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.

If I'm walking along being drunk and disorderly then yes I probably deserve a whack round the head...

Da Boss wrote:Ah, I take it you'd be alright with the police bopping you (or, say, your mother) on the head for minor infractions? Like, you're walking home drunk, and they just smack you in the head with a baton?Or an open handed smack in the face. Teach you not to do it again, it would!

It's a shame good old fashioned policing is a thing of the past.

Da Boss wrote:Ah, I take it you'd be alright with the police bopping you (or, say, your mother) on the head for minor infractions? Like, you're walking home drunk, and they just smack you in the head with a baton?Or an open handed smack in the face. Teach you not to do it again, it would!

Well, in all honesty, if good ol' Mom did not do what the cop asked, I would expect him to use the minimum force to get her to comply. Chances are that would be pepper spray or tazing vice a bop on the head. In the case of me personally, I would do what the cop asked...

Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences. What a concept.

corpsesarefun wrote:If I'm walking along being drunk and disorderly then yes I probably deserve a whack round the head...

Hey I am drunk and disorderly on a regular basis and I will have you know that I am a fine upstanding gentleman and a pillar of the communitaaaarrrrhhhh lend us ten pence.. forra.. cup o tea... yer ...yer me best mate.

My dad is an ex policeman, and he'd be shaking his head at these responses. There's ways and means lads, and you don't have to whack someone to get them to comply. The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?

I mean, my dad has had to whack people, sure, but only ever to defend himself/someone else. He was in the riots in the seventies and fairly had to lay into the mob to protect himself and his colleagues, but that's orders of magnitude away from a load of students being silly buggers.

Kilkrazy wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Obviously the kids felt obstructing the police from performing their duties was worth getting sprayed over... Remember, it was not just a handful of kids blocking the walk way, it was a bunch more surrounding the cops in an attempt to prevent them from carrying out their jobs...

I think there are more worthwhile crimes for the police to investigate than sitting on the pavement when asked to move on.

Except these were cops specifically hired to police the campus, and at this specific time dealing with the protesters was what they were supposed to be doing...

Kilkrazy wrote:You are starting from the idea that the demonstrators had to be moved.

If instead you decide to let them be, the whole situation would defuse itself.

The purpose of that kind of protest is to get itself violently opposed by the authorities.

Except, in the words of the protester I quoted above, the cops were being surrounded and blocked from leaving, pretty much ensuring they had to do something other than stand there ineffectively. The cops had been told to get rid of the protesters. They had legal justification for doing so. The prptesters did not want to be left alone, if they did they would have left an out for the cops vice blocking their way. They would have unassed the path when asked to and continued their protest without being sprayed or arrested. Freedom of choice (to disobey the cops and block their route) but no freedom from consequences.

CptJake wrote:
How do you propose the police should have arrested the bunch of folks with joined arms and refusing to move?

I believe the summary response is "They should not have been arrested."

Except all the evidence at this time does not back up the "we were surrounded" argument. And if there is a group that is doing nothing but sitting, and a second larger group that is surrounding you and placing you in danger, why spray the peaceful passive group?

Did they even try to make a single arrest before Pike hit everyone with the spray? There was no aggressive posturing, no sign of active resistance from any of the protesters. Talking to the cops that I know the recommended procedure would have been this:

Go to the last person in line, and try to arrest them. Tell that person that he is under arrest, and have two officers take his/her arms, place cuffs, and remove from the line. Repeat the process until everyone is arrested.

If the person resists, then you spray. If the whole crowd acts up, then you spray the whole crowd.

Preemptive use of force to ensure compliance later is not justified.

Da Boss wrote:The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?

That so many in this thread seem to not only approve, but also very much cheer for the latter is rather... unsettling.

Da Boss wrote:My dad is an ex policeman, and he'd be shaking his head at these responses. There's ways and means lads, and you don't have to whack someone to get them to comply. The police are their to protect the peace, not enforce the government's will on you. The idea that you have to comply with every instruction given by a cop without question is...well, it's a bit Big Government for you lads, isn't it?

They're not "enforcing the government's will on you".

Protecting the peace is not simply stepping in against violent crimes. If it was, then why would police ever investigate non-violent crimes?

And yes. You do have to "comply with every instruction given by a cop without question" when you're not wanting to be arrested.

I mean, my dad has had to whack people, sure, but only ever to defend himself/someone else. He was in the riots in the seventies and fairly had to lay into the mob to protect himself and his colleagues, but that's orders of magnitude away from a load of students being silly buggers.

