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.

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)

That's so meta

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure they're not protesting the laws about foot traffic.

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.

Decriminalize Jaywalking!

Hey hey, ho ho, these "Don't walk" signs have got to go!

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.

Criminalize Assembly!

Hey hey, ho ho, these pissed off people have got to go!

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?

Assembly is fine and dandy--but if you want to assemble and protest in public areas, you need permits.

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?

Kanluwen wrote:Assembly is fine and dandy--but if you want to assemble and protest in public areas, you need permits.

The crux of the entire issue, folks.

No sarcasm is intended.

What happens when you are denied a permit? Just go home and be quiet?

Not fimiliar with the US are you? If they're denied a permit they do the next great american thing in the law system...they bring a lawsuit

Drawing more attention to the issue in the process.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Assembly is fine and dandy--but if you want to assemble and protest in public areas, you need permits.

The crux of the entire issue, folks.

No sarcasm is intended.

Absolutely. The constitution makes clear via simple and plain language that Americans have the absolute right to protest so long as they get permission, pay $100 per day and obtain $1,000,000 in liability insurance.

murdog wrote:

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.

Ouze wrote:Absolutely. The constitution makes clear via simple and plain language that Americans have the absolute right to protest so long as they get permission, pay $100 per day and obtain $1,000,000 in liability insurance.

Kind of like how the US holds "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be sacrosanct?

Ouze wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Assembly is fine and dandy--but if you want to assemble and protest in public areas, you need permits.

The crux of the entire issue, folks.

No sarcasm is intended.

Absolutely. The constitution makes clear via simple and plain language that Americans have the absolute right to protest so long as they get permission, pay $100 per day and obtain $1,000,000 in liability insurance.

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

Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/permit-waiver-denied-for-occupy-tulsa-protesters#ixzz1eGywi7gc

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?

Jihadin wrote:

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.

Nice post Kan

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.

murdog wrote:

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.

Lets keep with the timeline

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