone claiming to 'serve and protect'...
Who do you serve and who do you protect?
The police show up and instigate violence against peaceful protestors.
Americans place such store in The Freedom of Speech, what use was it when those in positions of power decided that those protesting were not saying something they liked.
The police served the politicians, the politicians served the corporations. NEITHER served The People, both are supposed to.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see why the protestors needed to block the sidewalk to make their point unless their goal was to be arrested or possibly beaten, and I don't see why the police couldn't use some discretion and decide it wasn't really worth it and deny them that narrative - not every jaywalker gets arrested. A failure for common sense all around.
Well...lets see...might had a OWS shooter go for the W.H. by shooting it. We had a couple nuts stating to burn it all down in NYC just to name a few. We can spend all day on OWS and Tea Party. Lets not shall we. Stick on the topic.
Give me a time frame on the video on cops mishandling the insur...eerrrr protestors
As for the 84 yrs old well welcome to collateral damage. Pepperspray is a area dispersion. Not target specific unless you really want to say a law enforcement officer stuck the weapon in her face
Who do you serve and who do you protect?
Seriously? Do I have to go over this again?
The police show up and instigate violence against peaceful protestors.
It is against the law to impede traffic. Its not in the constitution but its in state law and ordinance's. SO they broke the law. I have notice law enforcement give sufficient time notice before the execution.
In trying to determine why he recently traveled to the nation’s capital from the western part of the country, investigators searched the Occupy D.C. campground near the White House but have found no connection between him and the Occupy protesters, according to three law enforcement officials familiar with the case
keyword there. I didn't state it was. If I said might then I'm a day behind on the news. Since you brought Fox news up did you know CNN didn't bring up the 12 protesters arrested in DC for occupying a historic building...think it was empty though but hey its against the law to be on public property when its a closed building.
"active resistance"
A sit in on a public sidewalk is active resistance
Rented Tritium wrote:
If you believe the police are "punishing" people, then that's just what you're going to see in every use of force situation.
And all the people on here going "hippies/hipsters/scum/etc deserve to be maced/sprayed/beaten/hit with water cannons/I want to hold them so you can concentrate on spraying them officer" are always going to see justification in every use of force situation.
So if the options are "you are always going to see cops as thugs" and "every protester deserves to get sprayed" then we might as well close down the tread, because no middle ground exists.
Or we could ignore the rhetoric and quit pretending that I said that all police are punishing people, and agree that at times police do in fact loose a hold of their emotions and are more concerned about handing out punishment than justice. Just like there are protesters whose only goal is to piss off cops to make them loose their cool so that they can play the victim. There are also protesters who don't care what they are protesting about and are just looking for an excuse to break the law and smash a shop window, flip a cop car, and set it on fire.
There are also protesters who respect the police and will follow their orders, and there are also cops who are very reasonable and let the protesters protest as long as they are doing it safely.
Oh that Pike...but he um...ended up with ahot chick though.
Someone threw in nazi as a reference to law enforcement and in extension because of that word the US military. Its fringe I know but same word can apply to us. Would that mean the protestors are anarchist?
So do we want to talk about why the tea party was different?
Man I never thought I'd see the day I was defending the tea party, I can't stand them even MORE.
But here's the thing, the tea party was being crazy and threatening in places where they had permits and were following all applicable laws. The tea party was NOT showing up and blocking sidewalks.
Here is the thing, you are a cop, you show up and someone is breaking the law, in this case, blocking the sidewalk. You say they need to move or they'll be arrested and some do. You say the next ones are under arrest and some get up and come with you. You start pulling apart the ones that are left and some of them are pried apart and you take them away. The ones left after THAT? They're holding on so tight you're using sticks to pry them apart like a crobar and it's still not working? Hell yes you use pepper spray, that is EXACTLY what it is for. They are resisting arrest, you have used everything below pepper spray on the use of force matrix. They meet the requirements for pepper spray on the use of force matrix. It is happening.
So through the lens of how the use of force matrix actually works, I really don't see a problem here unless you can show me where they jumped up a step without cause. But literally everything I've read about it, EVEN THE OCCUPY MATERIALS, suggests that they increased force in the proper increments in the proper order.
Even ignoring police spokesmen, the witness descriptions of the order of events actually follows the use of force matrix. Those are 100% biased witnesses and it is STILL by the book.
Jihadin wrote:Oh that Pike...but he um...ended up with ahot chick though.
Someone threw in nazi as a reference to law enforcement and in extension because of that word the US military. Its fringe I know but same word can apply to us. Would that mean the protestors are anarchist?
I think that there are a lot of terms that include a suppressive use of police that are a lot more fitting than national socialism.
Folks that are screaming "nazi" when referring to the police at these protests are at the same level as the people running around with pictures of Obama labeled "Socialist". I have been to the concentration camp in Dachau, I have stood inside the gas chamber, and I have stood in front of the ovens in the crematorium. I fully believe these cops are bullies, but they are no nazis.
To many buzzwords being thrown around with a lot of this applying:
And just for future reference (and not really in any way related to the content of this thread), while I may often talk about how I think that the military actions of the US is wrong (we should not be fighting there, policy is stupid, etc..) I always separate the actions of the administration and military brass from the actions of soldiers. I have the luxury of being an armchair quarterback, and soldiers usually do not. I have a lot of family that is in the military, and I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs at a VA hospital and I love taking care of the vets there. So my displeasure of current US Military policy does not extend to the vast majority of US servicemen. So while we may disagree on things in the future, I respect what you do and thank you for your service .
C'mon, brah. That's super weak sauce and you know it. People who equivocate like that might wish to actually pick a stance that says something without the benefit of giving them a backdoor to retreat through the moment they get called on it, or people might not take them seriously as partners in conversation. It would be a shame if that happened because the other things you've said in this thread have been clear, rational, and well considered.
In general, I'd like for us to lay off the Nazi references. It poisons a thread as soon as it start and I think we can have an interesting conversation here.
KK Lt Pike doing the spraying...that was some restraint since I myself would have emtpy the can...but since he's a "blank"...wait...I have no right to use that word...I'm "blank" to since I support his action and the amount used on students locked arm in a sit in on a public sidewalk
Ouze hence why I use the word "might" yepper I use it as a backdoor because I was not sure of the status of a unknown shooter now. So last I heard though the AK he supposedly had was not the AK that fired at the W.H.
Give me some credit though on the word "might" pls...if not....Frazz...where's my water cannon
I still love you D not man gooey love but bro fist love
How he did it was perfectly fine in terms of use of force, but PERSONALLY, I would have started from one end and hit people one by one and had other officers ready to pull them apart after getting them with the spray. That way you really focus on the people getting sprayed instead of just letting the whole log of people writhe while you get to them slowly.
But that level of strategy is all just personal discretion.
Jihadin wrote:I saw on another thread that campus cops are like regular cops. I'm not actually sure though on the campus cops there are like rent a cops. What gets me though...I didn't see any campus cops in with the regular cops. What also concern me...it built up to that point and no reps from the college were on hand with the law enforcement leadership on scene? Now the perception is that the law enforcement rolled onto a college campus and took matters on themselves. Somebody from campus security needs to step up and and figure out where the break down in communication happen and who was the point man/woman who are suppose to be the liason
That's because the "regular" cops ARE the campus cops. The UC Davis PD, which is wholly separate from the city of Davis PD, rolled from their HQ which I can only assume is on or near campus. I'm not sure who the overall leadership was but the guy doing the spraying is a Lieutenant so we at least know that one leadership position officer was in place.
I dismiss any attempt by campus security to say the officers sprayed the protester because they were threatened, before he starts he holds that can above his head waves it around and starts dusting. These kids either know or were warned what was going to happen, in the bottom you can see one covering his/her mouth with a scarf, not that it helps.
So the cops thought it through, probably issued multiple warnings and doused a bunch of consenting adults with pepper spray boohoo. I'm sure that those "kids" would have much rather been cracked in the soft and jiggily spots with a baton until they could be zip cuffed. Would've made the news even better. The message that SHOULD be received here is don't antagonize the cops (or anyone else) and not expect a response. Or the better overarching message, "go to class or GTFO," its a campus not a campground.
Alternately, if you really want to get arrested to make your point, do it in such a way that makes you look calm and collected. Stand up and go with them as soon as they put hands on you. Don't wait for the harder stuff to come out.
They're martryed themselves for the cause. Actually...what were they protesting? I do know one college in cali went nuts over a tuition hike. Just curious
Jihadin wrote:They're martryed themselves for the cause. Actually...what were they protesting? I do know one college in cali went nuts over a tuition hike. Just curious
They were protesting the fact that students at another UC campus were allegedly beaten during the tuition hike protests. (I think)
I'll just point out, again, that they aren't being sprayed for "protesting" they're being sprayed for being a public nuisance and for not complying with the cops.
If you're breaking the law and the police show up I don't see how you can be surprised when this stuff happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:I was disappointed in the limited application of pepper spray. They needed to use much more.
Says the man who claims that the OWS protesters are "anti-freedom".
Being anti-freedom myself, I agree with biccat.
I'm going to call the Illuminati Lizard People and tell them to double the chemtrails.
It is against the law to impede traffic. Its not in the constitution but its in state law and ordinance's. SO they broke the law. I have notice law enforcement give sufficient time notice before the execution.
People are so upset that they are taking to the streets to protest their situation, and you are worried about impeding foot traffic? People are trying to change the system they live under, there is going to be some inconvenience involved. It's called civil disobedience for a reason, and I'm pretty sure the United States of America has a long and noble history of it.
No, but I think that this tendency to demand that protesters only be allowed to demonstrate in certain places, at certain times, and only in certain ways is a dangerous path to be on, and one that is unsustainable in my view.
murdog wrote:No, but I think that this tendency to demand that protesters only be allowed to demonstrate in certain places, at certain times, and only in certain ways is a dangerous path to be on, and one that is unsustainable in my view.
If the ANP and KKK can file permits for their demonstrations and parades--I think a relatively justifiable cause like this can as well.
United States of America has a long and noble history of it.
You know...you make it sound like we take pride in that. I doubt that it was your intent. Every country who crack down on protesters its law enforcement is going to get crucified regardless.
SO I ask you
If you know the park does not allow camping over night but you do it knowing it'll break the law...do you get a free pass?
If you know impeding foot and vehicle traffic is against the law due to safety and F'ing common sense and given suffiecient time to move along and do not...do you still have the right to impede other people/business/public safety/emergency workers from real responses..do you get a free pass?
just a few examples.
The protest in the US still have to abide by the laws governing the nation and the states. If the police are responsible for the actions they take and responsible to enforce the law. Is not the same applied to the protesters...or is there a clause somewhere where breaking laws are allowed during a protest?
Kanluwen wrote:
If the ANP and KKK can file permits for their demonstrations and parades--I think a relatively justifiable cause like this can as well.
What happens when you are denied a permit? Just go home and be quiet?
I love the fact that America goes around acting like the world police demanding other countries to stop abusing protesters but then do jack gak to stop their own citisens getting abused by fat pigs.
Kanluwen wrote:
If the ANP and KKK can file permits for their demonstrations and parades--I think a relatively justifiable cause like this can as well.