And again we get to the meat of it.

When it's someone we can readily associate to(students or regular folk), it's a "great injustice" and the police are "out of line". The students were told to leave the UC Davis plaza. Police came in to remove them, and had students sitting down in front of them obstructing them from performing the job they were there to do(remove the students who refused to leave and were still camping there). When those students saw the police leaving, they hemmed them in and sat down--provoking the response.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting the police should have ran them over with the patrol car or laid into them with the riot batons. Pepper spray was the only acceptable, reasonable means of resolving the situation. As more video has been released, it's become clear that Pike(the officer doing the spraying) told the students to move so that he and his men could either do their job or leave three times. The students refused to do that--so rather than make a violent and potentially permanent response, they opted for the short-term response which causes the least amount of force to be utilized and does nothing more than inconvenience someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Except all the evidence at this time does not back up the "we were surrounded" argument. And if there is a group that is doing nothing but sitting, and a second larger group that is surrounding you and placing you in danger, why spray the peaceful passive group?

Did they even try to make a single arrest before Pike hit everyone with the spray? There was no aggressive posturing, no sign of active resistance from any of the protesters. Talking to the cops that I know the recommended procedure would have been this:

Go to the last person in line, and try to arrest them. Tell that person that he is under arrest, and have two officers take his/her arms, place cuffs, and remove from the line. Repeat the process until everyone is arrested.

If the person resists, then you spray. If the whole crowd acts up, then you spray the whole crowd.

Preemptive use of force to ensure compliance later is not justified.

And we now have one of the students themselves saying that they DID in fact surround the officers. AustonT posted the link to Democracynow.org earlier.

Kan, I know it's not just stepping in on violent crimes. At the same time, there's a world of subtlety between pepper spray and the other options. I don't think we're really going to agree readily on this one though.

It's not true that I must comply with every instruction given to me by a cop without question. In my own country, at least, I am allowed to question the Gardaí. Some of them might not like it of course, but it is not illegal to do so.

I'd completely disagree with your second point too- I think you took what I said and put your own spin on it in your post, which is aggravating, but perhaps that is what you took from what I said. It is my belief that effective policing stems from the respect of the populace. This respect is earned through always holding yourself to a high standard and acting with restraint and understanding. You CAN go all out, but it's poor policing in my view.

I do think however there is a disconnect between my experience of the police, growing up in a village in Ireland and later moving to Dublin, and the experience of policing in the states where violent crimes are much more common and police get shot at with regularity. It's still a rare enough thing here that it will always make the evening news, and it is a major news item whenever a policeman gets shot. So they perhaps don't have the same siege mentality I can imagine creeping in in the states.
(Is it just me or are all public service jobs in the States just hell? I'd hate to be a teacher in a lot of states there, too)

Kanluwen wrote:
And yes. You do have to "comply with every instruction given by a cop without question" when you're not wanting to be arrested.

That's not even remotely true, unless you're implying that officers abuse their power on a regular basis.

Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.

Da Boss wrote:
I do think however there is a disconnect between my experience of the police, growing up in a village in Ireland and later moving to Dublin, and the experience of policing in the states where violent crimes are much more common and police get shot at with regularity. It's still a rare enough thing here that it will always make the evening news, and it is a major news item whenever a policeman gets shot. So they perhaps don't have the same siege mentality I can imagine creeping in in the states.

Of course, we also have to remember that police forfeit their right to defend themselves to the fullest extent of their own reason upon becoming police. They serve, and place themselves at hazard, at the discretion of the state. Or, they're supposed to anyway, in practice there is oversight only in exceptional circumstances.

Da Boss wrote:
(Is it just me or are all public service jobs in the States just hell? I'd hate to be a teacher in a lot of states there, too)

I imagine its connected to the general dislike of government we have over here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.

That's also false. Institutions earn general respect all over the world. Its harder for the police because they enforce laws, but not impossible by way of circumstance.

Kanluwen wrote:Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.

All enduring institutions have continuing cultures which are handed down to newcomers even in short term situations such as universities and schools.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.

All enduring institutions have continuing cultures which are handed down to newcomers even in short term situations such as universities and schools.

This is a college. The populace does not stay the same, and there are various subcultures present to begin with.

Kanluwen wrote:
This is a college. The populace does not stay the same, and there are various subcultures present to begin with.

Generally colleges maintain consistent demographics over time. The specific people change, but the type of people do not, not rapidly anyway.

