world

Calif college suspends police chief in pepper spray row

139 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

139 Comments
Login to comment

Many Americans including me are outraged to see what this police has done to non-violent students. Spraying it all over student faces was not necessary and it was very un-American. This police should be fired. .

Please go to youtube and watch this before posting any comments. You will be the judge.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

In the third paragraph of this report there is reference to "the chemical usually used for dispersing crowds". Really? How long has that been going on? I thought pepper spray was only used on violent individuals who were presenting a clear threat.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Another sad example of the militarization of American civil society. Over-response is to be expected from city cops: they never know whether the person they're dealing with is armed with a gun and primed to kill. But from campus cops, particularly against peaceful protesters is not a good sign.

By the way, one artist has provided this take on the situation: http://peppersprayingcop.tumblr.com/

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The officer who spit on his oat to serve and protect is Lt. John Pike. This article allowed the weasel the comfort of anonymity. I don't think he's deserving.

Taka

2 ( +8 / -6 )

The TSA will still take him.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Police gave a verbal warning. Students did not comply. Students got pepper sprayed.

It's a fairly straightforward series of events and I'm having a difficult time understanding why so many people are incensed by it.

-8 ( +7 / -16 )

The students were ordered several times to disperse and didn't. Actions have consequences.

RR

-6 ( +5 / -12 )

Students did not comply. Students got pepper sprayed.

And the people who pepper-sprayed the peacefully-assembled students got fired. I'm having a difficult time understanding how people can't understand the officers who assaulted the students did wrong.

-1 ( +6 / -6 )

And the people who pepper-sprayed the peacefully-assembled students got fired.

The two officers were put on leave, not fired, and will probably go back to work in some capacity after they are cleared. They followed procedure and gave verbal warnings before using the spray.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how people can't understand the officers who assaulted the students did wrong.

I'm not going to argue that this isn't exactly the most fun outcome that could have come out of the exchange, but in the end the police followed the rules, the students didn't.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

The two officers were put on leave, not fired, and will probably go back to work in some capacity after they are cleared.

That has not been determined yet. The right of students to peaceably assemble on their own campus -- so long as they were not impeding the ability of other students and faculty to perform their duties -- far outweighs any "right" of a policing function to assault them with force. The immediate suspensions underline and support this basic fact.

but in the end the police followed the rules, the students didn't

"rules" that the police just made up arbitrarily at the time. The basic duty of a police officer is to "protect and serve." All rules derive from that fundamental duty. The police were not protecting anything by spraying peacefully assembled students -- just the opposite. Indeed, the police were just serving themselves in the abuse of individuals when they felt their authority was being defied through the exercise of freedom by others. The defense of the assault on such individuals, as well as the assault itself, constitutes an attack on the concept of freedom spelled out in the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Right now, there has been a speculation that there may be a possible criminal charge fle against these officers/university of California, Davis.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The way the reactionaries are in knee-jerk agreement with the authorities leads me to think they have a bright future in China or Russia.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Right now, there has been a speculation that there may be a possible criminal charge fle against these officers/university of California, Davis.

It is abundantly clear that they all seriously abused their authority and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no law making it OK for a police officer to abuse his/her authority by assaulting students who have peacefully assembled. Were such a law even nominally in place, it would immediately negate itself when subject to a test.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

The way the reactionaries are in knee-jerk agreement with the authorities leads me to think they have a bright future in China or Russia.

Some of these reactionaries will try to sell you on their self-delusion that they are "libertarians." Some of us can see just how far away from reality that is.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/PRBCrowdPolicy.pdf According to these UC Guidelines (pp 8 to 11, upon orders from a supervising officer campus police can use chemical agents or arrests to disperse a demonstration -- just the facts...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Strange that the media and public failed any mention of 'human rights violations'

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The right of students to peaceably assemble on their own campus -- so long as they were not impeding the ability of other students and faculty to perform their duties -- far outweighs any "right" of a policing function to assault them with force.

Read a little and you'll find that the officers were asked to remove the students from the pathway. It was college property and the college may do with it as it pleases.

The basic duty of a police officer is to "protect and serve."

Warren v. District of Columbia found that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." So as fun as that motto is to day it's not really rooted in reality. You'd be better off getting a private security company with an actual legal obligation if it's protection you're looking for.

Some other reading into what police are actually obligated to do (but dealing with the shocking number of things they are not) include Riss v. City of New York, Keane v. City of Chicago, Morgan v. District of Columbia, and Weutrich v. Delia. All of which affirm that police are under no obligation to protect citizens or even show up to a crime in progress.

Police exist to uphold the law.

The defense of the assault on such individuals, as well as the assault itself, constitutes an attack on the concept of freedom spelled out in the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Assault is defined as an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

The officer was not engauging in such behavior as there was no malicious intent (or at least no intent you could prove) Rather, they were getting rid of students that refused an order by a police officer that were asked by the property's chancellor to remove them from the area.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

A well-known liberal protesting tactic is to provoke a confrontation with police and then claim to be victims of police brutality. Liberals know that truth, reason, and logic are against them, so they have to prey on people's emotions for support. They've been doing it this way for decades.

RR

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Many Americans were laughing and cheering when they saw these annoying people getting maced. It is about time someone manned up and gave these people some justice. They probably smelled better after the macing, too.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Tatanka, something you overlooked in your PDF: "The standard hand-held canister is not normally intended to be used by officers to disperse a crowd but it may be if necessary."

What is up for grabs is the word necessary. Is it truly necessary to move a group of people just sitting there on the sidewalk? Because they are an inconvenience?

Nobody thinks so, and I mean nobody. Anyone saying they do think so is just relishing the powertrip of spraying people with pepper spray and is a sadist actually thinking "Man, that must have felt good!". And they are not giving us their true thoughts.

Even if it were necessary, pepper spray still wasn't. All they had to do was walk over and arrest them one by one.

A well-known liberal protesting tactic is to provoke a confrontation with police and then claim to be victims of police brutality.

I left this post half finished and had hoped by the time I got back this "blame the liberals" nonsense would disappear. I can't even imagine why rantings in such poor taste and poor intellectual merit are pandered to. But I suppose I have to respond, rubbish or not.

Just how neanderthal is it call sitting on the ground a provacation? Gorillas get mad if you look them in the eye too.

Or is that you support their right to protest, just so long as its where no one will see, such as the middle of Joshua Tree National Park?

Again, all the campus cops had to do was walk over and arrest them. The cops get their power trip. The protestors get their footage of being arrested. Everybody wins. Spraying them with pepper spray was the barbaric act of an ex-jock bitter that he never had the right answers when he raised his hand in class and now wants to stick it to some people who actually have academic potential.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How conservatives love a repressive police state when it serves their purpose is truly frightening.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Many Americans were laughing and cheering when they saw these annoying people getting maced.

Reminiscent of Palestinians dancing in the streets.

It is about time someone manned up and gave these people some justice.

Yes, one can only hope that adminstrative leave leads to dismissal, a zero severance package, and some jail time.

They probably smelled better after the macing, too.

Is that because the back and forth motion ventilated the overweight cop's armpits?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Read a little and you'll find that the officers were asked to remove the students from the pathway. It was college property and the college may do with it as it pleases.

I would like to draw some similarities and distinctions between peaceful, lawful acts of protest in the USA, notably this subject incident, with protest actions in other places like outside the Gdansk shipyard and Tienanmen Square. In all cases, the authorities involved felt that they had the right to use force against those peacefully assembled.

Another commonality is that the "property" involved could be construed by the forces working against the expression of freedom as not belonging to those whom they wished to suppress.

Warren v. District of Columbia found that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." So as fun as that motto is to day it's not really rooted in reality.

You can reach for any random court case to try to prove something that any kangaroo court in any fascist or totalitarian regime could also "prove." It does not negate the fact that people operate under a moral obligation. What is rooted in reality is the fact that you have no sense of any such obligation when it suits your purposes. The security forces on campus were under a moral obligation to achieve their objective in a manner which, as the article states, quoting the leader of the university system: "protect[s] the rights of our students, faculty and staff to engage in non-violent protest."

It is the moral obligation that ultimately should separate nations that profess to be based upon certain inalienable rights of individuals from the authoritarian regimes that seek to control their behavior -- by force if necessary. We who are liberals within the United States know that the totalitarian, authoritarian mindset exists within our society -- cheered on by those who defend the immoral and unlawful use of force in this case. We read that many "laughed and cheered" when viewing the macing of the students.

