Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

Jihadin wrote:

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.

Jihadin wrote:

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

Not really, even for the sake of arguement.

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.

Rented Tritium wrote:

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.

SilverMK2 wrote:Should have used rubber nuclear weapons.

Oh man, my sides.

Jihadin wrote:

Fat pigs

Someone find a timeline when law enforcement started being called this? Thinking during the Veitnam Era protest I believe.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2209/why-are-the-police-called-cops-pigs-or-the-fuzz

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.

Now I know...and knowing..is half the battle...GGIIII JJJOOEEEEE

Radiation wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Radiation wrote:

AustonT wrote:

CNN wrote:When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats," Brown wrote.

it's funny I watched the whole video and I didn't see this.

He is an English Major.

He's an assistant professor in the English Department, calling for the resignation of the University president.

I know who he is. He has an English Major. They tend to embelish.

You must know him REALLY well.
http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/directory/natbrown
I guess the UC Davis webmaster and English department chair embellish quite a bit.

AustonT wrote:
You must know him REALLY well.
http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/directory/natbrown
I guess the UC Davis webmaster and English department chair embellish quite a bit.

Brown wrote:
...continental philosophy...

Oh God, no.

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.

Oh my

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.

Good to know I have a fan. Kisses.

Radiation wrote:
Because they write stuff. Lots of stuff. To embellish. They write. Stuff.

I write lots of stuff too, but very few people accuse me of embellishment.

Kanluwen wrote:

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?

dogma wrote:

Radiation wrote:
Because they write stuff. Lots of stuff. To embellish. They write. Stuff.

I write lots of stuff too, but very few people accuse me of embellishment.

I've yet to see a picture of your Lotus.

murdog wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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):

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/29/inside_greeces_general_strike_video_report

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?

Ouze wrote:

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.

murdog wrote:

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.