What happens when you are denied a permit? Just go home and be quiet?
If you can prove that the denial of permit was to prevent you from protesting or demonstrating--you get to bring a lawsuit and get a payday.
Space Crusader wrote:I love the fact that America goes around acting like the world police demanding other countries to stop abusing protesters but then do jack gak to stop their own citisens getting abused by fat pigs.
I love the fact that you're in here, calling this "abuse".
Oh. And referring to police as "fat pigs" is just adorable. What? You can't come up with anything clever? No reference to jackboots, uniforms, or funny mustaches?
The quality of anti-establishment rhetoric sure is declining.
The Constitution says nothing about camping out in a public space, like the Occupy Tulsa protesters wanted to do.
Protest organizers asked the city to waive the requirements, including a $100-per-day fee for park use, $1 million in liability insurance and an 11 p.m. curfew, so demonstrators can camp out in Chapman Park in downtown Tulsa beyond the 11 p.m. curfew
But then again, it's nowhere near as fun to spell out the whole situation as it is to just put out leading statements and let readers assume whatever they want.
I love the fact that America goes around acting like the world police demanding other countries to stop abusing protesters but then do jack gak to stop their own citisens getting abused by fat pigs.
And here we go. Clarify the world police. Just by that alone I think your viewing the US military since in a way..we in the US military is feeling like the world police. Some reason its the UN and NATO missions that gives it to me.
I'm not sure how the laws your country is like for protesting Crusader but the laws in US is common sense. Say example like someone mom died going by ambulance but were unable to get to the hospital due to protesters clogging the avenues.
Fat pigs
Someone find a timeline when law enforcement started being called this? Thinking during the Veitnam Era protest I believe. Now I will admit though...I've seen some overweight cops. We're talking severe muffin top issues
Ouze how long was that ordinance in effect. Actually I'm going to side with the protestors. 43 protesters require a one million dollar insurance? Give me a break. Going to go out on a branch here but isn't there a law against that. Possible loophole?
United States of America has a long and noble history of it.
You know...you make it sound like we take pride in that. I doubt that it was your intent. Every country who crack down on protesters its law enforcement is going to get crucified regardless.
SO I ask you
If you know the park does not allow camping over night but you do it knowing it'll break the law...do you get a free pass?
If you know impeding foot and vehicle traffic is against the law due to safety and F'ing common sense and given suffiecient time to move along and do not...do you still have the right to impede other people/business/public safety/emergency workers from real responses..do you get a free pass?
just a few examples.
The protest in the US still have to abide by the laws governing the nation and the states. If the police are responsible for the actions they take and responsible to enforce the law. Is not the same applied to the protesters...or is there a clause somewhere where breaking laws are allowed during a protest?
I think some of you do (rightly, imo) take pride in that history. Where would your country be without acts of civil disobedience? Like I said above, its called civil disobedience for a reason - because laws and authority are disobeyed. It's not about getting a free pass, its about believing so strongly in what you are trying to do and say that you aren't going to listen anymore when people tell you to go away and be quiet.
The safety argument is lame imo. Were they blocking ambulances? Were they getting run over? As I said all ready, people are so mad they are in the streets protesting. There will be impediments to usual activities. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette kinda thing. Do you think all those people really, really want to have to go into the streets, face arrest, beatings, and pepper spray? If they could change their situation by sending an email to their elected representative, I'm sure they would much rather do that.
a example was giving. don't latch on to it as an argument point. laws are there for a reason. there are no reason to break them. so right now I'm seeing anarchist type of behavior.
never been email bomb have you? if you really want to garner politician attention...everyone write and mail at one time.
edit
AN ACTUAL LETTER one where they have to put a stamp on it and put in a blue metal box.
murdog wrote:
The safety argument is lame imo. Were they blocking ambulances?
No, but they were blocking the police who were there lawfully to remove individuals camping out in a public space with no permits.
Were they getting run over?
You very well know they weren't. They were, however, purposefully blocking police from carrying out their duties--which is obstruction and depending on the circumstances can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony.
As I said all ready, people are so mad they are in the streets protesting.
Yes. They're so mad they're in the streets "protesting"(really just yelling loudly at the police for the most part) and camping out in public parks turning them into what might as well be a squatter's hovel.
There will be impediments to usual activities. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette kinda thing.
And if they're impeding usual activities, they'll be arrested for it or told to disperse.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Do you think all those people really, really want to have to go into the streets, face arrest, beatings, and pepper spray?
Contrary to popular belief, the police don't just beat someone for the fun of it.
Pepper spray might be overused, sure. But in this litigation triggerhappy environment, law enforcement agencies find that pepper spray and tear gas are far more effective tools for area denial and crowd control than whaling on some protester with a taser or a riot baton.
If they could change their situation by sending an email to their elected representative, I'm sure they would much rather do that.
Why do that when you can have all the fun of protests? Why do that when instead you can call out sick from your job or school and claim you're "making a difference".
It also does not help that many of the "protesters" can't explain what exactly they're protesting, other than "it's bad".
Jihadin wrote: laws are there for a reason. there are no reason to break them.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then. There are reasons to break laws, and far more eloquent people than I have made the arguments. America wouldn't even exist if laws hadn't been broken.
Jihadin wrote: laws are there for a reason. there are no reason to break them.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then. There are reasons to break laws, and far more eloquent people than I have made the arguments. America wouldn't even exist if laws hadn't been broken.
And to continually equate the actions of the Founding Fathers with these protesters is ridiculous.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing was treason. They were very much aware of the consequences of their actions.
To equate their actions with the surprise expressed by these protesters at being arrested for breaking the law is absurd.
Why would I condone protesters who cannot follow simple laws? I spent a majority of my adult life in the military under UCMJ laws. If I can follow and abide under UCMJ and local laws why can't protesters? There are no exception to the laws and no ones immune to them at a protest. Those that break the law intentionaly to get their point across I give them a golf clap. Those that resist arrest or becoming a bunch of knuckleheads in the process can expect to get taken to zero threat status quickly and efficiently I give a golf clap if the actions taken were executed within acceptable range.
Yes I find the use of pepperspray to lessen the time to place them under arrest is within reason. Believe I stated that on the first page. No rubber bullets, no riot batons like Kan said. No water cannons (damn them) no riot control grenades or excessive use of violence on this video so to Law Enforcement
I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Jihadin, you use the phrase 'zero threat status' alot, but who is being threatened? The police have armour and weapons, how are they being threatened by non-violent demonstrators?
Kanluwen wrote:But then again, it's nowhere near as fun to spell out the whole situation as it is to just put out leading statements and let readers assume whatever they want.
You missed the point. The point was that one way to clamp down on free speech, which you appear to endorse by approving of "free speech zones", was to say you have free speech and then put up artificial roadblocks to prevent people from actually protesting. All the benefits of claiming to be a free society, none of the hassles of dealing with dirty hippies.
Since the URL I provided earlier was less specific than I intended, here is another example of a permit and $1 million in liability insurance being required to protest, despite the fact the latter is probably unconstitutional.
murdog wrote:I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Except once again, it has nothing to do with the importance but the context.
Martin Luther King Junior and the Civil Rights Movement? They knew what they were doing was illegal. They did it, knowing they faced threats of violence, incarceration, or in some cases even being murdered by staunch opponents to the movement.
The Founding Fathers? They knew what they were doing was treason. They did it anyways--not because they were going to cry foul when the British turned up to tell them "Don't do that!" but because they felt what they were doing was the "right thing to do".
So stop associating the members of this movement who are crying foul whenever they get evicted from their little tent cities with the Founding Fathers and the Civil Rights Movement. They believe they are protected by the First Amendment in every action they do, when in reality it simply protects their right to assemble and protest--not to squat on public lands.
Jihadin, you use the phrase 'zero threat status' alot, but who is being threatened? The police have armour and weapons, how are they being threatened by non-violent demonstrators?
Yeah...riot armour is so good.
Riot gear is basically hockey pads with the potential for a ballistic insert that might stop a 9mm pistol. Most won't have such things though, and be as I said: hockey pads.
Riot gear is not an "end all, be all" immunity to violence. If someone hurls a brick at them--it will hurt them. If someone stabs them--it will hurt them. It's basically good for stopping blunt force trauma and that's about it.
So please don't pretend that the police can't be injured just because they have "armour on". When they are outnumbered as much as they were, if the crowd had decided to turn violent--those officers could very well have been severely injured.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:But then again, it's nowhere near as fun to spell out the whole situation as it is to just put out leading statements and let readers assume whatever they want.
You missed the point. The point was that one way to clamp down on free speech, which you appear to endorse by approving of "free speech zones", was to say you have free speech and then put up artificial roadblocks to prevent people from actually protesting. All the benefits of claiming to be a free society, none of the hassles of dealing with dirty hippies.
Since the URL I provided earlier was less specific than I intended, here is another example of a permit and $1 million in liability insurance being required to protest, despite the fact the latter is probably unconstitutional.
So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
murdog wrote:No, but I think that this tendency to demand that protesters only be allowed to demonstrate in certain places, at certain times, and only in certain ways is a dangerous path to be on, and one that is unsustainable in my view.
So you think it's wrong to restrict the time, the manner and the place that protests happen?
Because I could BURY you in caselaw on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The liability insurance wasn't required to protest, it was required to rent the park overnight.
It's a rule that's there so people can have rock concerns.
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Please read the link before commenting on it.
Moreover, the location of the proposed rally at the Davie Town Hall is within a traditional public forum; indeed, it is the "archetype of a traditional public forum."
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that there is some great big conspiracy for these liability insurance policies?
By the way: all the second link says is that those rules cannot be unwritten requirements.
There's no Constitutional issue if the city ordinances actually say that you are required to have a $1 million in liability insurance policy(which is for the entire group, mind you).
Please read the link before commenting. You clearly only skimmed the first paragraph judging by the fact you seem to think that the fact it was unwritten was important.
No, it's because that is what was considered to be the most important fact for the case.
The Davie insurance requirement does not amount to a nominal charge. It forces the Klan to acquire a large amount of insurance coverage, namely $1,000,000. Therefore, the requirement is unconstitutional under the Eleventh Circuit's reading of Cox because the cost of that coverage may be, as in this case, larger than a nominal fee. Moreover, this requirement is not related to the costs incurred by Davie in administering the rally. Furthermore, although the current insurance coverage requirement is set at one million dollars, there is no written limitation as to the size of the insurance requirement that might be demanded by the town. See Walsh, 774 F.2d at 1523. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not delineated the dollar amount of a nominal fee, the Court finds that the cost of the $1,000,000 liability insurance coverage exceeds a nominal amount.
B. Burden on Poorly-Financed Groups
In addition, indigent groups or persons who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and, as a consequence of the added costs of insurance, are unable to pay such costs, are denied an equal opportunity to be heard. There is no evidence that the Davie insurance requirement contains a provision exempting those individuals or groups who cannot afford to acquire insurance coverage. In this case, Pritchard has testified that he does not have the personal resources needed to purchase the required coverage.