Assault is defined as an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

So when a police officer visibly deploys a weapon designed to cause severe physical discomfort to an individual, I believe most intelligent Americans would agree that an apprehension would be created in the target of an imminent offensive contact. I also know that many Americans who laugh and cheer and otherwise defend the assault on peacefully assembled students will not have a clue as to what is going on in front of their eyes, from a moral standpoint, as they seek to pick out random legalisms to justify it. As such, they are the authoritarians' best foot-soldiers -- masquerading themselves as "libertarians.".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sitting across a roadway and blocking it so that no-one can pass is forbidden. This wasn't a "peaceful protest". This was a disruption of university space. The occupiers have no respect for the rules and then complain when someone tries to make them comply.

RR

-6 ( +2 / -9 )

Sitting across a roadway and blocking it so that no-one can pass is forbidden.

Is this, in fact, what happened? Were the students situated so that there was no way a person wanting to get from Point A to Point B could do so? Or is it (more likely) a situation of someone feeling themselves entitled to the straightest line between the two points no matter if it would have to violate another's freedom to protest?

Were students maliciously maced because they made things merely inconvenient for others? Was the expression of their freedom to protest so threatening to the authoritarians who wanted them to respect "their" rules?

Generally speaking, there are two types of rules: One type are those rules which are absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of all concerned; the other type are those rules which are there to demonstrate that someone else can keep you in line.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sitting across a roadway and blocking it so that no-one can pass is forbidden.

So is use of excessive and unnecessary force against the people blocking it.

The occupiers have no respect for the rules and then complain when someone tries to make them comply.

This applies better the campus cops. The protesters were blocking a sidewalk on the quad. Big deal. Being sprayed in the face with pepper spray is a big deal. You don't have to believe me. Chop up some chili peppers and rub them in your eyes. I could use a good laugh myself!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What gets me..... people not complying with POLICE, a CLEAR violation of the law. Had these "peaceful" protestors followed the law and filed for and received a permit to peacufully protest none of this would have happened.

Your rights END where mine begin!!! If you break the law to make your point you DESERVE pepperspray in the face, actually that is getting off light in my book. And why the big "crybaby" story. Pepperspray is NON-LETHAL (YES, I have experienced it) and is far better that getting a beat down. If our Police are castrated, and fear that if they fulfil their duties to the PUBLIC as a WHOLE they will "pay the price" to satify the ubers, then there are serious problems coming.

Mark my words, first steps in taking over a culture is to weaken the economy, increase lawlessness and radicalize the youth! Stand by.....

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Oh, and one more thought to illistrate exactly where we are at. Take an octopus and put it in a clear pot. Fill it with water and a little salt and he is RIGHT at home. Add a little heat and he thinks he is in paradise, All is great and he is really right where he wants to be. Keep adding to the heat gradually and the funny thing is.... he gets boiled and doesnt even struggle! TEMP is fast approching 100 c, will SOMEONE turn down the heat? PLEASE!!!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

That cop, Lt. John Pike, needs to be sent to jail and pepper sprayed himself.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The police sprayed the students with pepper spray, then they arrested them. They could have just arrested them, neh?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

and all of them probably would vote for Palin.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your rights END where mine begin!!!

And exactly what right of yours was breached by these students? The right to live a life free of indignation against people who disagree with you?

Sorry, man, if you are looking for a life where no one ever disagrees with you, you may want to go offline and become a luddite.

Students could walk around the protesters. They weren't fully blocking the path.

Lt. Pike sprayed them with an agent that is supposed to be used from over 10' away directly into the faces of the victims. He violated policy for the use of pepper spray and for the use of force.

The school is going to do everything in its power to protect itself which means Lt. Pike, welcome to the bottom of the bus. If you're wondering how you got their, you did this to yourself.

Taka

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The gleeful applauding of the errosion of civil liberties here is horrendous. Apparently, if you don't like whatever group is protesting its perfectly ok to for the police to bash in some skulls. Would you feel the same way if this was a Tea Party protest? Police grade pepper spray, applied point blank to the eyes and mouth can be lethal. One student was coughing up blood for 45 min after the incident and had to be hospitalized. Another's hands were tied so tight he had potentially permanent nerve damage. This is not acceptable.

Look, I generally don't think much of protesters. Especially the hippies, weirdos, and lefty "professional protesters" that these sort of causes attract. But my personal distaste for someone does not negate their civil rights. (Never mind the fact that these were a bunch of fairly clean-cut college students and don't fit the above description at all...)

Police gave a verbal warning. Students did not comply. Students got pepper sprayed.

They followed procedure and gave verbal warnings before using the spray.

This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Police using severe pain - in the form of pepper spray and tazer - to force compliance is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The standard police procedure is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The procedure needs to be changed. There is no such thing as a "non-leathal weapon", and police need to stop using these instruments on uncooperative but nonviolent individuals. As far as I'm concerend, this was PUNISHMENT: pain meted out for disrespect and noncompliance, and as such was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and you cannot be punished without due process.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Some of these reactionaries will try to sell you on their self-delusion that they are "libertarians."

Wrong. As with most incidents like this I think libertarians (can't speak for all em...) regard the various actors involved in this unfortunate event as citizens who long ago surrendered their liberty, or their common sense, or both. This being California though and the over-zealous cop a state university employee my guess is he is therfeore a union member and his job secure no matter what he does. I feel for the students but the system has infantilised most of them. At any rate, the very first precept most libertarians believe in abiding by is the principle of non-aggression. The state was again out of line in dealing with these protesters, but this is not the only brutality or humiliation or bullying they will encounter at the hands of the Leviathan state. The b.s. 'sensitivity training' and various diktats handed down in political correctness seminars to new students - compulsory on many state universities these days - basically seek to achieve the same ends the bullying cop thought he was enforcing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Police using severe pain - in the form of pepper spray and tazer - to force compliance is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The standard police procedure is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The procedure needs to be changed. There is no such thing as a "non-leathal weapon", and police need to stop using these instruments on uncooperative but nonviolent individuals.

Okay, fair enough - but what would you suggest? Time out in the corner perhaps, or loss of television privileges? As a society we decided to have a police force to enforce the basic laws of civilization. We had to empower them with certain enforcement abilities for this to be possible. Yes, it is most definitely true that much too often this power is abused, and I know a lot of cops that I think are just plain a-holes. But be that as it may, they are there to enforce developed laws and rules. If someone disobeys those rules then what are the police supposed to do? Walk away and say 'oh well'? They can't win. I realize we are just talking protestors here, but many of them look the unstable type to me. They also have to approach every situation like their is a potential for danger to themselves and others. If someone does not comply, and they grab them - then it's Rodney King all over again. 'I was brutilized at the hands of police' - never mind the person was resisting, maybe drunk, maybe crazy, maybe armed. So rather than giving someone a 'wood shampoo' with a baton as so often happened in the 1960's, they opt for other methods. Pleasant? No. But one chooses to not comply with the law, don't they?

Yes, they should have just arrested them rather than giving a does of pepper spray right in the face. But I can understand where it's a frustrating situation for police who are hampered in actions. So if someone does not comply, what would you suggest they do? If they try to arrest them and they fight it, what should they do? The police have no way of knowing how much of a fruitcake some of these folks are. Think about the story some years ago about the guy riding on a public bus and the gent beside - normal enough looking - pulled out a knife and decapitated his unsuspecting seat-mate. In a place like NY or LA or East Nowhere, seemingly innocent people can be lunatics with concealed weapons. Not a job I would want. They screw up on occasion. That they want to do it at all should be commended.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I would like to draw some similarities and distinctions between peaceful, lawful acts of protest in the USA, notably this subject incident, with protest actions in other places like outside the Gdansk shipyard and Tienanmen Square.

We're drawing comparisons to that? Where people are being seriously oppressed and their rights legitimately violated to some college students that don't feel like paying for tuition? I don't buy that for a second.

It does not negate the fact that people operate under a moral obligation. What is rooted in reality is the fact that you have no sense of any such obligation when it suits your purposes.

So sue me if I don't put my faith in the flakey moral sensibilities of people I don't know. Oddly enough I'd much rather have some solid legal statutes backing me up rather than expecting people to behave a certain way simply because they ought to.

"protect[s] the rights of our students, faculty and staff to engage in non-violent protest."

My resume once stated that I was a loyal and committed employee that would look out for the best interests of the company, didn't stop me from jumping ship at the first sign of management problems. Unless they come in the form of a binding contract words mean slightly less than nothing when it counts.

So when a police officer visibly deploys a weapon designed to cause severe physical discomfort to an individual, I believe most intelligent Americans would agree that an apprehension would be created in the target of an imminent offensive contact.

Ugh Apprehension is defined as a reasonable belief of the possibility of imminent injury or death at the hands of another that justifies a person acting in Self-Defense against the potential attack.