Of course, college kids generally have a largely adversarial relationship with police, which is why many campuses employ security guards in order to handle minor incidents; preventing students from suffering major consequences.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.

You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".

If used on a person who's peaceably sitting on the ground and committing no violent act, it's an inappropriate use of force.

Kanluwen wrote:Your potential "freedom of speech" does not override the safety or well-being and convenience of everyone else.

There is a dangerous and undemocratic line you're treading here. You are muddling two different things. Certainly my right to Free Speech does not override people's right to safety. It absolutely does override their convenience. If your right to save a couple of minutes by being able to walk through the protest area instead of around is more important than my right to assemble in protest, than we're not in America anymore. If my right to the convenience of eating at the lunch counter without black people around making a scene and blocking the counter trumps the right of said black people to protest a racist establishment, then we're not upholding our principles.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
How do you propose the police should have arrested the bunch of folks with joined arms and refusing to move?

I believe the summary response is "They should not have been arrested."

Alternately, if they really HAD to remove them, as was pointed out before, you can skip the whole spraying step if the people aren't violently resisting. Put the kid's hands behind his back, cuff him, lift him up by his arms and walk him away. You can put his hands behind his back without hurting him; there are really basic Aikido and Jujitsu locks and maneuvers you can do to manipulate a person's arms into the necessary positions without pain or injury. If the person violently resists, then you can make use of the minimum necessary force (which might be pepper spray).

When my mother was director of training at the local youth detention/ juvenile residential correctional facility here in the 80s, the staff were all trained in what was called "Management of Aggressive Behavior". It was a set of basic maneuvers derived from Aikido and Judo, to restrain and move a kid who was flipping out and irrational, without injuring said kid. It was almost all two-person techniques, but if the protestors aren't being violent, you can easily have two cops restrain and arrest each one.

Is it just me but just by the pictures posted and video's. The adults on the cement blocking walkway with link arms were sprayed and the adults lining the side on grass with arms interlink were left alone? 5 ft speration from the one's on the grass to sidwalk...anyone else notice that?

Anyone want to take Lt. Pike/Law enforcement point of view? Anyone? No one willing?

CptJake wrote:
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.

Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?

Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?

Think you can tie a body count to them though

How they dealt with students

Between June 1942 and March 1943, student protests were calling for an end to the Nazi regime. These included the non-violent resistance of Hans and Sophie Scholl, two leaders of the White Rose student group. However, resistance groups and those who were in moral or political opposition to the Nazis were stalled by the fear of reprisals from the Gestapo. In fact, reprisals did come in response to the protests. Fearful of an internal overthrow, the forces of Himmler and the Gestapo were unleashed on the opposition. The first five months of 1943 witnessed thousands of arrests and executions as the Gestapo exercised their powers over the German public. Student opposition leaders were executed in late February, and a major opposition organization, the Oster Circle, was destroyed in April, 1943.

Stop comparing current day law enforcement to Nazism/Facist nations from WWII

Jihadin wrote:

Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?

Think you can tie a body count to them though

How they dealt with students

Between June 1942 and March 1943, student protests were calling for an end to the Nazi regime. These included the non-violent resistance of Hans and Sophie Scholl, two leaders of the White Rose student group. However, resistance groups and those who were in moral or political opposition to the Nazis were stalled by the fear of reprisals from the Gestapo. In fact, reprisals did come in response to the protests. Fearful of an internal overthrow, the forces of Himmler and the Gestapo were unleashed on the opposition. The first five months of 1943 witnessed thousands of arrests and executions as the Gestapo exercised their powers over the German public. Student opposition leaders were executed in late February, and a major opposition organization, the Oster Circle, was destroyed in April, 1943.

Stop comparing current day law enforcement to Nazism/Facist nations from WWII

Stop trying to not see the larger point.

One should not blindly obey or fail to question institutions like police forces as the person I quoted suggested, because in fact history and even present day news accounts show us that often people do indeed suffer mistreatment and preudice from insitutions like police when they have done nothing wrong.

Whats the larger issue?

Law Enforcement asking a question of me is no issue and hopefully no one else to.

If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. Either I'm peppersprayed...tazer maybe..but more likely peppersprayed but I faced the consequences for my actions.

Throwing words like Nazi's and Gestapo's out as a point is not good.

Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.

What am I missing? I'm not taking it literally at all as "Do it or impale myself on my sword" answer. Its a common sense look within yourself answer. Piss off the cop or not piff off the cop. Treat with respect and be treated with respect. Ignore the cop or not ignore the cop. Obey or disobey a officer. First though since I think this is the gist of it. Do you know what it means by a lawful order and a unlawful order if giving to by a Law Enforcement officer.