Moreover, the insurance requirement fails to take into account the possibility that the most heinous political groups in American society may find it difficult, if not impossible to actually purchase insurance.4 The failure of the Davie insurance requirement to provide an alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Id. at 1523-24; See also Murdock v. Pennsylvania,319 U.S. 105, 111, 63 S.Ct. 870, 874, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) ("Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way.").
I'd suggest you go back and continue reading this case.
Immediately after the point that you seem to find so critical...
C. Content-Neutral Violations
Finally, the Court finds that the Davie insurance requirement is discretionary. Although the amount of insurance coverage required is standard, waiver of
[ 811 F.Supp. 669 ]
such requirement is apparently vested and committed to the unfettered discretion of the Town Council, as demonstrated by the proceedings conducted on January 14, 1993. Moreover, no public comment was permitted at the proceeding from Pritchard, the party most affected by the Council's actions. Such broad discretion constitutes an impermissible prior restraint. Freedman, 380 U.S. at 51, 85 S.Ct. at 735. In this regard, the Court further notes that the lack of written standards pertaining to the insurance requirement, or waiver thereof, permits Davie officials and the Town Council to act with overly broad discretion, in derogation of first amendment rights.
This Court is faced with a situation where a municipality, upon receiving word that a controversial group wishes to stage a rally in town, imposes conditions designed to prevent the rally. In 1977, Nazi party members announced plans to march in Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish suburb of Chicago. A national uproar soon erupted. The village of Skokie immediately enacted ordinances designed to prevent the march. In finding those ordinances unconstitutional, the Seventh Circuit noted that, "[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction, not on judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas." Collin v. Smith,578 F.2d 1197, 1203 (7th Cir.1978) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)).
The Court finds that the Davie insurance requirement violates the plaintiffs' first amendment rights. Moreover, the Court finds that the plaintiffs will sustain immediate and irreparable harm if deprived of the free exercise of their first amendment rights and that such harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any potential harm to the defendants.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) and (d), Plaintiffs Hank Pritchard and Knights of the Ku Klux Klan's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Jack Mackie and the Town of Davie are subject to a temporary restraining order preventing them from requiring that the plaintiffs secure a one million dollar liability policy as a pre-condition to holding the proposed rally on January 18, 1993, at the Davie Town Hall. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs need not post security for the issuance of this temporary restraining order. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that further proceedings in this matter shall be before the Honorable Kenneth Ryskamp, the judge to whom this case has been assigned and for whom the undersigned district judge has handled this matter.
What's more, when you look at the footnotes, you have these two key points sticking out:
3. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to resolve an apparent conflict in the Circuits "concerning the constitutionality of charging a fee for a speaker in a public forum." Forsythe County, ___ U.S. at ___, and ___ n. 8, 112 S.Ct. at 2400, and 2400 n. 8. The Court, however, found the permit fee to be content-based, and did not need to address the nominal fee issue. Id. ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2406 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
Back to Reference
4. Eastern Conn. Citizens Action Group v. Powers,723 F.2d 1050, 1056 n. 2 (2d Cir.1983) (In denying an application for an insurance policy, brokers or underwriters often consider the political beliefs of those who have applied for insurance coverage and the likelihood of adverse publicity).
KK thanks for the clarification on that insurance bit. It didn't sound right. I also agree with the judge on saying no to the waivers. Who was well within legal binds. I don't blame him for it after a OWS protesters groups went "rogue" in some cities. Now...the 43 protesters....whats their next move?
edit
So the insurance bit was actually in play before the attempt. Still doesn't give the right to camp out on park grounds overnight right?
Rented Tritium wrote:Yes, when you rent an otherwise closed space for a private event, you are taking responsibility for what happens there.
Please read the link before commenting on it.
Moreover, the location of the proposed rally at the Davie Town Hall is within a traditional public forum; indeed, it is the "archetype of a traditional public forum."
That's from Pritchard v. Mackie. I'm not arguing Pritchard v. Mackie. I'm talking about the other cases you are trying to APPLY Pritchard v. Mackie TO.
See, they are different because in Pritchard V. Mackie, they weren't trying to use a space that was closed.
Jihadin wrote:So the insurance bit was actually in play before the attempt. Still doesn't give the right to camp out on park grounds overnight right?
No, that's a different deal. They wanted a waiver to be allowed to stay past the curfew. Despite the areas in which several of us disagree, I do agree that camping is not protesting.
So we've a group of OWS protesters...trying to do the right thing? Actually protesting in a sensible sort of way? Not actually hindering anything? Not being a nuisance and public disturbance. If so...I'm...impressed
It looks like two officers have been placed on administrative leave. My bet is on the Lt. that did the spraying...and...just a wild guess...the fat one that was laughing.
There is another link for those of you who haven't bothered to read about what is going on. Or keep defending an incident that is being regarded as an epic failure by all parties involved.
Just to clarify.
UC Davis considers itself to be a violence free environment. Peaceful debate and dissent are to be tolerated and even encouraged. I know a lot of you can't handle that. By all means, rage on.
Why do the american police resort to violence so fast? They are lucky that they are not in Italy. The spraying of the old lady for example would have had the crowd go "apeshit". But no, since most of the protesters are middle class its just "Police brutality!" and "This is going up on youtube". If you want a protest look for Europe
Radiation wrote: It looks like two officers have been placed on administrative leave. My bet is on the Lt. that did the spraying...and...just a wild guess...the fat one that was laughing.
There is another link for those of you who haven't bothered to read about what is going on. Or keep defending an incident that is being regarded as an epic failure by all parties involved.
Just to clarify.
UC Davis considers itself to be a violence free environment. Peaceful debate and dissent are to be tolerated and even encouraged. I know a lot of you can't handle that. By all means, rage on.
Of course they've been placed on administrative leave. Politics mean that as soon as people start crying about anything, even if it's done legally and by the book, as it was in this case. Pepper spray IS the appropriate response under the "use of force" matrix. If the officers had laid hands on those students to "unlink" them from that human chain they made across the sidewalk in front of the cop car--those officers would be fething crucified. With pepper spray, there's no harm no foul in terms of actual injuries suffered. The effects do fade quickly, and if done properly(and treated properly, as we likely don't see in this video but considering there were police on the scene it's a good bet there were paramedics nearby for just such a contingency) it would just render someone incapable of being a nuisance for a few hours and make them easier to control.
The only real time pepper spray is considered some "excessive use of force" is in the eyes of the media any time it happens and it's not to some very obviously "Bad Guy" and in the eyes of armchair putzes who think they understand police procedure or the effects of things such as pepper spray, of course.
I've been sprayed by pepper spray. Not the little stuff in a can that they sell with whistles for "Women's Safety Measures" either. The riot control stuff, as part of extra credit for one of my law enforcement certification courses. It's no picnic--but it's also not some measure that will have you at death's door.
Space Crusader wrote:Why do the american police resort to violence so fast?
Pepper Spray != violence. I understand that you're Italian and all, but it's not. Pepper Spray is a "less than lethal crowd control measure".
If they were firing rubber baton rounds or tasers into the crowd--yeah, that'd be "violence".
They are lucky that they are not in Italy. The spraying of the old lady for example would have had the crowd go "apeshit".
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Even if she's 84, it doesn't mean that she can't be pepper sprayed with a crowd of protesters.
Hell, I'm sure the ACLU could cook up some bull about her being the target of "ageism" because she wasn't.
But no, since most of the protesters are middle class its just "Police brutality!" and "This is going up on youtube".
If you want a protest look for Europe
Yes. You should totally be proud that you live on a continent which is renowned for its capacity for violence.
Sometimes I wonder if you actually read your posts.
The anarchist would be proud of a well defined hierarchy of how and when to apply force to maintain order? Odd, I would think he'd be inherently against such an idea.
At the 2-3 second mark someone said "get the gun to the side" or close to that. Word "gun" is distinctive. If I was a student in front. I'm kicking someone arse in back for for pushing me forward as I'm backing away.
Never ever say "gun" in a situation like that.
LOL aye shorty took a hit and tried to back up but the students in back pressed forward
Even if someone DID say gun, I'm not thinking the cops would have heard it. In tense situations like that, it gets really hard to pick anything out of the din. You get auditory tunnel vision.
Jihadin wrote:You heard it to Dogma? Just want to be sure someone else heard it
edit
Think selective hearing was in play for law enforcement. Because right after the sentence with the word "gun" was used they started bayonet training.
Yeah. Granted, I might be hearing it because that's what you're describing, but the sound is definitely at least consistent with your interpretation. Moreover, given the timing, it makes sense seeing as police are trained to protect their firearms. My thinking is that the police felt the students were attempting to take their guns from the holsters, something like "Get the gun at his side."
Jihadin wrote:Its a keyword. Someone going to hear a keyword amidst the voices. I've done it myself along with others in similiar situation
Yeah. I've never been in a riot, but I've been to my fair share of foreign nightclubs. You learn the words for "gun", "knife", "beat" etc. regardless of where you happen to be, and then you hear them regardless of how confused the situation is.
Jihadin wrote:Nope. At the 4 sec mark you can hear "get the gun to side" not "Here they come"
Troll away then. He clearly said "here they come."
It could be either one, I can hear both. That said, given how professional the police were in this case, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Alright. On the left side of the screen. The front roll is a female with glasses. Right behind her is a guy with long brown hair. I think he's saying it
Granted it might not be Get the gun on the side but you do hear the word "gun" and "side"
Jihadin wrote:Nope. At the 4 sec mark you can hear "get the gun to side" not "Here they come"
Troll away then. He clearly said "here they come."
I heard 'get the gun to side' or something similar...
Definately not 'here they come'
He has a classic California Liberal lisp. And said, "Heere they come." And he was talking about the cops flanking the students from the side. That is in context to the incident.
Picture the scene. It's Boston in the 1770s. Lots of people are protesting against the stamp acts (or similar). The British start blasting the protestors with muskets. Word gets out. Lots of people are really unhappy. But there are other people who say - the British were right - these protestors were sitting on the sidewalk. They broke the law.
Lots of people seem to be quoting the law, but there is a big difference between law and justice. John Adams must be spinning in his grave.
"Here they come to the side" That lisp you said makes it sound like "gun" and "side". I'm going out and say the officer protecting his weapon. Perception of the word "gun" is there
edit
Get off the Boston Tea Party. Its not in the time frame
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Picture the scene. It's Boston in the 1770s. Lots of people are protesting against the stamp acts (or similar). The British start blasting the protestors with muskets. Word gets out. Lots of people are really unhappy. But there are other people who say - the British were right - these protestors were sitting on the sidewalk. They broke the law.
Lots of people seem to be quoting the law, but there is a big difference between law and justice. John Adams must be spinning in his grave.
John Adams? John 'alien and sedition' Adams, not the best example there, not to mention he was the lawyer that defended the soldiers.
Jihadin wrote:"Here they come to the side" That lisp you said makes it sound like "gun" and "side". I'm going out and say the officer protecting his weapon. Perception of the word "gun" is there
No way. That cop is California bacon. He heard "here they come to the side" just like everyone else from CA. You are stretching it. Think about the context. UC Berkeley students. Nerds.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Picture the scene. It's Boston in the 1770s. Lots of people are protesting against the stamp acts (or similar). The British start blasting the protestors with muskets. Word gets out. Lots of people are really unhappy. But there are other people who say - the British were right - these protestors were sitting on the sidewalk. They broke the law.