Considering there was no threat that would qualify the students to use self-defense the requirements for assault remain unfulfilled. The difference between my legal precedent and your moral sensibilities is that mine actually carry weight.

As such, they are the authoritarians' best foot-soldiers -- masquerading themselves as "libertarians.".

The chancellor represented the legitimate authority in charge of the campus premises and they wanted the students removed from the area. The police went to enforce the right of the property manager, if the process was unlawful the students could have appealed in court like reasonable human beings up they elected to sit there for the pepper spray without a legislative leg to stand on.

TheQuestion, okimike67, RomeoR are nothing but brainwashed government pawns

I've been posting about government overreach for years and the establishment of substantive limits on power. I don't feel that this particular instance was anything beyond police acting on behalf of the property's authority figure.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think libertarians (can't speak for all em...)

I'm a libertarian. You know what I think.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I would like to draw some similarities and distinctions between peaceful, lawful acts of protest in the USA, notably this subject incident, with protest actions in other places like outside the Gdansk shipyard and Tienanmen Square. In all cases, the authorities involved felt that they had the right to use force against those peacefully assembled.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're on about, but think of it this way. The property belonged to the University, and they wanted the students removed. The police asked them to go, they said no - got maced. Think of your own house - you get accused of something and people don't like you and decide to protest on your lawn. Don't you have the right to have them removed?

I don't agree with this protest and I think the folks doing it are losers, I'll admit to that. But hey, if you believe in something and want to protest, this is America do it. But don't do it with a wimpy attitude. Understand that if you are protesting and breaking the law - or even an order by police - then you suffer the consequences. Take your pepper spray like a man/strong woman.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The property belonged to the University, and they wanted the students removed.

Tigermothll, UC, Davis is a public university receiving federal fundings. That's the heart of matter.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Since this is a public property, thus 14th Amend may be applicable, Tiger. It is not that simple as you think.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tigermothll, UC, Davis is a public university receiving federal fundings. That's the heart of matter.

So what, there's a public park down the street from me - but I still can't do whatever I please in it. Technically even if it's a public university, the land still belongs to the university and they have say of what is done on the property. 'Public' in this instance means that anyone can go there (if you have the dosh and the grades) without exclusivity, not that everyone owns it. You can't go take a brick out of the student union because it's 'public'.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This wasn't a "peaceful protest". This was a disruption of university space.

I am not sure if this just a complete logic fail, as the two are not mutually exclusive, or just a misunderstanding of which use of the word "peace" applies here.

They were sitting there unarmed, i.e. not attacking anyone, i.e not about to attack anyone, i.e. not a threat, i.e. PEACEFUL.

Whichever error it was, it is frustrating trying to debate with someone who can't get such a basic thing straight.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tigermill, Bill of Right may be applicable through Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No matter what these protesters do, it seems like they are becoming the most feared thing in the U.S. It's like they're becoming the new weapons of mass destruction. These police officiers, who are you serving? Police officers are being used. They're getting paid with our tax money to put down your own people. Why are you doing this to your own people? Chancellor of UC Davis is being pro-police. They perceive that it’s their job to crush what they consider threats to the status quo. Chancellor support for this amount of police brutality at Davis is ridiculous. The future power struggles are not just going to be about fights between one race and another. They’re mostly going to be about class, which is a big part about what the whole Occupy movement is about.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As with most incidents like this I think libertarians (can't speak for all em...) regard the various actors involved in this unfortunate event as citizens who long ago surrendered their liberty, or their common sense, or both.

I disagree. Genuine Americans, above all, know that there is such a thing as legitimate protest and a lawful, peaceful manner for engaging in it. No real American or lover of liberty would ever say that a fellow citizen who engaged in peaceful and lawful protest had "surrendered" their liberty, however, a loyal subject of King George certainly would.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No matter what these protesters do, it seems like they are becoming the most feared thing in the U.S. It's like they're becoming the new weapons of mass destruction. These police officiers, who are you serving?

Feared? I should think ridiculed would be a better synopsis. The American people aren't fearful of these protestors, but rather tired of them. Even a good many of my liberal friends who initially thought it could be a good thing have begun to think it tiresome. Only kids, loons and professional protestors can afford to ditch life and live in tented camps for weeks on end without any other responsibilities, and this is starting to really show the 'movement' for what it is.

I don't think anyone denies the right to protest. This right is as American as 'apple pie' if you will (I like pecan myself, but no matter). But there are laws and limits, which these protestors tend to ignore which causes incidents. As it is, liberties have already been taken, and granted by police and officials without enforcing the law to the letter. But eventually it gets old. What I mean by that is if you're marching up and down in front of city hall with signs, in my eyes that's a rightful protest. But setting up tent cities in public parks and city property, making a bloody mess and disrupting normal lives of those who believe it or not have to work for a living then becomes an issue. If you are asked by law enforcement to move, cease desist or however it's worded, you make the conscious choice of whether or not to comply, and must realize that for every inaction when disobeying said law enforcement, there will be a reaction.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that seem to be floating around.

Just because a cop tells you to do something and you don't do it, that doesn't give the cop the right to arrest you. They can try to get you on disorderly conduct but a cop can't arrest you for saying, "NO."

They have to have probable cause. Was there probable cause in this case? I would argue no. The students sat on the sidewalk but if you look at the video, there was plenty of space on either side of the sidewalk for people to pass. They weren't a fire nor safety hazard, eliminating that excuse.

Did they assault the officers? No, they linked arms and made the officers jobs more difficult. Absolutely not against the law.

The keystones had zero rights in this and acted in a manner that is outside their standard operating procedure. I'd say that Lt. John Pike is probably going to be looking for a new job very soon.

The only reason I hope he finds one is that I don't want a dime of my money going to support that loser.

Taka

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

TigermothIINov. 23, 2011 - 05:23AM JST. But setting up tent cities in public parks and city property, making a bloody mess and disrupting normal lives of those who believe it or not have to work for a living then becomes an issue. If you are asked by law enforcement to move, cease desist or however it's worded, you make the conscious choice of whether or not to comply, and must realize that for every inaction when disobeying said law enforcement, there will be a reaction.

You live in a dream. You do realize the problem you will have in terms of logistics right? Moving thousands people around in cities like Oakland and other major cities isn't only hard, it's basically impossible. Not only that, Oakland has already spent over $1.5 million of city money to enforce and tear down protesters. When the protesters get bigger, the police will fracture and you will have violence erupt between the protesters and police. This Everything looks manageable now because the protesters still have patience, but in a short time, it's possible that people will start getting angrier when they realize it's not changing at all. I don't demonize the cops. Of course they're incomes are no better than any other working people. City officials and police has to have more patience and better strategy to deal with this problem or else it is possible to erupt into major violence.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Would you feel the same way if this was a Tea Party protest?

You make my point so I dont have to, thank you! NOTHING like this happened at a Tea Party. They all, I REPEAT ALL, followed the law in a peaceful manner. I saw no public fornication, drug use, murder, violence, complete lawless riots, assault of police officers...................................................... And yet this is the Party that is NOT in power. Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmmmmm!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sorry, man, if you are looking for a life where no one ever disagrees with you, you may want to go offline and become a luddite.

Taka, you claim to be a Vet (and I will take your word) so this should make sence. Laws are made to protect the common body as a whole. Each individual has rights but it is the "Common Body" as a whole that must be protected. You took an oath to uphold and protect the laws of the land as does EVERY law enforcement officer. If laws are broken the offenders must be brought to justice lest the society crumble. Disagreement is a simple fact of life, lawlessness SHALL NOT be allowed.

I will re-state

Had these "peaceful" protestors followed the law and filed for and received a permit to peacufully protest none of this would have happened.

Lets put the blame SQUARELY where it belongs, on the law breakers!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The American people aren't fearful of these protestors, but rather tired of them.

When you gain the humility to stop thinking that you speak for the American people, you might just begin to see.

Yes, the protestors broke the rules. But the campus cops broke more serious rules. Having a hard head is not going to change that, so just accept it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

TheQuestion, okimike67, RomeoR are nothing but brainwashed government pawns

And which government are we talking about? Oh thats right, NOT the one in POWER which is the one that has increased our debt to never before reached levels (even by adding ALL previous debt TOGETHER), teh one that wnats to take MY hard earned money and give it to non-working grubby pawed "occupy" protesters.

If that is the case then I wear the "opposition" badge proudly!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Since this is a public property, thus 14th Amend may be applicable, Tiger. It is not that simple as you think.

OH BUT IT IS!!!! As public that means it is owned by all and as such these lawbreakers were depriving everyone else of their right to pass on the established thouroughfare which, by itself, is a therefore against the law. Throw in the fact that they were assembling without permit (something meant to maintain order and not stifle free speach), again against the law. Oh, refusing the orders of the police that are empowered by the people to enforce the laws of the people.