Jihadin wrote:If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. .

The person CT Gamer was responding to seemed to be saying, on a blanket basis, "Do whatever a policeman tells you or suffer the consequences." That's not the law, and it's perilously close to what we see in fascist countries. Yes, you have to obey a police officer's lawful commands, but he doesn't have unlimited authority in terms of what commands he can legitimately give. I don't think that's honestly what Jake meant, but it came off a bit disturbing.

I got you Manna. I still dink a coffee with you CT lol

Jut gets under my skin when anything of the Nazi's from WWII starts getting reference, added in, and insinuated

Mannahnin wrote:

Jihadin wrote:If the police Officer ask me to comply with the law then I comply and do as he asked. I know I face consequences if I choose to disobey him and wrap myself around a telephone pole. .

The person CT Gamer was responding to seemed to be saying, on a blanket basis, "Do whatever a policeman tells you or suffer the consequences." That's not the law, and it's perilously close to what we see in fascist countries. Yes, you have to obey a police officer's lawful commands, but he doesn't have unlimited authority in terms of what commands he can legitimately give. I don't think that's honestly what Jake meant, but it came off a bit disturbing.

Exactly.

The implication was as you describe.

We as citizens should indeed obey lawful commands.

The problem comes when police are used to enforce injustice or when they themselves attempt to use their own power in an abusive/prejudicial/unconstitutional way.

The line is not always clear, and those police that abuse power count on that fact...

So yes we should obey the law, but at the same time we should not do so blindly and with the assumption that those empowered with enforcing it are infallible...

Damn...did I jump in halfway through a debate between two individuals?

Airsoft guns wouldn't work for crowd control, they only hit hard enough to let you know you were hit. I have A LOT of experience with airsoft and play with high FPS limits, sleeveless. They might deter children, but they really don't do the required amount of damage for crown control.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.

You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".

If used on a person who's peaceably sitting on the ground and committing no violent act, it's an inappropriate use of force.

You're leaving out that the person in question has had two days worth of warning, and three personal warnings by the officer in question to not block the police from executing their duty(in this case, removal of protesters still sleeping on the premises without the proper permits and/or procedure in place).

You're still focusing on the fact that the protesters are "committing no violent act" and that they are "in pain" from pepper spray. You're completely ignoring the fact that they're refusing to comply and actively obstructing police operations, and you're completely ignoring the fact that pepper spray, by itself, is COMPLETELY harmless aside from as a temporary irritant used for incapacitating indivudals--which is exactly what Pike used it as here. It incapacitated the protesters long enough for them to either:
A) Be flexcuffed and put in the back of the patrol car.
or
B) Be removed from the pathway of the officers long enough for them to execute their job.
or
C) As we saw in this case, the officers to leave rather than execute their job and having to actually utilize force.

Kanluwen wrote:Your potential "freedom of speech" does not override the safety or well-being and convenience of everyone else.

There is a dangerous and undemocratic line you're treading here. You are muddling two different things. Certainly my right to Free Speech does not override people's right to safety. It absolutely does override their convenience. If your right to save a couple of minutes by being able to walk through the protest area instead of around is more important than my right to assemble in protest, than we're not in America anymore. If my right to the convenience of eating at the lunch counter without black people around making a scene and blocking the counter trumps the right of said black people to protest a racist establishment, then we're not upholding our principles.

I'm not muddling "two different things". Your right to free speech does not override people's expectation to be in a public park or plaza that does not have people camping out in it and essentially starting a shantytown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.

Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?

No. It was not. To suggest is ridiculous. The Gestapo's philosophy was do what you're told or you get labeled as a malcontent, degenerate, or partisan sympathizers...which in turn ends up with you disappearing into a "reeducation camp" or simply being shot.

I know how people love to equate police to the Gestapo. Until the police start committing purges of ethnic, philosophical, or religious groups--there's no comparison.

Kan, I think you're wrong on multiple counts, but this discussion is starting to feel a bit circular and I'm losing my taste for it. I hope you won't be offended it I decline to continue.

Jihadin wrote:I got you Manna. I still dink a coffee with you CT lol

Hey, I'd have a coffee with either or both of you!

Jihadin wrote:Jut gets under my skin when anything of the Nazi's from WWII starts getting reference, added in, and insinuated

Absolutely. No need to stink up the thread worse by anyone going Godwin.