Lots of people seem to be quoting the law, but there is a big difference between law and justice. John Adams must be spinning in his grave.
John Adams defended those soldiers in court. He's spinning in his grave about your post.
Rad I'm not from Cali nor use to hearing every drawl, lisp, or inflection in a voice. Granted I will admit that someone from the Bayou will throw everybody off if they talk fast. To me I heard "gun" and "come" both sound similiar to that drawl. How do you know the officer a pure cali lol. I'm half asian with a southern accent/lisp as an example
Jihadin wrote:Rad I'm not from Cali nor use to hearing every drawl, lisp, or inflection in a voice. Granted I will admit that someone from the Bayou will throw everybody off if they talk fast. To me I heard "gun" and "come" both sound similiar to that drawl. How do you know the officer a pure cali lol. I'm half asian with a southern accent/lisp as an example
It interesting to say the least but like I said if I was one of the students up front getting gutted and trying to get back and then pushed right back into it. I will. beat. the. ever. loving. crap. out. of. somebody.
On a side note. I did not see a good looking female in that crowd. I thought college females were like uber hot?
It really doesn't matter, because anyone yelling gun does not appear to have played into the situation or how it unfolded.
Actually it kind of does. The officer weapon is on the left side of his body. Body angle towards the crowd exposed the weapon. The comment "come/gun" was used and the officer started bayonet training. Notice the crowd was further then a arms length away from him when he eased back? I still say the kid I mention earlier was the one that gave the one sentence
It really doesn't matter, because anyone yelling gun does not appear to have played into the situation or how it unfolded.
Actually it kind of does. The officer weapon is on the left side of his body. Body angle towards the crowd exposed the weapon. The comment "come/gun" was used and the officer started bayonet training. Notice the crowd was further then a arms length away from him when he eased back? I still say the kid I mention earlier was the one that gave the one sentence
Oh no don't get me wrong, I think that SOMETHING might have happened there dealing with that, but it just doesn't play into the whole pepper spray use of force issue that's getting commented on. I'm worried that we'll get sidetracked with this.
It really doesn't matter, because anyone yelling gun does not appear to have played into the situation or how it unfolded.
Actually it kind of does. The officer weapon is on the left side of his body. Body angle towards the crowd exposed the weapon. The comment "come/gun" was used and the officer started bayonet training. Notice the crowd was further then a arms length away from him when he eased back? I still say the kid I mention earlier was the one that gave the one sentence
I love how quickly the staunch constitutionalists on this board will throw it away when force is used against a political protest that they don't like.
Back to the pepperspray. My IMHO. Everyone that was lead on that incident needs to get packing. That incident took time to build up and no one from the faculty was even there. Thats a serious lack responsibility. Law Enforcement that executed the mission I see no fault.
ShumaGorath wrote:I love how quickly the staunch constitutionalists on this board will throw it away when force is used against a political protest that they don't like.
Cuts both ways. Why is free speech so absolute when it's not coming from a company.
ShumaGorath wrote:I love how quickly the staunch constitutionalists on this board will throw it away when force is used against a political protest that they don't like.
Cuts both ways. Why is free speech so absolute when it's not coming from a company.
You're going to have to rephrase that. I don't understand.
If you thought the term pig arose in the 1960s, you're in for a surprise. The OED cites an 1811 reference to a "pig" as a Bow Street Runner--the early police force, named after the location of their headquarters, before Sir Robert Peel and the Metropolitan Police Force (see above.) Before that, the term "pig" had been used as early as the mid-1500s to refer to a person who is heartily disliked.
The usage was probably confined to the criminal classes until the 1960s, when it was taken up by protestors. False explanations for the term involve the gas masks worn by the riot police in that era, or the pigs in charge of George Orwell's Animal Farm.
All I'm saying is 5 seconds on google and a UC Davis page later, the guy appears to be exactly as advertised. The only one embellishing goes by the name "Radiation" in the Dakka OT.
AustonT wrote:All I'm saying is 5 seconds on google and a UC Davis page later, the guy appears to be exactly as advertised. The only one embellishing goes by the name "Radiation" in the Dakka OT.
What am I embellishing again? I said he was an English Major. They tend to embellish.
Because they write stuff. Lots of stuff. To embellish. They write. Stuff.
murdog wrote:I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Except once again, it has nothing to do with the importance but the context.
Martin Luther King Junior and the Civil Rights Movement? They knew what they were doing was illegal. They did it, knowing they faced threats of violence, incarceration, or in some cases even being murdered by staunch opponents to the movement.
The Founding Fathers? They knew what they were doing was treason. They did it anyways--not because they were going to cry foul when the British turned up to tell them "Don't do that!" but because they felt what they were doing was the "right thing to do".
So stop associating the members of this movement who are crying foul whenever they get evicted from their little tent cities with the Founding Fathers and the Civil Rights Movement. They believe they are protected by the First Amendment in every action they do, when in reality it simply protects their right to assemble and protest--not to squat on public lands.
That doesn't make sense to me. The people there had to know what they were doing was illegal, that they faced violence and incarceration. They still felt it was the right thing to do. The context may be specifically different, but its still people disobeying authority because they feel they have to in order to have their grievances addressed. That has a long history, and has been a driver of positive change all around the world.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah...riot armour is so good.
Riot gear is basically hockey pads with the potential for a ballistic insert that might stop a 9mm pistol. Most won't have such things though, and be as I said: hockey pads.
Riot gear is not an "end all, be all" immunity to violence. If someone hurls a brick at them--it will hurt them. If someone stabs them--it will hurt them. It's basically good for stopping blunt force trauma and that's about it.
So please don't pretend that the police can't be injured just because they have "armour on". When they are outnumbered as much as they were, if the crowd had decided to turn violent--those officers could very well have been severely injured.
I'm not pretending that at all. Obviously armour does not make one invulnerable. But what was the likelihood of the crowd deciding to turn violent? They weren't throwing anything. Again, what was the threat to the police? How are unarmed, peaceful demonstrators a threat to police with weapons and armour?
murdog wrote:I'm merely trying to point to the fact that sometimes it is right to break laws. If you don't think that this is as important as times in the past when laws were broken then fine, but it doesn't change my belief that this is part of a long history of civil disobedience and law-breaking that have helped to make your country what it is today.
Except once again, it has nothing to do with the importance but the context.
Martin Luther King Junior and the Civil Rights Movement? They knew what they were doing was illegal. They did it, knowing they faced threats of violence, incarceration, or in some cases even being murdered by staunch opponents to the movement.
The Founding Fathers? They knew what they were doing was treason. They did it anyways--not because they were going to cry foul when the British turned up to tell them "Don't do that!" but because they felt what they were doing was the "right thing to do".
So stop associating the members of this movement who are crying foul whenever they get evicted from their little tent cities with the Founding Fathers and the Civil Rights Movement. They believe they are protected by the First Amendment in every action they do, when in reality it simply protects their right to assemble and protest--not to squat on public lands.
That doesn't make sense to me. The people there had to know what they were doing was illegal, that they faced violence and incarceration. They still felt it was the right thing to do. The context may be specifically different, but its still people disobeying authority because they feel they have to in order to have their grievances addressed. That has a long history, and has been a driver of positive change all around the world.
How are you having such a hard time understanding this?
No. The people there obviously did not "know that what they were doing was illegal" or "that they faced violence and incarceration". If they knew that, then we wouldn't have them making such a stink. You didn't see MLK running to Reuters whenever one of his fellow protesters was dragged down by the Birmingham K9 unit.
The majority of the "Occupy" movement at this point is people very much like me--except without any fething clue how police operate and what they are reasonably allowed to do. Pepper spray and other nonlethal measures are completely acceptable, under most departments' playbooks, for any form of resistance--violent or otherwise.
Tasering these individuals would have been excessive. Letting loose with tear gas in that densely packed of an area(notice all the bystanders?) would have been irresponsible. Utilizing batons or the officer's bare hands, again, would have been excessive. When it comes down to it--the pepper spray is the "most appropriate measure" for that situation. Pepper spray confines itself to a single subject and is a great tool for incapacitating someone without causing permanent harm.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah...riot armour is so good.
Riot gear is basically hockey pads with the potential for a ballistic insert that might stop a 9mm pistol. Most won't have such things though, and be as I said: hockey pads.
Riot gear is not an "end all, be all" immunity to violence. If someone hurls a brick at them--it will hurt them. If someone stabs them--it will hurt them. It's basically good for stopping blunt force trauma and that's about it.
So please don't pretend that the police can't be injured just because they have "armour on". When they are outnumbered as much as they were, if the crowd had decided to turn violent--those officers could very well have been severely injured.
I'm not pretending that at all. Obviously armour does not make one invulnerable. But what was the likelihood of the crowd deciding to turn violent?
Pretty good, actually. Most crowds when they outnumber police as heavily as they do turn violent. It's one of the first things they teach police. Don't let yourselves get outnumbered or surrounded, because if a crowd wants to do you harm then they can.
They weren't throwing anything.
At that moment they weren't. It still doesn't change the fact that they were hemming the officers in and preventing them from removing the campers they were sent in to get.
Again, what was the threat to the police?
Again, the threat itself is unnecessary at this point. The students who were pepper sprayed were blocking the police from actually performing their task. That's obstruction. Since we don't just bulldoze over protesters, they had to be removed nonviolently.
How are unarmed, peaceful demonstrators a threat to police with weapons and armour?
Forget about weapons. They aren't going to draw their firearms in that situation unless someone draws on them first. That leaves pepper spray and tasers, and tasers require just as much of a "life or death" situation for the police to be in as them drawing firearms. So it comes down to pepper spray--which was only utilized on the students who twined themselves together.
And I really do suggest you stop asking for a definitive threat. Police do not need to have a threat present, as if police feel that it is in their safety or the public's safety to disperse a crowd--they very well can. In this case, they were following the same procedure that I know for a fact my local police department does.
Pretty good, actually. Most crowds when they outnumber police as heavily as they do turn violent.
Police are in crowds 24/7. Without example or elucidation this is utterly meaningless.
And I really do suggest you stop asking for a definitive threat. Police do not need to have a threat present, as if police feel that it is in their safety or the public's safety to disperse a crowd--they very well can. In this case, they were following the same procedure that I know for a fact my local police department does.
Keep in mind that their abilities come with the tacit understanding that inquiries like the ones they are facing are part of their job. You can't advocate for them and defend their use of force and yet decry public outrage or any attempts at oversight.
Pretty good, actually. Most crowds when they outnumber police as heavily as they do turn violent.
Police are in crowds 24/7. Without example or elucidation this is utterly meaningless.
No, they're not. They are not surrounded by large crowds with an organized purpose 24/7.
To even say something like that is ridiculous.
And I really do suggest you stop asking for a definitive threat. Police do not need to have a threat present, as if police feel that it is in their safety or the public's safety to disperse a crowd--they very well can. In this case, they were following the same procedure that I know for a fact my local police department does.