Remember, with rights (Civil) come responsibilities! Please dont try to claim one without the other!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Taka313

They have to have probable cause. Was there probable cause in this case? I would argue no. The students sat on the sidewalk but if you look at the video, there was plenty of space on either side of the sidewalk for people to pass. They weren't a fire nor safety hazard, eliminating that excuse.

Sorry but what a poor excuse. The students where on told to move from where they were they refused. They linked arms and made it difficult for the police to remove them after they refused to move. It doesnt matter if there was room to move past them. Your argument is so flawed its hardly even worth discussing.

Did they assault the officers? No, they linked arms and made the officers jobs more difficult. Absolutely not against the law.

Your right they didnt assault the officers but they did ignore an order to move. Maybe you should try it, go and set up a picket someplace in public and when the police tell you to move and stop obstructing the public and being a nuisance refuse to follow their directions and see what happens to you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bookbag: They were sitting there unarmed, i.e. not attacking anyone, i.e not about to attack anyone, i.e. not a threat, i.e. PEACEFUL.

Lets see how peaceful you think it is when me and my mates come over to your property and "peacefully BLOCK" your driveway, front door, access to youir car, access to ..............

GET A GRIP ALL OF YOU!!! They were breaking the law, why do you defend??? The police did not break the law, they protected it. If the law has no regard then society has crumbled, is this where we are at (or going)?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Taka: The keystones had zero rights in this and acted in a manner that is outside their standard operating procedure. I'd say that Lt. John Pike is probably going to be looking for a new job very soon.

Ahhhmmm, there is a little thing called a permit which is required to stage a protest (recall when the Tea Party filed for one to have their "protest" in DC? Oh how convienint the LIB mind!!!!) Without one they were breaking the law. As such they were ordered out by the Administration. The cops were doing their JOB, something that most of these losers dont have.

And unfortunately you are right, he probably will lose his job as the sacrifical lamb. How do you think his co-workers will feel about that one? maybe the Police should protest!!! These Occupy sites are being staged to incite violence and lawlessness and when the police interact the police are made to be the offenders.

Sure hope you dont need a cop to help stop a crime against you! He might just stop long enough before reacting to think if he might get into personal trouble if he does his job that the CRIMINAL is able to accomplish his job (burglury, rape, murder).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Global: equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction

As well as equal enforcement of the law! They were in contempt of the law, dont you get it? The cops HAD to react.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tiger: Feared? I should think ridiculed would be a better synopsis.

I applaud you for your post. I was getting so mad I was going to rip my computer off my desk and throw it! And then I read your post... I TRUELY pray that more people get it, before it gets anymore out of control.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Taka: Just because a cop tells you to do something and you don't do it, that doesn't give the cop the right to arrest you. They can try to get you on disorderly conduct but a cop can't arrest you for saying, "NO."

Again the LAW is against you. Its called "Failure to Comply" (FTC) and applies to all officers of the peace; Police, Fire, Medical.... At a minimum it is a Class A Misedeanor. These laws are here to protect the public, we simply cant have every Tom, Dick adn Harry doing whatever they want. We put people in positions to ENFORE our (yes the collective OUR) laws that are there to protect us ALL!

They have to have probable cause.

WHAT? The police were acting on orders and in compliance with the law. Oh, and impeeding the flow of traffic, vehicle or pedestrian, isa against the law. That is one of the main "violations" with the occupy protests and why the invaded the private (property) park in NY. Convienient memory again?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Its called "Failure to Comply" (FTC)

Not sure if this applies to campus police. But assaulting peaceful defenseless people with pepper spray is still the greater offense. Just accept it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

bookbag, the Bill of Right (Amends 1-10) may be applicable through Its Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amend that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. You may want to examine all Amends here including probable cause, threat to society, right to freedom of speech and etc. It is not simple as we think. We should make sure that we will not repeat the Kent University Killing case of the 60 again.That's something I am worrying about with these protesters.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

taka 313

The keystones had zero rights in this and acted in a manner that is outside their standard operating procedure. I'd say that Lt. John Pike is probably going to be looking for a new job very soon.

Good post. I agree with almost everything in it, except your prediction about the guy's job. The AP elides certain facts here, fooling its readers (and JT's editors) on the matter. Pike is an employee of the state university system, undoubtedly a union member and quite likely a staunch supporter not of Cal Repubs but of the Dems in that state.

Several protesters, who were demonstrating against tuition hikes and were part of a group that had erected more than a dozen tents on campus, were sprayed directly in the face.

Dems included sweeping, shocking changes to student financing in their unconstitutional imposition of ObamaCare on us.Why was consideration of your kid's loan in a health care bill? Because that is one way they intend to finance their takeover of health care. Basically kids leave school tens of thousands in debt, having helped finance the health care of complete strangers, some not even legal residents.

The gov nationalizes the student loan racket - ala F Mae and F Mac - and has created yet another bubble.Simple as that. The universities raise tuition because they know they can. Gubmint, or the taxpayer, will bail them out. "Higher" ed, the cost of going to college, has outpaced that every other sector in our economy, including health care.It rises faster than the rate of inflation.

If this cop does get fired my guess is he can easily find work with an even more frightening creation:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/08/dept-of-education-swat-team-up

2 ( +2 / -0 )

yabits , you twist my words

No real American or lover of liberty would ever say that a fellow citizen who engaged in peaceful and lawful protest had "surrendered" their liberty, however, a loyal subject of King George certainly would.

Read the original:

I think libertarians (can't speak for all em...) regard the various actors involved in this unfortunate event as citizens who long ago surrendered their liberty, or their common sense, or both.

IOW - in this case the people involved in the protest and crackdown willingly traded their liberty for bondage to the state. 'People' here means the state university students and the cop. He is a state employee and almost certainly a dues-paying member of the CSUEU.

Maybe the trade was done from choice, maybe from ignorance or from wishful thinking that the bargain was struck in their favor, but it was a choice and an unfortunate one. I believe the cop to be in the wrong here but in the end his employer, the state, will see to it that he does not pay. It will be the California taxpayer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am wondering whats going on. I was on a record setting roll, well into double digits to the negative and now all my posts (the ones not deleted ;)) are 0's. Either JT is making our virtual world more harmonious or there are more sane people in our world that I suspected.

I will hold to the latter, for all of our sakes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lets see how peaceful you think it is when me and my mates come over to your property and "peacefully BLOCK" your driveway, front door, access to youir car, access to ..............

You have gone quite off the deep end. You have turned the blocking of a sidewalk on the quad into a total blockade. You might as well have equated a cap gun to a cannon, or a child's gunpowder snap to a bunker buster bomb.

Further, my house cannot be compared to university. I am not used to having hoardes of people on my lawn. And if I were, and some chose to block my rock path to the door, it would not be such a big deal. I would go around.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bookbag: Not sure if this applies to campus police.

It most definately does, especially in this case where they are actually State employees. The law is clear that failure to comply, even with fire and medical, is a violation of the law.

Just accept it.

I wont, they were breaking the law and not the police!!! Simple fact that is undisputable but I know that the fanatics WILL wring all they can out of this in the name of "free speech".

A sad day for the rights of those of us that actually obey the law!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bookbag: You have gone quite off the deep end.

I "peacefully" disagree!!!! They were breaking the law in the manner of the protest. They were breaking the law when they refused to disperse (they were asked repeatedly). At least TWO clear violations. It is liek being pregnant; either you are or your not. They were. Try to split the hair any way you like but it still s a clear violation.

And WHY should all of the other students have to be bothered with these law breakers anyway? What about their rights?

And as for hoards; THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THERE ARE RULES AND LAWS CONCERNING THINGS LIKE THIS.

It is you that should come back to the shallows!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

These protesters were ordered by the authorities to disperse and they refused. If they didn't want to be treated like animals, they shouldn't have acted act like animals.

RR

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

These protesters were ordered by the authorities to disperse and they refused. If they didn't want to be treated like animals, they shouldn't have acted act like animals.

Only, they didn't act like animals, did they? They acted like civil rights protestors. The performed civil disobedience - that is, they broke the law, but they did so entirely peacefully. The police were in the right in removing and arresting them. They were in the wrong with grossly negligent manner in which they did so.

Why do so many here seem to live in 10th century England, as if breaking a law suddenly places you outside the protection of the law? Resisting police, in their minds, instandtly negates all civil protections and allows, neigh, requires police to respond with brutality, apparently. That is what dirty hippies diserve, of course.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THERE ARE RULES AND LAWS CONCERNING THINGS LIKE THIS.

Indeed. And their are rules and laws concerning police behavior as well. Rules and laws which need to be constantly re-evaluated to make sure that they are just. What took place on UC Davis campus was not just (and I highly doubt it would even pass the low bar set by police operating procedure - but even if it did that is irrelevant.) Most critically, there are rules and laws protecting the citizenry of the United States - rules which are not negated by civil disobedience. The infractions of the police are orders of magnitude worse those of the protestors, but yet you ignore or even celebrate them.

UC Davis is public property, and the protesters are excersing their first ammendment rights guaranteed to them by the constitution. The gross authoritarianism, the total disregard for liberty here is disgusting.

Where are your priorities?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So if someone does not comply, what would you suggest they do?

TigermothII, sorry for the slow reply!

This is a very difficult question. Obviously, if one continues to refuse to comply with police, police will eventually have to force compliance, whether it be through unarmed force, baton, pepper spray, taser, less-lethal munitions, or lethal force. I'm reminded of one of those youtube taser videos where a cop tasers a fat lady for refusing to get out of her car (and stop talking on her cell phone) during a traffic stop. On one hand, it seems a brutal thing to do. The woman is not violent or threatening, just disrespectful and noncomplient. On the other hand, what else can the officer (who is alone) do if she refuses to respond to commands.

Context is key here, and officers need to be able to take this into account (or they shouldn't be officers - its a job with serious responsibilities).

Pepper spray, we can agree, is better than batons (such as were used on other UC campuses). But pepper spray point blank to the face, in the manner which it was used at Davis was not. Likewise, tasering the non-compliant may (depending on the situation) be appropriate, but tasering an individual 4 or 5 times in a row, with little to no chance given for recovery starts to look like sadism. Likewise, shooting an Iraq War vet in the face with a teargas canister at close range isn't good riot control.

So, when is pepper spray or taser appropriate? In my opinion, when ever there is active physical resistance. If someone becomes threatening, then tase away, as far as I'm concerned. Also, when unarmed force (physically grabbing and handcuffing people, for example) isn't feasible or poses to much risk to the officer. The fat lady from the previous example - while she isn't at all threatening, she out ways the office, is securely in her car (who knows what is in the glove compartment), and he has no back up.

Now, physical contact has it's risks, to both the officer and the target, and can often be more dangerous than spray or tasers. But it isn't always so. Tasers and other less-lethal weapons are more and more becoming the perfered method of dealing with the public, to be used at the slightest hint of noncompliance and with a dangerously cavalier attitude engendered by the perception that they are "non-lethal." Lt. Pike's point-blank assault on the UC Davis protesters tipifies this. As does the kneejerk reaction of the department, justify spray uses on the grounds of "the officers felt threatened" and "the suspects were forcibly resisting arrest." Never mind that the video of the incident show no such thing. It is standard police procedure now: anyone who was tased is automatically labeled as "threatening" and "resising arrest", in the same way any divers who are arrested are automatically "smelling of alchohol' (even if they haven't been anywhere near it), any car searched is "smelling of marijuana", and SWAT teams automatically shoot the family dogs as a matter of course, because they are always "threatening."

Take a look at the video of the pepper spray incident if you haven't already done so. The students are clearly resisiting arrest - a fundamental part of the civil disobedience strategy - but they are doing so entirely passively. Little attempt is made top hysically arrest them before the pepper spray comes out, and then the spray is used in a horrifyingly irresponsible manner. Now, factor in the context. These are students, individuals who have payed (or their families) to be at UC Davis, which is public property. They have every right to be there. And they are not merely being disruptive or disorderly, but are excersing their 1st Ammendment rights, which are guaranteed to them by the constitution and are fundamental to the essance of democracy. In this context, where was the imminent necessity to remove them? Obviously, at some point, protest such as these hinder the running of the university and the right for other students to get their educations, but where is that immediacy here? They aren't blocking transit on a public road or even occupying an admisnistative building. They are blocking a sidewalk, and can easily be walked around. Yet posters here would have you believe that they need to be immediately removed - from public property, where they have payed to be - because "the chancellor said so."

Really? Is that what it comes to? Defy authority and get maced? Break the rules and civil protections, rights Americans have fought and died for, no longer apply to you? Have we lost all sense of proportion, of justice?

I can readily understand the desire to maximize the safety of police officers. Normally, I am highly skeptical of "proportional force" as applied to self-defence. I don't believe you have a right to force people to take riskes that could end their life. However, the police are a special case. They take on a huge amount of responsibility when they choose to accept their positions, and are given an correspondingly huge amounts of power over their fellow citizens. They must be held to the highest standard. And while we should do what is in our power to protect police officers in the performance of their (hazardous and potentially lethal) duties, this protection cannot come at the cost of citzens lives. A police officer's life is not worth more than anyone else's, regardless of your personal opinions of the parties involved. Lt. Pike's actions at UC Davis could have easily resulted in one or more student deaths, and absolutely not be justified in any way by the circumstances.

I respect authority, and I value our police force, but it is imperitive that we do not give them a blank check.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

okimike67Nov. 23, 2011 - 06:19PM JST. I "peacefully" disagree!!!! They were breaking the law in the manner of the protest. They were breaking the law when they refused to disperse (they were asked repeatedly). At least TWO clear violations. It is liek being pregnant; either you are or your not. They were. Try to split the hair any way you like but it still s a clear violation.

Here is the problem. It's clear that these protesters were violated first amendment rights. This is not China or Tibet. Victims in the Lt Pike UC Davis Pepper Spray scandal will file a lawsuit. Multiple victims are set to file a massive civil liberties lawsuit. The lawsuit is imminent and these Injured protesters met with civil rights attorneys, have reportedly retained counsel, and are seeking to pursue two possible defendants. Protesters are engaging with civil rights attorneys to pursue legal action against the University and City of Davis for excessive force and for violating their civil and constitutional rights. The defense cost will be enormous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IMHO, US will not become a police state like China as long as many intellectuals are questioning a power of authority here in US. The check and balance in democracy is still in place in US as we can still openly agree/disagree in global website like JT.. Thank god!

Tiananmen Square

The protests of 1989 resulted in the massacre of Chinese protesters in the streets to the west of the square and adjacent areas. There are reports where soldiers opened fire on protesters, killing 400–800, and perhaps many more

0 ( +1 / -1 )

globalwatcher Nov. 24, 2011 - 05:32AM JST. The protests of 1989 resulted in the massacre of Chinese protesters in the streets to the west of the square and adjacent areas. There are reports where soldiers opened fire on protesters, US will not become a police state like China .

U.S. has done same thing too. In 1970, Kent State shooting massacre at Kent State University in Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not sure I understand all the concerns over this UC Davis event. The students were protesting the universities tuition increases. The Chancellor or the chancellors office directed the campus police (an actual police force with radios, guns and the authority to arrest people - not rent-a-cops or security guards) to remove the tents that had been set up and remove the protestors blocking the sidewalks. The police asked the seated demonstrators to leave but they refused. The police attempted to pull the protestors apart but couldn't without apply more physical force. The police then notified the protestors that they would be pepper sprayed if they didn't leave. The protestors acknowledged that fact and stayed put. The police then used one of their "compliance tools" to force lawbreakers to comply - they pepper sprayed them. Game - set - match.

Students then protested UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi for calling out the police.

The UC Davis police chief and two officers were suspended for doing their jobs in an attempt to save the chancellor's job.

The use of pepper spray is NOT illegal under these conditions. If the pepper spray had not worked, the police could then have used pressure points and maybe batons to force compliance.

This isn't a 1st Amendment issue. The protestors were free to spout off about anything as long as they didn't block the path on private property (and the "public university" is still the property owner not the general public). Blocking the path was illegal and UC Davis called the police to deal with that problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaulNov. 24, 2011 - 08:01AM JST. The use of pepper spray is NOT illegal under these conditions. This isn't a 1st Amendment issue. The protestors were free to spout off about anything as long as they didn't block the path on private property (and the "public university" is still the property owner not the general public). Blocking the path was illegal and UC Davis called the police to deal with that problem.

That is your intrepreation. It's not illegal, but regardless of right or wrong, Police and University Chansellor shouldv'e think through the consequences. There are many legal problems now with the top lawyers taking over the assumed violation in civil rights. If you represent the City or University, would you want will your defense attorney present the case as you would? It wouldn't fly. The cost for the City and University will be enormous and might be in the millions for them to defend themselves. They were dumb.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SFJP: It's clear that these protesters were violated first amendment rights

This is absolutely not the case! Just because they were "protesting", claiming free speech rights. This right is not an all encompassing ticket to say/do whatever you wnat. There are boundries (called permits) that an individual or group can apply for. Even then it is not absolute that you will get what you want, i.e. time, place, alloed number of people..., but what it does do is establish the permissible paramaters to protect the protestors rights, the general public (who also have rights) and the safety of both. Quite civilized dont you agree? Its when individuals or groups act outside the established civil parameters that problems erupt.