Keep in mind that their abilities come with the tacit understanding that inquiries like the ones they are facing are part of their job. You can't advocate for them and defend their use of force and yet decry public outrage or any attempts at oversight.
Keep in mind that their abilities actually come with the tacit understanding that inquiries like the one they're facing now are not part of their job. The officers in this case are being hung out to dry, no ifs ands or buts about it. The university should be fething ashamed of itself for putting the officers who work for them in this situation and then abandoning them when the media spotlight isn't painting them in a positive light.
The media and public outcry will almost always be against the police when there are no clear-cut bad guys in the case.
No, they're not. They are not surrounded by large crowds with an organized purpose 24/7.
Now you're adding words. Specificity is good and important, but it's less useful after the fact.
Keep in mind that their abilities actually come with the tacit understanding that inquiries like the one they're facing now are not part of their job. The officers in this case are being hung out to dry, no ifs ands or buts about it.
I'll cry them a river someday.
The university should be fething ashamed of itself for putting the officers who work for them in this situation and then abandoning them when the media spotlight isn't painting them in a positive light.
There are calls for some of them to resign.
The media and public outcry will almost always be against the police when there are no clear-cut bad guys in the case.
Because when they use force and there are no clear cut bad guys then they shouldn't of used force.
No, they're not. They are not surrounded by large crowds with an organized purpose 24/7.
Now you're adding words. Specificity is good and important, but it's less useful after the fact.
It's also less useful when intent should be obvious from the get-go.
Keep in mind that their abilities actually come with the tacit understanding that inquiries like the one they're facing now are not part of their job. The officers in this case are being hung out to dry, no ifs ands or buts about it.
I'll cry them a river someday.
And people wonder why cops treat everyone like the enemy.
The university should be fething ashamed of itself for putting the officers who work for them in this situation and then abandoning them when the media spotlight isn't painting them in a positive light.
There are calls for some of them to resign.
Of course there are. But not because of them hanging out the officers to dry. Because they called in the officers in the first place.
The media and public outcry will almost always be against the police when there are no clear-cut bad guys in the case.
Because when they use force and there are no clear cut bad guys then they shouldn't of used force.
Pepper spray does not constitute force.
Laying hands on an individual or utilizing an implement which will leave visible evidence of its usage constitutes force.
Pepper-spray constitutes force. Non lethal spicey force. That is why it made the news because it was force and its use in this incident is in question.
Kan, i truly believe that you are speaking from your heart and in a manner consistent with your values, and I respect that alot. Also, your great respect for, and personal knowledge of, the forces that serve and protect us all comes through in your posts. I still don't agree though.
Kanluwen wrote:
How are you having such a hard time understanding this? The people there obviously did not "know that what they were doing was illegal" or "that they faced violence and incarceration". If they knew that, then we wouldn't have them making such a stink. You didn't see MLK running to Reuters whenever one of his fellow protesters was dragged down by the Birmingham K9 unit.
No, but everyone has a camera nowadays. Everyone has seen what the police have been doing around your country in the last few weeks. And when police with helmets, sticks, mace, and guns come and tell you to move, its a pretty good sign that what you are doing is illegal and you face violence and incarceration. They chose to disobey.
Kanluwen wrote:The majority of the "Occupy" movement at this point is people very much like me--except without any fething clue how police operate and what they are reasonably allowed to do.
I don't think you give your fellow citizens enough credit. I'd say most people have a working idea of how police operate, given that they operate among us and have their actions subject to constant media coverage.
Kanluwen wrote:Pepper spray and other nonlethal measures are completely acceptable, under most departments' playbooks, for any form of resistance--violent or otherwise. Tasering these individuals would have been excessive. Letting loose with tear gas in that densely packed of an area(notice all the bystanders?) would have been irresponsible. Utilizing batons or the officer's bare hands, again, would have been excessive. When it comes down to it--the pepper spray is the "most appropriate measure" for that situation. Pepper spray confines itself to a single subject and is a great tool for incapacitating someone without causing permanent harm.
You admit that acceptable is subjective, and that context must be given priority. I'd say the most appropriate measure for that situation was words. (More on that in a minute).
Kanluwen wrote:Most crowds when they outnumber police as heavily as they do turn violent. It's one of the first things they teach police. Don't let yourselves get outnumbered or surrounded, because if a crowd wants to do you harm then they can.
They weren't throwing anything.
At that moment they weren't. It still doesn't change the fact that they were hemming the officers in and preventing them from removing the campers they were sent in to get.
Again, what was the threat to the police?
Again, the threat itself is unnecessary at this point. The students who were pepper sprayed were blocking the police from actually performing their task. That's obstruction. Since we don't just bulldoze over protesters, they had to be removed nonviolently.
How are unarmed, peaceful demonstrators a threat to police with weapons and armour?
Forget about weapons. They aren't going to draw their firearms in that situation unless someone draws on them first. That leaves pepper spray and tasers, and tasers require just as much of a "life or death" situation for the police to be in as them drawing firearms. So it comes down to pepper spray--which was only utilized on the students who twined themselves together.
If they aren't supposed to let themselves get outnumbered or surrounded, then why were they doing just that? If they were hemmed in and prevented from performing their task (which you say was to have demonstrators 'removed nonviolently') why did they resort to violence? (Pepper spray is a weapon, and using it is violence). You talk about obstruction as if someone tripped a cop trying to catch a thief. They weren't 'campers'; they were demonstrators who have chosen to use tents in their nonviolent protest, and the people blocking (using another nonviolent tactic, the armlink) were part of the same thing.
In fact the solidarity of the crowd is stunning. I think that was the most important aspect of the whole incident. In addition to leaving us in no doubt how most of the people in that scene felt about who was right and who was wrong, that showcased the power of nonviolence, the power of words, and the power of numbers. That right there is happening all around the world! Gives me hope. Reminds me of this (skip to about the 19 minute mark to get right to the point):
Interesting to hear the one guy talk about what they did as a kind of 'emotional violence'.
Kanluwen wrote:And I really do suggest you stop asking for a definitive threat. Police do not need to have a threat present, as if police feel that it is in their safety or the public's safety to disperse a crowd--they very well can. In this case, they were following the same procedure that I know for a fact my local police department does.
To me this sounds like 'cops are always right because they are cops'. How that was 'in their safety or the public's safety' is beyond me. They had little moral authority in that space, which compounded their problem of numbers and allowed them to be literally shamed out of there. Awesome rejection of violence, bravo, UC! Screw the golf clap, I'm starting a Wave!
Kanluwen wrote:Pepper spray does not constitute force.
Laying hands on an individual or utilizing an implement which will leave visible evidence of its usage constitutes force.
Is this really what you're going with here? If it doesn't leave visible marks, it's not force? By that definitions, the police are free to waterboard as they like. No force used!
Rented Tritium wrote:
So you think it's wrong to restrict the time, the manner and the place that protests happen?
Because I could BURY you in caselaw on this.
I think there comes a time when a persons moral outrage demands that restrictions on when, how, and where you express it should be ignored.
I won't argue with you that caselaw shows restrictions upheld, it probably does. Does the caselaw show attempts to use restrictions to limit dissent, protests, or demonstrations?
Kanluwen wrote:Pepper spray does not constitute force.
Laying hands on an individual or utilizing an implement which will leave visible evidence of its usage constitutes force.
Is this really what you're going with here? If it doesn't leave visible marks, it's not force?
That's not what "I'm going with here". Pepper spray is widely considered to be the "least lethal" option. It takes a whole lot of circumstances to be in play for someone to die from pepper spray. Usually they will have to have an allergy to capsaicin and undiagnosed, serious respiratory conditions, a select amount of drugs which limit your respiratory system, etc. Pepper spray also wears off within 7-15 minutes, and EMS/police/fire agencies(which are almost always at the scene of these situations for obvious reasons) will usually have stuff on hand to wash it out faster. Biggest problem with pepper spray is that people instinctively rub at it, getting it farther into the skin and causing it to persist longer.
Tasers on the other hand are a different story, and an officer usually(notice: usually) is only found to be justifiable in utilizing his taser if he feels that he cannot control the situation and either onlookers are in immediate danger or he has no reasonable(keyword there) way to deal with the suspect in question without causing permanent harm.
By that definitions, the police are free to waterboard as they like. No force used!
If you want to go into the ideas of torture--that is already not permissible. There's been quite a few cases which establish that any confessions or usage of "coercive methods" on suspects is unconstitutional.
Brown v. Mississippi is a good place to start from, if you want to have a looksies.
I should also add that waterboarding DOES involve the use of force to restrain someone. If you wanted to make a comparison which isn't so silly, you should have said "holding someone in isolation indefinitely" as that involves no real "force" or any damage to the person outside of psychological trauma.
Kanluwen wrote:The majority of the "Occupy" movement at this point is people very much like me--except without any fething clue how police operate and what they are reasonably allowed to do.
I don't think you give your fellow citizens enough credit. I'd say most people have a working idea of how police operate, given that they operate among us and have their actions subject to constant media coverage.
And yet...we have people thinking that waterboarding involves no force and that pepper spray is in fact "application of force".
Waterboarding does involve force, and pepper spray is not considered to be applying any force.
Kanluwen wrote:Pepper spray and other nonlethal measures are completely acceptable, under most departments' playbooks, for any form of resistance--violent or otherwise. Tasering these individuals would have been excessive. Letting loose with tear gas in that densely packed of an area(notice all the bystanders?) would have been irresponsible. Utilizing batons or the officer's bare hands, again, would have been excessive. When it comes down to it--the pepper spray is the "most appropriate measure" for that situation. Pepper spray confines itself to a single subject and is a great tool for incapacitating someone without causing permanent harm.
You admit that acceptable is subjective, and that context must be given priority. I'd say the most appropriate measure for that situation was words. (More on that in a minute).
And it's pretty clear that words had been attempted. If you read the story provided on the first page, students were given two prior opportunities to remove themselves from the quad as they know it is considered "trespassing". They were warned, and chose(note: CHOSE) to ignore the warnings.
If you get told to leave the premises more than twice, the police are not going to be gentle about removing you.
Kanluwen wrote:Most crowds when they outnumber police as heavily as they do turn violent. It's one of the first things they teach police. Don't let yourselves get outnumbered or surrounded, because if a crowd wants to do you harm then they can.
They weren't throwing anything.
At that moment they weren't. It still doesn't change the fact that they were hemming the officers in and preventing them from removing the campers they were sent in to get.
Again, what was the threat to the police?
Again, the threat itself is unnecessary at this point. The students who were pepper sprayed were blocking the police from actually performing their task. That's obstruction. Since we don't just bulldoze over protesters, they had to be removed nonviolently.
How are unarmed, peaceful demonstrators a threat to police with weapons and armour?
Forget about weapons. They aren't going to draw their firearms in that situation unless someone draws on them first. That leaves pepper spray and tasers, and tasers require just as much of a "life or death" situation for the police to be in as them drawing firearms. So it comes down to pepper spray--which was only utilized on the students who twined themselves together.
If they aren't supposed to let themselves get outnumbered or surrounded, then why were they doing just that?