SFJP:The lawsuit is imminent and these Injured protesters met with civil rights attorneys

And that does not mean JACK CRAP! That is one of the MAIN problems with the American society. You can sue anybody for anything, right or wrong, and still have a shot at winning. Most likely there will be a settlement (probably significant amounts of TAX MONEY paid out) to these criminals because of the high cost of litigation. Thats why these guys do this, dont you get it??? Unless the laws protect the law abiding citizen tax payers and prohibit massive cash payouts for this kind of crap we are doomed to see this happen time and again. They got pepper spray (in the eyes, some of them), big whooppie! A couple of hours latter they were fine! Anybodys eyes melt out of their head? Anybody DEAD? Any arms or legs broken? NO. Feelings hurt? YES! Feelings, thats what we are now protecting with these settlements!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

U.S. has done same thing too. In 1970, Kent State shooting massacre at Kent State University in Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

But lets not mix apples and oranges. Nobody was shot, killed or paralyzed were they. Infact, no one was even hurt permanently. Pepperspray has a lasting effect measured in minutes to hours (depending on the person). PERIOD!

Do not try to draw lines connecting this to China or Kent, simply not logical!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

okimike67Nov. 24, 2011 - 08:18AM JST. And that does not mean JACK CRAP! That is one of the MAIN problems with the American society.

Well you tell the City and University at taking millions out of city and university bank account do not mean jack crap.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere: but it is imperitive that we do not give them a blank check.

First, I have to say that you present the most dispationate case and should be commended. I like your logical methods applied thogh dont agree with them all.

Where I feel the strongest is that the statement you made above WILL be applied to these protesters and others like them (Occupy). They will exercise every tactic to instigate a confrontation. When it happens, and more will, then they and the media will stir it to a creamy froth and spread dollops around.

Throw the cash gained from the ensuing lawsuits and you now have created a nice business model. In fact so good I am thinking of getting some investors, wait... George Soros, Move On... already are funding this! Oh well, so much for a good idea.

I am all for peaceful LEGAL protests. Even the most VILE of protestors (take for instance those wacky chuch people form Texas? protesting at the military funerals for example) have the constitutionally protected right to LEGALLY protest. But there are bounds, and for good reason. Just follow them and we are all good!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

okimike67Nov. 24, 2011 - 08:21AM JST. Do not try to draw lines connecting this to China or Kent, simply not logical!

My point is that killings of students happened in Kent state as opposed to Tiananmen Square.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

okimike67Nov. 24, 2011 - 08:21AM JST. Infact, no one was even hurt permanently. Pepperspray has a lasting effect measured in minutes to hours (depending on the person). PERIOD!

You tell this to lawyers that are defending the case and they will laugh at you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

public university" is still the property owner not the general public).

arrestpaul, you still do not get the 14th amend. Please go back and read what I posted here very carefully. Thanks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

globalwatcher - IMHO, US will not become a police state like China as long as many intellectuals are questioning a power of authority here in US. The check and balance in democracy is still in place in US as we can still openly agree/disagree in global website like JT.. Thank god!

How does a global website located in Japan assure checks and balances in the U.S.A.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher - you still do not get the 14th amend. Please go back and read what I posted here very carefully. Thanks.

You'll have to tell me specifically how you think the 14th Amendment applies to this particular case of students protesting tuition increases or police officers enforcing the law against lawbreakers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, cu, davis is a public university receiving federal fundings. Please keep it mind this is not a private college.All public schools have to follow certain guidelines.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330 - That is your intrepreation. It's not illegal, but regardless of right or wrong, Police and University Chansellor shouldv'e think through the consequences. There are many legal problems now with the top lawyers taking over the assumed violation in civil rights. If you represent the City or University, would you want will your defense attorney present the case as you would? It wouldn't fly. The cost for the City and University will be enormous and might be in the millions for them to defend themselves. They were dumb.

"It's NOT illegal, but regardless of right or wrong"....... If it's NOT illegal, then what would the basis for the protestors to bring legal action?

Defense Attorney - "Your honor, these police officers were performing their duties in accordance with the legal and properly establish policies of the UC Davis police department. Those policies are within the laws, statues, and regulations of the State of California. We therefore request a summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds."

Judge - "Request granted".

In other words, in the U.S., police officers who were performing their duties are immune from prosecution for doing their job UNLESS you can produce evidence that suggests that they weren't. Unless you know something that wasn't on the videos.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We therefore request a summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Judge - "Request granted".

All the judge said is to review the request. FYI

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okimike67:

First, I have to say that you present the most dispationate case and should be commended. I like your logical methods applied thogh dont agree with them all.

Thank you. Remaining civil is the key to a good debate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

globalwatcher - cu, davis is a public university receiving federal fundings. Please keep it mind this is not a private college.All public schools have to follow certain guidelines.

What I said was, ".......as long as they (the protestors) didn't block the path on PRIVATE PROPERTY (and the "public university" (aka UC Davis) is still the PROPERTY OWNER not the general public)."

I'm not talking about the general rules and regulations pertaining to a "private college". UC Davis is owned by UC Davis. It accepts federal and state funds but It is not a federal enclave or state park. It's not on federal or state owned land.

UC Davis even has it's own law enforcement department to enforce the laws of the State of California which is what these police officers were doing because of a complaint by the property owner (UC Davis).

The 14th Amendment is available online. What you haven't made clear is how you think the 14th applies to this particular incident? The protestors were violating the laws of California and an officially recognized Californian police force was enforcing those laws.

The officers and Chief work for the UC Davis police department which is a department of UC Davis "the university". If the UC Davis chancellor wants the officers and Chief suspended, they will be suspended. The chancellor could even fire the Chief but I think the officers belong to a union which would make their firing much more difficult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

UC Davis is owned by UC Davis.

UC Davis is owned by taxpayers.

how you think the 14th applies to this particular incident?

the Bill of Right (Amends 1-10) may be applicable through Its Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amend that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

Please read Triumvere post. He has a good point.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The students knew what they were getting into. Let them have their sacrifices for their cause.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

globalwatcher - UC Davis is owned by taxpayers.

You are correct. The California legislature established the "University Farm School" at Davis in 1905 which became the UC Davis in 1959.

the Bill of Right (Amends 1-10) may be applicable through Its Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amend that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

The 14th incorporated most of the BOR to the States. (The application of the 2nd was left up to the individual States until McDonald v. Chicago.) Excessive force cases or police brutality cases are usually 4th Amendment violations.

Police officers have been granted a certain amout of immunity by the legislature due to the nature of their jobs. It's illegal to drive 100 in a 60 zone but police officers in hot pursuit are allowed to break that law. The person they're chasing is not and will be arrested and charged if caught.

Resisting arrest means trying to avoid arrest. Physically attacking the police is one way to avoid arrest. Clutching onto other demonstrators to avoid being seperated from the group and arrested is another. The UC Davis police are shown (depending on the version of the incident that you've seen) trying to seperate a protestor from the group but were unable to. The protestors were warned that pepper spray would be next. If the pepper spray didn't work, police could have used pressure points (arm twisting, kneeling on perp's leg or back muscles, etc) or batons to insure compliance.

Were the protestors breaking the law? Yes they were.

Were the protestors arrested for "peacefully demonstrating"? No, "peacefully demonstrating" is not illegal. Disobeying a "lawful order" and "resisting arrest" however, is illegal.

Did the chancellor have the authority to order the UCD police to clear the area of tents and protestors? Yes she did.

Did the UCD police use legally recognised, standard police proceedures to clear the area? Yes they did.

Did the UCD police use illegal or excessive methods of compliance to clear the area? It doesn't appear that they did.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The UC, University of California system of universities in our lovely Golden State, as we call California, has a LONG, LONG history of ABUSE by the police against our students, this is NOTHING! When I was back at UCSB, Santa Barbara, every week the cops would taunt students who were just having normal fun on weekends, meaning being drunk etc.. Here we see OUTRIGHT ABUSE of POWER by these Nazi pigs in police uniforms. I do hope the parents of these kids have GOOD LAWYERS! That the suit the hell out of these abusive low down criminals with badges. IMHO

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Did the chancellor have the authority to order the UCD police to clear the area of tents and protestors? Yes she did.

No. Katehi's contention is that she authorized the police to clear the area of tents only -- NOT protesters. The police apparently took it on themselves to extend the order to include protesters.

Since the chancellor of the university did not specifically order the protesters removed, the police had no legal authority to act on their own as long as the protesters were not breaking any laws. Any order given to them by the police to disburse would have been arbitrary and unauthorized -- therefore an unlawful abuse of authority.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

yabits - No. Katehi's contention is that she authorized the police to clear the area of tents only -- NOT protesters. The police apparently took it on themselves to extend the order to include protesters.

Then Katehi DID have the authority to order UCD police to clear the area of tents and protestors.

Katehi says NOW that campus police "defied" her orders when it used force against the protestors.

There are at least two sides to every issue. What is the police version of what happened? Police said they were told by the chancellor to remove the protestors.

Katehi's job appears to be on the line. Would she lie to protect 400K USD per year and free housing? Katehi was previously (2009) in charge of admissions at the University of Illinois before taking the job at UCD. That University was one of several in Illinois that were granting scholarships to politicians and their friends. Katehi says that she wasn't aware of the then common practice of rewarding politicians at the expense of underprivilaged students. After all, why would anyone expect someone who's involved with admissions to know how admissions are being handled?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then Katehi DID have the authority to order UCD police to clear the area of tents and protestors.

No believer in the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment would agree that an administrator of a public institution would have the authority to clear an area of protesters who have assembled peacefully and do not threaten property or other people. Especially if that public institution were devoted to learning and the protesters were students. In the absence of a threat to property or other people, such an order would be unlawful. (There is no such right to erect tents.)

Katehi says NOW that campus police "defied" her orders when it used force against the protestors.

The police are not absolved for carrying out an unlawful order, if the chancellor did issue one -- which I do not believe for an instant she did. Therefore, there are not two sides to this issue. The police are there to protect students -- even (and especially) when they are involved in the active practice of their first amendment rights to assemble and protest a grievance. The simple and correct procedure would have been for the police authority to have asked for the order to clear or otherwise abuse students to be issued in written form. A competent, professional police authority -- who is also American -- would have replied in writing that the order is unlawful and would not be complied with. Absent that, the responsibility for the improper use of force would be entirely on the police.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Numerous posters have defended this pepper-spraying as reasonable in view of the fact that the protesters were blocking the sidewalk, were ordered to move and didn't.

At issue is whether the police response was in reasonable proportion to the problem. Clearly it wasn't. The police were not under any threat whatsoever and did not need to use pepper spray to arrest the protesters. All they had to do was cuff them and move them out. Likely they just saw it as a chance to use one of their toys that usually stays in their toybox.

In the meantime, the police doing a much better job of blocking the walkway than were the students.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think a case can be made that the university has authority to order tents removed but there is more to it than just having that authority. University rules should be enforced uniformly and that does not appear to be the case.

Every fall at UCD, numerous students camp out on the campus in violation of the rules to protect a statue of the school mascot (from vandals from another school) but the university never destroys the camp or pepper-sprays the students. Why not? Rules are rules, right?

The answer is simple. The students protecting the statue are not making a political statement. The Occupy students are making a political statement (protected free speech, by the way) so they are attacked.

See the difference? Breaking the no-camping rule is okay unless you are political. If you are political, you will be attacked with "breaking the rules" as an excuse. They need that excuse to avoid, you know, looking like they are denying free speech which, in fact, is exactly what they are doing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

TigermothII wrote:

Yes, they should have just arrested them rather than giving a does of pepper spray right in the face. But I can understand where it's a frustrating situation for police who are hampered in actions.

My job is frustrating, too, but that doesn't give me the right to pepper-spray my customers.

So if someone does not comply, what would you suggest they do? If they try to arrest them and they fight it, what should they do? The police have no way of knowing how much of a fruitcake some of these folks are.

Well, IF, repeat, IF, then they should use reasonable force. But in this case the use of force was pre-emptive and in unreasonable measure.

See the difference??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I chuckle to read Yabits denounce a supposedly indefensible abuse of power by these cops and work himself into an indignant rage over how these these unionized goons, who are there to protect folks on campus, failed in their duties. Yet, when cops in Wisconsin sided the rabble on campuses there and refrained from deterring and arresting so-called protesters destroying public property and occupying the state capitol rotunda he was probably blathering about how noble they were and how it was proof there could be true solidarity between different social classes blah blah blah.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I chuckle to read Yabits denounce a supposedly indefensible abuse of power by these cops and work himself into an indignant rage

Rage? (It is only par for the course that right-wingers get things so completely wrong.)

so-called protesters destroying public property

Right-wing goons attempt to plant lies that peaceful protesters were destroying property in Wisconsin in an attempt to provide justification for the police to crack heads.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

yabits - No believer in the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment would agree that an administrator of a public institution would have the authority to clear an area of protesters who have assembled peacefully and do not threaten property or other people. Especially if that public institution were devoted to learning and the protesters were students. In the absence of a threat to property or other people, such an order would be unlawful. (There is no such right to erect tents.)

There was no attempt to violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights. In fact, the students are STILL protesting the tuition increases. Their 1st Amendment rights are still intact.

People have a right to whine about anything they feel like whining about but there are restrictions as to "where" they can whine about "stuff". You can whine on your own property or a public street corner but if you whine on someone else's property, they can ask you to leave. If you fail to leave the area, they can call the police and the police will ask you to leave. If you still refuse to leave the area, the police can arrest you. If you resist being arrested, violently or non-violently, you're still resisting arrest. Police departments have several "compliance" techniques and tools that they can use to insure your compliance. Before using OC, the officers tried to pull the protestors apart but couldn't. Using OC was their next choice.

The protestors

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - No believer in the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment would agree that an administrator of a public institution would have the authority to clear an area of protesters who have assembled peacefully and do not threaten property or other people. Especially if that public institution were devoted to learning and the protesters were students. In the absence of a threat to property or other people, such an order would be unlawful. (There is no such right to erect tents.)

There was no attempt to violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights. In fact, the students are STILL protesting the tuition increases. Their 1st Amendment rights are still intact.

People have a right to whine about anything they feel like whining about but there are restrictions as to "where" they can whine about "stuff". You can whine on your own property or a public street corner but if you whine on someone else's property, they can ask you to leave. If you fail to leave the area, they can call the police and the police will ask you to leave. If you still refuse to leave the area, the police can arrest you. If you resist being arrested, violently or non-violently, you're still resisting arrest. Police departments have several "compliance" techniques and tools that they can use to insure your compliance. Before using OC, the officers tried to pull the protestors apart but couldn't. Using OC was their next choice.

The protestors

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did the UCD police use legally recognised, standard police proceedures to clear the area? Yes they did. Did the UCD police use illegal or excessive methods of compliance to clear the area? It doesn't appear that they did.

Now, there you may have a bit of a problem; I don't think that it is "standard police proceedure" to blast people in the face with pepper spray from 2 feet away. And, honestly, even if it was, it would still be excessive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The protestors wanted to create a confrontation and they were successful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moondog - Well, IF, repeat, IF, then they should use reasonable force. But in this case the use of force was pre-emptive and in unreasonable measure.

"Pre-emptive"? Only the protestors who were in violation of the law were arrested. None of the other protestors who were protesting the tuition increases were arrested.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moondog - I think a case can be made that the university has authority to order tents removed but there is more to it than just having that authority. University rules should be enforced uniformly and that does not appear to be the case.

Every fall at UCD, numerous students camp out on the campus in violation of the rules to protect a statue of the school mascot (from vandals from another school) but the university never destroys the camp or pepper-sprays the students. Why not? Rules are rules, right?

Because the chancellor didn't request that those tents be removed?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Right-wing goons attempt to plant lies that peaceful protesters were destroying property in Wisconsin in an attempt to provide justification for the police to crack heads.

Right. Conspiracy, that'll work. Right wingers (in Madison, they're everywhere!) are in league with the unionized cops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere - Now, there you may have a bit of a problem; I don't think that it is "standard police proceedure" to blast people in the face with pepper spray from 2 feet away. And, honestly, even if it was, it would still be excessive.

The voters in California have the option to introduce a prop "whatever" to outlaw the use of pepper spray (OC). The California State legislature has the authority to outlaw the use of OC. The courts of California and the 9th circuit court have addressed the issue of OC use and abuse. The end result is that OC is still one of the tools that police departments train their officers to use when the need arises.

The protestors wouldn't have been arrested if they had simply moved to another area when requested to and they could have continued their protest against the university's tuition increases unhindered.