Probably because if you look, it was fairly clear that they did not go into the situation "outnumbered or surrounded". More likely, there were a few individuals there at the start and then the students sat down. It was fairly clear the cops had been there for awhile, likely trying to talk to the students who had their arms interlinked.
If they were hemmed in and prevented from performing their task (which you say was to have demonstrators 'removed nonviolently') why did they resort to violence? (Pepper spray is a weapon, and using it is violence).
No. It's not. Stop saying it is. There are no agencies outside of the ACLU who consider the use of pepper spray to be "an act of violence".
If it were, anyone using pepper spray to defend themselves in any form of potential criminal situation is subject to criminal charges.
You talk about obstruction as if someone tripped a cop trying to catch a thief.
And you don't grasp the concept. Obstruction is preventing a sworn law enforcement officer from carrying out a legally issued, Constitutionally sound order.
That's what was going on in this case.
They weren't 'campers'; they were demonstrators who have chosen to use tents in their nonviolent protest
Tents aren't protected by free speech.
and the people blocking (using another nonviolent tactic, the armlink) were part of the same thing.
Except you're missing the crux of the matter.
The people "blocking" aren't "blocking" as part of a protest against the use of violence on the other UC campus where supposedly students were harmed severely by nightsticks wielded by riot police. The people "blocking" are blocking the police from evicting the last students from what amounted to squatter's residences in a public space of the campus.
As I said above: there is no legal recourse for people to "tent protest". They're illegally residing within an area that they are not supposed to. It's really just that simple.
In fact the solidarity of the crowd is stunning. I think that was the most important aspect of the whole incident. In addition to leaving us in no doubt how most of the people in that scene felt about who was right and who was wrong, that showcased the power of nonviolence, the power of words, and the power of numbers.
I am shocked! People encouraging something that they think is legal or protected under the Constitution(hint: camping isn't) feel that the police are in the wrong.
My Gods. How can I ever live in such a world?
Kanluwen wrote:And I really do suggest you stop asking for a definitive threat. Police do not need to have a threat present, as if police feel that it is in their safety or the public's safety to disperse a crowd--they very well can. In this case, they were following the same procedure that I know for a fact my local police department does.
To me this sounds like 'cops are always right because they are cops'. How that was 'in their safety or the public's safety' is beyond me.
Cops are always right if they act in good faith. They actually have a word for it, it's called "qualified immunity". As long as it can reasonably be proven that an officer acts in good faith, the officer cannot be held liable for injuries or damage to property caused by his actions.
They had little moral authority in that space, which compounded their problem of numbers and allowed them to be literally shamed out of there.
Oh no, they had moral authority. They were operating under a legally issued order of removal. The problem is that the campus police have their hands tied by the campus itself in that they cannot necessarily remove the students "forcefully", which is what was needed in this case.
You mistake Law for Right. If the police had moral authority in that space, the crowd would not have surrounded them and shamed them away. That is the kind of power that could change this world for good, and goodness.
I'm not trying to argue that pitching tents wherever you want is legal. I'm trying to tell you that breaking the law is sometimes justified.
If people sit down on the sidewalk over here in solidarity with the people who have pitched tents over there, then to me they are all part of one thing. You can quibble about this and that law, which they broke and which they didn't, but they are all there together in my view.
I'm with the ACLU on the mace thing. Its not the first time I've found my values reflected in that organization.
A use of force to to lessen the capabilities of an individual to resist arrest? Why would the officers struggle to break the lock arms of the sitters. The more time they spend in that situation the possibility of something else happening to compound the situation emerge. We have two groups. The protesters who were sitting and the bystanders who were watching. The bystanders who are watching are the unknown factor. All it takes is just one "hero" to say...throw something and then we ratchet it up a couple notches.
When have anyone ever seen the police outnumber protesters...unless its a police union protesting. Seriously.
Edit
Okay just saw a an additional clip on Fox news. Pepper spray came out after the police were surrounded by bystanders. From the clip...they were surrounded. I watch another clip where a officer went to each protesters to inform what was going to happen if they countinue the sit in. So they had sufficent warning. It is against the law in california to block a public sidewalk
If you have a few minutes you should watch it to the end. This is how the smart kids are doing it. Good curse. It totally worked and unnerved the officers. The cell phones are interesting too. Cool footage of the "hipster" middleclass set in action.
I'm just saddened tazers weren't employed. Taze them Bro!
See this is trash, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Frazzled went to undergrad in Cali, we had weekly marches and protests. They were completely nonviolent and no one threatened sit ins or other nonsense. So taze 'em bro!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:I was disappointed in the limited application of pepper spray. They needed to use much more.
Says the man who claims that the OWS protesters are "anti-freedom".
You can take our Starbucks, but you'll never take our...F_R_E_E_D_O_M!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
They're just doing what they're told, I would have done the same in that position. Indeed their restraint is admirable, as has been said.
Now they will be fired, because management are California wussies. Protest all you want, but don't block the legitimate activities of the school-you know people actually there to learn something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
murdog wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
It is against the law to impede traffic. Its not in the constitution but its in state law and ordinance's. SO they broke the law. I have notice law enforcement give sufficient time notice before the execution.
People are so upset that they are taking to the streets to protest their situation, and you are worried about impeding foot traffic? People are trying to change the system they live under, there is going to be some inconvenience involved. It's called civil disobedience for a reason, and I'm pretty sure the United States of America has a long and noble history of it.
Its at college. People are paying to be there, and the protesters are mucking it up.
Again, you can protest without mucking it up for everyone else.
UI think a better option would be just to get their names and hand them "Thanks-you're expelled!" notices. plenty of other entrants who want to get into UC schools.
You'd never see this at Riverside (thats too much effort).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Crusader wrote:I love the fact that America goes around acting like the world police demanding other countries to stop abusing protesters but then do jack gak to stop their own citisens getting abused by fat pigs.
edit
Easy to take the protesters side. Ever step outside the box and think how the police view it going into the situation?
I know how I would.
Lets see, where are we. Does the local jurisidiction have a nice tradition of leaving officers hanging out to dry (California/Austin), middle of road, or downright Franco ish (Mississippii). My actions would follow that.
If I am an officer in Oakland I'm never getting out of my car, except to write tickets or get coffee.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I watched some of it. It's too loud for me to really focus on
Unrelated, but I wonder if police could use airsoft guns as crowd control? Just spray a crowd with .12s and pray no one gets an eye shot out, and everything should be alright Just thinking out loud, lol
There is a non lethal airsoft gun that some police departments use. Its basically a super machine gun, and can spray a gak load of pellets at people. So itll hurt like a whole nest of hornets stinging you about 300 times a second, but wont kill you.
I would rather go in as a military unit then local law enforcement team. I can only imagine what remarks would be made on the "Who do you serve! Who do you protect!" from the one guy. Then the "Shame on you" chant would draw some chuckles.
Edit
Course the military has some cool crowd control equipment to use to.
So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto?
Some people seem willing to fight abroad for other people's freedom, but turn a blind eye at home when these freedoms are infringed upon? I'm scratching at my receding hairline here.
Maybe the John Adams example is not the right one, but the point is, sometimes you have to break the law to highlight injustice. It;s just as well your ancestors understood that, otherwise you guys would be driving on the left.
PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto?
There's not a constitutional rights issue in this case. There is in the TN case that Ouze linked(how big of one is a question. The main problem seems to stem from the fact that the TN city council in question is doing a really controversial move in that they're "finally" putting down the unwritten law of requiring $1 million in liability insurance for establishing a semi-permanent residency during a protest on public property[which is the correct way to do it] but they're doing so while also denying a group which applied for a permit before it was written down[which is sketchy, to say the least. It might genuinely be an attempt to fix an oversight or it might very well be an attempt to make it all "on the up and up"]) , but not here.
The First Amendment(freedom of assembly and speech, in particular here) does not apply to the method in which one stays present at the area you are protesting. It most certainly does not cover sleeping bags and tents in public assembly areas, without proper permits to do so.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked.
As with most things, they are more complicated than your talking points. We're not arguing that it's ok to have your rights attacked, we're arguing that they did not in fact have their rights attacked in the first place.
I know the difference is subtle, but trust me, none of us are saying it's ok to violate rights. We're arguing about what those rights actually cover.
So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto? ***It would be if you had gotten that straight. But you didn’t, so the rest of your statement sucks wiener dog breath. As I noted if they want to have a march, cool. As I noted at my undergrad they literally had marches on a weekly basis. If the makeup of the crowd included the appropriate portion of the fairer sex I might even join in. Blocking raffic, sitins, camp outs however are violating the rights of other college students so give a taste of the lash.
Some people seem willing to fight abroad for other people's freedom, ***Not me. I don’t give a flip about people’s freedom. I’m only interested in protecting US citizens (ok CD, UK, and Australia too). Leave us alone and I believe in leaving you alone.
but turn a blind eye at home when these freedoms are infringed upon? I'm scratching at my receding hairline here. ***Again that’s such a fabulous miss its like North Korea firing a missile. No rights have been infringed on (other than by the sit in hosers).
Maybe the John Adams example is not the right one, but the point is, sometimes you have to break the law to highlight injustice. ***1. There was no injustice involved. 2. Its private property. 3. You’re violating other people’s rights.
PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers? ****That’s why he can kiss my tuckus. They were your soldiers.
No need for such vibrant imagery, Frazzled. Thanks! ~Manchu
Can I repost why I would do what I would have to do on this thread if deployed against protesters...please...pretty please...
Actually I have no issue if they protest within the law. Keyword there...LAW
I would do what I need to do to keep everyone in line. Once it gets out of hand then gloves off. If I can fall under two sets of law and not get into trouble then why not the protesters? Reason why we would chuckle at the students is a majority of them have an idea what the world is like. They have not experience it all. Hence the reason we would chuckle. You have the right to protest but keep it within boundaries. If your protest gets out of hand then your whatever your message was is lost. People are going to focus on the negative action more so then a positive action.
I help defend the rights of the individuals in the USA. I will not violate those rights unless instigated to do so. My soldiers safety is more important then a protester but my NCO's and I will restrain the soldiers not to go over board in making a protester zero threat. I cannot stand disorganization, lack of leadership, and lack of common freaking sense. Do the protest, keep it within the boundaries, do not endanger anyone and I will share coffee with the protester's.
sidenote: Obama just signed the Hire the Veteran's bill....OUTFREAKINGSTANDING.
back on track.
Are we not a land of laws?
edit
Experience as in outside the college/university range of life. Experience cannot be learned from a book. It'll prepare you but it will not make you ready.
I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!
So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?
Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?
Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!
So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?
Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?
Restrictions of the time, place and manner of speech are legal and have been REPEATEDLY upheld by the supreme court. If you want to have THAT argument, we can. But it has to replace the argument about an individual cop using pepper spray. They're too far apart to have at the same time.
Yes. Who gets to make the laws, and if the process is still fair and just; is the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!
So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?
Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?
Restrictions of the time, place and manner of speech are legal and have been REPEATEDLY upheld by the supreme court. If you want to have THAT argument, we can. But it has to replace the argument about an individual cop using pepper spray. They're too far apart to have at the same time.
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!
So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?
Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?
Well if its private property kindly feth off.
Public property with a permit in some ares (the middle of a freeway is not one of those). A permit cannot be denied based on discrimination. There's joyous amounts of case law on this.
or you can suffer the consequences, but whining like a baby because you did is so...hippyish.
Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.
Here's the fun part. Those attacking the police what would you do?
Would this be bad?
* Spraying them with garden hoses until they left.
* Setting up speakers that played country music at them.
* Setting up speakers playing Nixon's greatest speeches.
* Air bombing them with feathers
* Pulling up a couple of double dooley diesel pick up trucks and revving them upwind.
* Giving the demonstrators draft notices. * Tying coconuts to each of them and then releasing the T Rex?
Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.
A peaceful demonstration or assembly can be a productive way to express what we feel is wrong in our government. While such a protest is considered a part of our first amendment rights, most cities do require a permit in an effort to help avoid traffic and crowd problems. Use these steps to learn the basic procedures for getting a permit to protest in your city.
1 Gather the appropriate information for getting the permit to protest. You will need an estimate of how many people are going to show up. You need to know the area you will be in or the route you are walking. You will need a time frame, though most jurisdictions have this already established.
2 Call your city offices with the details of your protest including the date and start time. You will have to fill out an application ahead of time and pay a fee.
3 Inform those involved in the protest of the city ordinances and laws surrounding a demonstration. Most cities do not allow you to block traffic, doorways and other areas that interrupt business or the general flow of the public moving around your city.
4 Carry a copy of your permit on you the day of the protest. Call the city the day before to ask about any last minute changes or requirements to make sure you are in full compliance.
Jihadin wrote:Like somebody said on another thread..."payday"...and welcome to a new tax bracket
Edit
A coconut and T Rex?
It's a known fact that dinosaurs were crazy about eating coconuts.
Indeed. why do you think TRex's has those train spike like teeth. Perfect for coconuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.
Not too much. It depends on if the location is traditionally a place for such. You can't attempt to get a permit for offices, etc.
Easy E wrote:Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.
They can restrict all of those things as long as the rules are written and clear. They have to be applied evenly and they cannot be content-related. They're allowed to have a set of requirements and anyone who meets them automatically gets a permit. They're also allowed to use it to schedule a place. If there's a space that can hold 10k people, it's first come first serve for the permits.
Also, those requirements have to be reasonable, but that's more subjective and the court has treated it like obscenity where they'll know it when they see it.
Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.
Thanks for the info. So, as I read through it, here is my thought process. I'm sur eit is full of holes, so feel free to enlighten me.
So, you settle with the muncipality years later.... what good did that do?
The protest never happened, and never will. The easiest thing in the world the authorities can do is to deny you a permit. Then, you've got three options:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.
2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.
3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.
Dang, sounds like the deck is stacked for the authorities no matter what you do to resist.
Easy E wrote:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.
2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.
3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.
Those are basically correct. There's one part you are missing though. In 2 they usually get forced to change whatever policy they used against you unfairly.
Until we invent judicial time machines, this is how the rule of law works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frgsinwntr wrote:I think anyone saying "they shoulda used more force" should have their head examined...
These are human beings...
Please keep this civil. Saying someone you disagree with has mental problems is almost definitely against the rules.
Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.
Thanks for the info. So, as I read through it, here is my thought process. I'm sur eit is full of holes, so feel free to enlighten me.
So, you settle with the muncipality years later.... what good did that do?
The protest never happened, and never will. The easiest thing in the world the authorities can do is to deny you a permit. Then, you've got three options:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.
2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.
3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.
Dang, sounds like the deck is stacked for the authorities no matter what you do to resist.
Its not a years later thing. Most courts can grant an injunction very quickly.
Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.
Thanks for the info. So, as I read through it, here is my thought process. I'm sur eit is full of holes, so feel free to enlighten me.
So, you settle with the muncipality years later.... what good did that do?
The protest never happened, and never will. The easiest thing in the world the authorities can do is to deny you a permit. Then, you've got three options:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.
2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.
3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.
Dang, sounds like the deck is stacked for the authorities no matter what you do to resist.
Its not a years later thing. Most courts can grant an injunction very quickly.
This is true, but it's not a sure thing. It could drag out in a small town.
Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.
Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.
Thanks for the info. So, as I read through it, here is my thought process. I'm sur eit is full of holes, so feel free to enlighten me.
So, you settle with the muncipality years later.... what good did that do?
The protest never happened, and never will. The easiest thing in the world the authorities can do is to deny you a permit. Then, you've got three options:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.
2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.
3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.
Dang, sounds like the deck is stacked for the authorities no matter what you do to resist.
Its not a years later thing. Most courts can grant an injunction very quickly.
This is true, but it's not a sure thing. It could drag out in a small town.
Or a large town depending on the popularity of the protest in question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:I think anyone saying "they shoulda used more force" should have their head examined...
These are human beings...
You say they are. I have no proof of that.
Further, none of those protesters were easy on the eyes. Therefore, they had to pay.
"OWS protesters are ugly and inhuman, they don't deserve to be treated like people".
It's funny how you get special treatment for things that I would get banned for.
Thats incredibly wrong.
I said "OWS protesters don't have enough hotties for me to care about them."
Get it right boyo. Don't make me pepper spray you for Youtube amusement.
I'm assuming you are in agreement that people who suffer from the above disorder should be closely monitored by trained medical personel?
So you're diagnosing medical conditions in your debate opponents?
Yes, that is most certainly not insulting at all.
Does pointing out the fact that wishing harm on other people is borderline mental illness and antisocial behavior bother you?
Or rather getting excited about people being harmed is....
I guess my point is coming across then.
Few things I want to say here.
1. Did you read your own link? It's not even a recognized disorder anymore. It's pseudoscience.
2. You didn't just point it out, you straight up suggested that several posters here have it. That is a personal attack. That is not ok. That is not how you debate people.
3. Now you are not so subtly suggesting that by being mad about your creepy personal attack, I am somehow proving your point. That's even less ok. I know we talk about water cannons a lot, but really we're having a pretty good conversation among mature adults about this. I have a lot of respect for 99% of the people I'm arguing with here.
What I DON'T have respect for is when people rumble into the thread and call us fascists or sociopaths for our opinions.
Are you feeling guilty now? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
Actually I think you're very human and not "opposition" at all. Simply someone i disagree with
Finding joy in hurting people is Frankly just awful.
frgsinwntr wrote:Are you feeling guilty now? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that I'm a little teapot, short and stout. This is my handle. This is my spout.
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
Actually I think you're very human and not "opposition" at all. Simply someone i disagree with
Finding joy in hurting people is Frankly just aweful.
Which is why you felt the need to rumble into the thread and say that anyone with a certain view was literally mentally ill?
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
Actually I think you're very human and not "opposition" at all. Simply someone i disagree with
Finding joy in hurting people is Frankly just aweful.
Which is why you felt the need to rumble into the thread and say that anyone with a certain view was literally mentally ill?
Does having a mental illness make you less human?
Not sure I said that.
No... I don't think thats a good enough strawman.
Unless thats what you're hearing? because its how you feel?
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
Actually I think you're very human and not "opposition" at all. Simply someone i disagree with
Finding joy in hurting people is Frankly just aweful.
Which is why you felt the need to rumble into the thread and say that anyone with a certain view was literally mentally ill?
Does having a mental illness make you less human? Not sure I said that. No... I don't think thats a good strawman.
Oh, so I guess your post was just totally off topic, then?
Which is it, was your post off topic or a personal attack?
We all know you meant it as an attack because we have functioning brains. Stop trying to cover for it. You came in and said something insulting and now you're trying to pretend you didn't.
frgsinwntr wrote:feeling guilty? I'm not so sure I ever said YOU. just a blanket statement before you took up the cause... then all of a sudden i was "personally attacking you... "
certainly you can go back and read my original post and see that
Right, so it was a blanket personal attack. That makes it ok.
Good to see that dehumanizing your opposition is alive and well.
Actually I think you're very human and not "opposition" at all. Simply someone i disagree with
Finding joy in hurting people is Frankly just aweful.
Which is why you felt the need to rumble into the thread and say that anyone with a certain view was literally mentally ill?
Does having a mental illness make you less human? Not sure I said that. No... I don't think thats a good strawman.
Oh, so I guess your post was just totally off topic, then?
Which is it, was your post off topic or a personal attack?
We all know you meant it as an attack because we have functioning brains. Stop trying to cover for it. You came in and said something insulting and now you're trying to pretend you didn't.
You seem angry.
How is this off topic? UC pepper spray incident occured. People think they should be harmed more. I comment on how thats just wrong to say.... Now I'm not sure thats so off topic
How did I specifically attack you? are your feeling hurt? If thats the case I appologize you seem like a sensitive individual i should be more gentle. The false dichotomy of off topic or personal attack suggests you're very upset... Does this mean that every post you disagree with is a personal attack vs you or off topic?
Wishing harm on other people seems like a bad way to have a functional and sucessful society. Better?
frgsinwntr wrote:
Wishing harm on other people seems like a bad way to have a functional and sucessful society. Better?
Wishing harm isn't automatically bad, but not insulting anymore. So sure. It's wrong, but you're no longer insulting other posters for their opinions so awesome.
See when you first came in, you didn't say wishing harm, you said people who "believe they should have used more force" which is pretty far removed from "wishing harm" and is in fact, just an opinion. Then when I confronted you about it, you backpedaled the language down to "wishing harm" to be more defensible.
Say, I'm no expert, but given your enthusiasm on the matter, I've gotten curious on that topic, aren't there restrictions in the US about the use of army troops on US soil against US citizens ?
I've heard it mentionned before, but I can't remember where/when.
Say, I'm no expert, but given your enthusiasm on the matter, I've gotten curious on that topic, aren't there restrictions in the US about the use of army troops on US soil against US citizens ?
I've heard it mentionned before, but I can't remember where/when.
Say, I'm no expert, but given your enthusiasm on the matter, I've gotten curious on that topic, aren't there restrictions in the US about the use of army troops on US soil against US citizens ?
I've heard it mentionned before, but I can't remember where/when.
They're not using army troops. The troops just happen to be holding these high pressure hoses...
Say, I'm no expert, but given your enthusiasm on the matter, I've gotten curious on that topic, aren't there restrictions in the US about the use of army troops on US soil against US citizens ?
I've heard it mentionned before, but I can't remember where/when.
The Posse Comitatus requires that the use of US Army troops to maintain law and order must originate in congress and does not adress the national guard, coast guard, marines, or navy. It's not an out and out prohibition, just a restriction. Is tha what you meant?
Think he was refering to using actual active duty combat troops to quell/maintain order in a rowdy protest. Example be the Rodney King riots. 82nd went on lockdown for a possible deployment to LA. Just a brigade not the division. Being that we would have sufficient enough force in under 8 hrs to put a halt on the chuckleheads. Yes we can.
Then the lawful and unlawful orders come into play.
Yeah, they got pretty fond of tacking on "unless the executive decides to ignore this" on the end of a LOT of laws. It's gonna take a while to get rid of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It was fully reverted, btw.
Doesn't really matter. There are ways around that. Lets say deploy troops in support of law enforcement. That we can do. Deployment of unit...say near a possible protest march route. Intimidation in effect
Jihadin wrote:Doesn't really matter. There are ways around that. Lets say deploy troops in support of law enforcement. That we can do. Deployment of unit...say near a possible protest march route. Intimidation in effect
Well what's really important is that when you are doing it, there's more of a paper trail and more people have to sign off on it. The extra few sets of eyes seeing it before it happens has a pretty strong effect on people doing stupid things.
AustonT wrote:Or transfer them into an active law enforcement task force like say JTF 6
Those task forces are all grant funded though, so they end up having to change a dozen contracts to allow for that, which means a bunch of people will review it and it all ends up in public record. That helps keep the abuses down.
Letting it get ignored by the executive bypasses even a cursory reporting requirement, so the original wording, though FUNCTIONALLY similar, is better than the 2006-2008 wording.
AustonT wrote:Or transfer them into an active law enforcement task force like say JTF 6
Those task forces are all grant funded though, so they end up having to change a dozen contracts to allow for that, which means a bunch of people will review it and it all ends up in public record. That helps keep the abuses down.
Letting it get ignored by the executive bypasses even a cursory reporting requirement, so the original wording, though FUNCTIONALLY similar, is better than the 2006-2008 wording.
AustonT wrote:Or transfer them into an active law enforcement task force like say JTF 6
Those task forces are all grant funded though, so they end up having to change a dozen contracts to allow for that, which means a bunch of people will review it and it all ends up in public record. That helps keep the abuses down.
Letting it get ignored by the executive bypasses even a cursory reporting requirement, so the original wording, though FUNCTIONALLY similar, is better than the 2006-2008 wording.
Grant funded? Can you cite a source?
Personal experience. I've never once seen a law enforcement task force that wasn't being funded at least in part by a federal grant and I've seen a few.
Basically any time jurisdictions work together, there's federal money in there incentivizing it.
Kilkrazy wrote:I suspect a protest needs to be either mildly illegal and/or at least highly annoying to the powers that be, in order to be really effective.
It can be annoying without being illegal, and still be effective. That occurs often.
AustonT wrote:JTF 6/North is not a "law enforcement" task force. It's a DoD task force to support law enforcement.
Oh THOSE guys,
Yeah, I just looked it up. I remember this now. It's structured really carefully to answer to as few people as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I suspect a protest needs to be either mildly illegal and/or at least highly annoying to the powers that be, in order to be really effective.
Depends on a lot of things. If you can get a complete BOATLOAD of people, then you want to be super legal and just demonstrate that you have a bazillion people. That's one way to do it.
AustonT wrote:JTF 6/North is not a "law enforcement" task force. It's a DoD task force to support law enforcement.
Oh THOSE guys,
Yeah, I just looked it up. I remember this now. It's structured really carefully to answer to as few people as possible.
which was what I was driving at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I suspect a protest needs to be either mildly illegal and/or at least highly annoying to the powers that be, in order to be really effective.
It can be annoying without being illegal, and still be effective. That occurs often.
So, if I get it correctly...
Using Marines and Navy troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden
Using Army and Air Force troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden, unless the congress authorizes it.
That's it ?
So, if I get it correctly...
Using Marines and Navy troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden
Using Army and Air Force troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden, unless the congress authorizes it.
That's it ?
We're not really sweating that are we?....so who's bringing me coffee at the water cannon? I've folding chairs set up for when Easy E ladies get into the protest formation...you know...arms up. pumping both fist in the air in rythem with a chant. knowing the water cannon is right there....everyone knows its like cold temp weather right?
Jihadin wrote:We're not really sweating that are we?....so who's bringing me coffee at the water cannon? I've folding chairs set up for when Easy E ladies get into the protest formation...you know...arms up. pumping both fist in the air in rythem with a chant. knowing the water cannon is right there....everyone knows its like cold temp weather right?
Well in the interest of humanity we could make it luke warm water. If needed I could get a conga line of wiener dogs to waddle up and pee on their shoes.
True-fact: the older the wiener dog, the more rancid the pee. When their breath already smells like wet ass, the pee is just that much worse.
I may have stepped over the line earlier when I criticised my fellow dakka members, I hold my hand up to that.
But look at it from my point of view - I grew up in Britain during the 1980s and got hassled by police because I wasn't white. At the same time, miners on strike were getting the s**t kicked out of them by the police who were backed up by the security services. Now you can forgive me If I don't have policemen on my christmas card list. I respect the fact that they are needed for a functioning society, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.
So, when I see a video like this, which shows students getting pepper sprayed by some keystone cop, it makes my blood boil. When people on this site who are citizens of a nation that was born from protest, and did so well in the 1960s standing up to injustice, I scratch my head. Especially when they start banging on about petty details such as sitting on sidewalks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may have stepped over the line earlier when I criticised my fellow dakka members, I hold my hand up to that.
But look at it from my point of view - I grew up in Britain during the 1980s and got hassled by police because I wasn't white. At the same time, miners on strike were getting the s**t kicked out of them by the police who were backed up by the security services. Now you can forgive me If I don't have policemen on my christmas card list. I respect the fact that they are needed for a functioning society, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.
So, when I see a video like this, which shows students getting pepper sprayed by some keystone cop, it makes my blood boil. When people on this site who are citizens of a nation that was born from protest, and did so well in the 1960s standing up to injustice, I scratch my head. Especially when they start banging on about petty details such as sitting on sidewalks.
Its not petty. Other people's rights end at my nose.
Think we can agree on right to protest right?
Think we can agree on right to assemble right?
Think we can agree on right to protest within the laws right?
Think we can agree on protest that follow MLK non violence way right?
Think we can all agree on its an individual(s) fault regardless on which side who screws up right?
.....wait...might get misconstrued that I might be agreeing to something I didn't mean.
luke warm water? you kidding me right....cold weather indicators...then they can pick up the weiners to um....well....a heating source
Think we can agree on right to protest right? Think we can agree on right to assemble right? Think we can agree on right to protest within the laws right? Think we can agree on protest that follow MLK non violence way right? Think we can all agree on its an individual(s) fault regardless on which side who screws up right? .....wait...might get misconstrued that I might be agreeing to something I didn't mean.
luke warm water? you kidding me right....cold weather indicators...then they can pick up the weiners to um....well....a heating source
Wiener dogs are nature's pot bellied heaters. They are worth 1.5x a full sized dog. Of course the little bastards eat a lot. Now thats a question. Which is worse, pepper spray or ten barking wiener dogs (a bark so sharp it will stop a riot...)
Common sense could have won the day here. Containment of the students, who probably would have drifted off to the pub after a few hours anyway, would have seen everybody happy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Common sense could have won the day here. Containment of the students, who probably would have drifted off to the pub after a few hours anyway, would have seen everybody happy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may have stepped over the line earlier when I criticised my fellow dakka members, I hold my hand up to that.
But look at it from my point of view - I grew up in Britain during the 1980s and got hassled by police because I wasn't white. At the same time, miners on strike were getting the s**t kicked out of them by the police who were backed up by the security services. Now you can forgive me If I don't have policemen on my christmas card list. I respect the fact that they are needed for a functioning society, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.
So, when I see a video like this, which shows students getting pepper sprayed by some keystone cop, it makes my blood boil. When people on this site who are citizens of a nation that was born from protest, and did so well in the 1960s standing up to injustice, I scratch my head. Especially when they start banging on about petty details such as sitting on sidewalks.
I understand where you're coming from. Those were bad times and people got abused by the state pretty hard.
But every large picture is made of small details. Ignoring them is dangerous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dispassionate analysis of the actual facts is way more important than reactionary responses to what the video looks like in a single viewing. Law is complicated and we're dealing with an area where many people's rights intersect.
Slightly OT, but this new Thatcher film with Meryl Streep in it is really going to piss me off as well! Yes, the 80s had good music, but always take off the rose tinted spectacles. It was a grim time in many ways.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Common sense could have won the day here. Containment of the students, who probably would have drifted off to the pub after a few hours anyway, would have seen everybody happy.
Yes common sense could have won the day. The could have left when they were told to, the could have left when they were told they were about to maced. It's certainly is a shame common sense didnt prevail, boo. Hoo.
Not shedding a tear here for them. Heard the police chief is also suspended with pay though. Also I believe the Chancellor like really trying to deflect as much.."guilt"...lack of words atm...from herself. She also kicked off an investigation. Still belive myself she failed the leadership role in this matter
So, if I get it correctly...
Using Marines and Navy troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden
Using Army and Air Force troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden, unless the congress authorizes it.
That's it ?
That's BASICALLY the cliffs notes of it yeah.
Though it would be a very bad idea to send a military unit to college to quell a protest, given it worked out so well last time
So, if I get it correctly...
Using Marines and Navy troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden
Using Army and Air Force troops for law enforcement on US soil is strictly forbidden, unless the congress authorizes it.
That's it ?
That's BASICALLY the cliffs notes of it yeah.
Though it would be a very bad idea to send a military unit to college to quell a protest, given it worked out so well last time
You mean that one time at Kent State?
You are aware that prior to that it was done with no real issues, and there were a few instances afterwards where it was done without the same consequences. Kent State was a powderkeg situation--and to this day, there remains an unsubstantiated report of the National Guardsmen having been shot at. I'd very much suggest you read into the history and timeline of Kent State before shooting your mouth off.
I'm still waiting for those people that protest at military funerals to get the wooly gak beat out of them, don't even care if the cops are doing it or just watching.
Supreme Court upheld their right to protest at a military funeral so no biggie. What they were spewing out at the protest is...way out there on the nutty relam. We had one here a few months back at Ft Meade, MD right outside our main gate. Duncan Donut is right outside the main gate. A lot of permanent party troops and wounded warriors get coffee at our beloved main gate Duncan Donut. On that day we donated a lot of tips since they made it free coffee for the military. Sign on window had "Protester's are not desired here." Course the police were also there at Duncan Donut due to the possibility of those chuckleheads might take out on the Indies that owned and operated.
You know. If I was going to protest. I make sure I have Taco Bell burrito's in the line open...and waiting on the powder hot sauce to be sprayed. I doubt it though since I be out looking for a job and taking showers..
Edit
Chancellor Kahteli ordered the removal of the protest.
I'm still waiting for those people that protest at military funerals to get the wooly gak beat out of them, don't even care if the cops are doing it or just watching.
That's because they have lawyers. If it wouldn't be for that, we could all enjoy this:
They are lawyers. The Westboro Baptist Church is basically a front for a family of lawyers. Anyone shuts them down--they sue on the basis of Constitutional Law.
Well...now I know they're lawyers to...all the more reason to make me rush over to render first aid to any of them if they get hurt at a protest...yep...I rush right over...sip....sip sip..
CT GAMER wrote:
Well Frank Miller is a giant tool, so that isn't a surprise...
Man, this can't be said enough.
The dude made interesting things that other people turned into really good interesting things.
But the man himself is inSANE.
If you look up Jingoism in the dictionary you will find his picture. Some of his post 9/11 interviews in which he advocates all manner of atrocities against non-western peoples was an eye-opener to his degree of crazy.
for both sides