Maybe UCD shouldn't have hired a Greek national who learned her trade (univerisity administration) in the Chicago-style of pandering to politicians and putting student concerns second.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The unionized UC Irvine cop in question basically sprayed representatives of the wrong demographic . Had he sprayed middle-aged white folks in the Taxed Enough Already movement he would be a hero to the increasingly totalitarian Cultural Left in America, and elsewhere.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What this 'police' person did was NOT work to ensure the peace. He was way over the line with his own sense of vigilante nonsense. He has no place within the world of policing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The voters in California have the option to introduce a prop "whatever" to outlaw the use of pepper spray (OC). The California State legislature has the authority to outlaw the use of OC. The courts of California and the 9th circuit court have addressed the issue of OC use and abuse. The end result is that OC is still one of the tools that police departments train their officers to use when the need arises.

Who wants to outlaw pepper spray?

I just want the cops to use it in an approriate manner:

The BBC Worldservice had an interview with the inventor of pepper spray saying that the compound was used entirely incorrectly at UC Davis, and that the manner of its usage their has the potential for permanent long-term damage. Elsewhere, there was a study of one police department (can't remember which city, at the moment) which showed that introduction of pepper spray led to there being approx. 50% more physical confrontations with the police. After misuse of the spray resulted in the death of an individual, the department tightened its regualtions for the use of pepper spray, and the number of incidents dropped down to normal levels.

This isn't some binary choice between using pepperspray in the manner it was used, or doing nothing at all. Pepper spray and other less-lethal tools are vital to law enforcement, so long as they are used responsibly. Otherwise they are a danger, both to the public and to the officers that use them. (The real key is de-escalation; essentially, officers are making pepperspay and tasers their first recourse in situations where they previously would have tried to de-escalate the situation and minimize potential for harm.)

All I am asking is for pepper spray to be used in a responsible manner.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The unionized UC Irvine cop in question basically sprayed representatives of the wrong demographic . Had he sprayed middle-aged white folks in the Taxed Enough Already movement he would be a hero to the increasingly totalitarian Cultural Left in America, and elsewhere.

This is totally uncalled for. Unless you have evidence to back up this nonsense, please refrain from posting such inflammitory statements.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First they will use pepper spray and later they will use bullets, amny wil justify this and many others will not care. Very sad state of affairs.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Good for UC DAVIS! I am sure their lawyers are also getting ready for any possible LAW SUITS by the students and their families, who are TAX PAYERS.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Triumvere - The BBC Worldservice had an interview with the inventor of pepper spray saying that the compound was used entirely incorrectly at UC Davis......

Pepper spray was invented by Frank Hayes and James H. Jenkins in 1960. Both men have been deceased for many years and, I assume, are still unavailable for interviews.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pepper spray was invented by Frank Hayes and James H. Jenkins in 1960. Both men have been deceased for many years and, I assume, are still unavailable for interviews.

Huh. Guess I'll have to do a little research, then. Back in a sec...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ok, so turns out the guy in question (Cameron Lachman??) worked with the FBI in the 80's to develop version of pepper spray currently in use by law enforcement - as far as I can gather from the brief interview.

Sorry for the mischaracterization. The point still stands, however, as the gentleman is clearly an expert on modern pepper sprays.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He was way over the line with his own sense of vigilante nonsense. He has no place within the world of policing.

He is a dues-paying member of his union and likely a staunch supporter of the ruling party in California.Democrats will ensure he is not punished too harshly.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unfortunately the attacks by police on people that do not pose a threat are increasing. The incidents of taser, outright assault and pepper spray of elderly, people in wheel chairs, people simply trying to avoid problems, people not kow towing to intimidation with no beligerence etc. Is increasingly common in american cities. Small and medium towns are not as bad, but for the most part large cities have a problem. It is not hard to find multiple stories of this each day online in a variety of news sources. Taken as a whole this is a bad trend that will lead to a bad outcome. Hard to tell at this time if it is because of a more violent society or if the oppression factor is creating the problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He is a dues-paying member of his union and likely a staunch supporter of the ruling party in California.Democrats will ensure he is not punished too harshly.

You, of course, can back all of this up, right?

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T! What is it with you and the truth? Why do you have a thing about not telling it? I'm calling you out. Prove any of your assertion. ANY of it. Would it be fair for me to assert that you are a child molester? I'd sure like to. It would be fun to watch you squirm and jump to defend your "honor." Why shouldn't I? Apparently proof isn't of any matter, just a desire to make an accusation is good enough.

Fortunately for you, I hold myself to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

Taka

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Taka313 - Fortunately for you, I hold myself to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

OF COURSE YOU CAN'T! What is it with you and the truth? Why do you have a thing about not telling it? I'm calling you out. Prove any of your assertion. ANY of it. Would it be fair for me to assert that you are a child molester? I'd sure like to. It would be fun to watch you squirm and jump to defend your "honor." Why shouldn't I? Apparently proof isn't of any matter, just a desire to make an accusation is good enough.

Hahahaha. You're actually tossing out vague innuendo and then claiming you don't do that sort of thing. That's funny.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Heheh, Lt. "Pepper spray" Pike has become an internet meme. Immortality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

lostrune2 - Heheh, Lt. "Pepper spray" Pike has become an internet meme. Immortality.

Isn't an "internet meme" nothing more than a distortion of reality? The creation of something that isn't true and has never been true? Lies that are accepted as reality by people who can't tell the difference anymore (if they ever could)?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Heheh, Lt. "Pepper spray" Pike has become an internet meme.

Actually, I prefer the Megyn Kelly "...it's a condiment, essentially" meme.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lostrune2 - Heheh, Lt. "Pepper spray" Pike has become an internet meme. Immortality.

Isn't an "internet meme" nothing more than a distortion of reality? The creation of something that isn't true and has never been true? Lies that are accepted as reality by people who can't tell the difference anymore (if they ever could)?

You're putting too much on the word. Any meme is just something widely imitated, from the Ancient Greek mimeisthai: to imitate. What happens to it in the process............ could be anything. Some truths; some could hardly be recognized from the origin. Anything.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Isn't an "internet meme" nothing more than a distortion of reality? The creation of something that isn't true and has never been true? Lies that are accepted as reality by people who can't tell the difference anymore (if they ever could)?

That's a bizarre and whole incorrect definition of "meme." Like lostrune2 says, a "meme" is merely something that gets repeated over and over.

I take back what I said earlier:

That picture with Lt. Pike pepper spraying the constitution was absolutely priceless.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Did the UCD police use legally recognised, standard police proceedures to clear the area? Yes they did.

Not according to my dad, he is a FBI acadamy graduate; 7 year county Sheriff; 12 Chief of Police and 5 year patrol officer. Where did you get your info?

Did the UCD police use illegal or excessive methods of compliance to clear the area? It doesn't appear that they did

. Same answer as before. And I'm looking strongly at your posterior as the location of where you came up with your answers. If you have police SOP, I apologize but the SOP I read on the pepper spray used was that it was not to be used closer than 10 feet away. It was deployed at less than 10 inches away.

Sorry, I don't trust your word. You're going to have to provide a link to something more substantial than you saying, "yes they did" for anyone with an ounce of sense to believe you.

Taka

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is what I don't get. Ate students were protesting, they were asked to leave. They didn't comply, therefore, the order was given for them to be removed. I think the best thing that they could have is use pepper spray, better than putting their hands on them and using physical force. now they are after the police chief.d the principal and the cop that did this? It just baffles me why, especially in California, we got these do nothing hippie culture that thinks they can go anywhere, disrupt anything, being a total anucence to the rest of the school and students that are minding their business and want to study and not be bothered by these nut jobs. Yes, they have the right to protest, but there is a time and place and when the police order you to do something, you comply and if you don't, suffer the consequences, seems clear to me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

but there is a time and place and when the police order you to do something, you comply and if you don't, suffer the consequences, seems clear to me.

Would you be saying this if the police had used lethal force, a la Kent State? I'd be surprised.... Why is student-protestor failure to comply so much more important to you than blatant police over-reaction? Why are you not in the slightest bit concerned over police failure you act responsibly and according to their own guidlines? Which do you imagine poses the greater threat to the fabric of civil society: peaceful civil-disobedience or out-of-control police officers?

but the SOP I read on the pepper spray used was that it was not to be used closer than 10 feet away. It was deployed at less than 10 inches away.

A point worth emphasizing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ate students were protesting, they were asked to leave.

The students know their rights, and the police had no right to order them to leave. The orders that the police were given were to remove the tents, not the students.

we got these do nothing hippie culture that thinks they can go anywhere, disrupt anything, being a total anucence to the rest of the school and students that are minding their business and want to study and not be bothered by these nut jobs.

So you hate Americans in the exercise of legitimate freedom to assemble to protest a grievance. What other freedoms do you hate?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If the students were older our president could hold a beer summit for them at the White House.He could show them that he is down with their cause.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@yabits

I hate stupid protesters ruining the campos athmosphere and them being loud, rude, vile and unorderly. I love freedom of speech, but when you are asked to go, then you should leave, especially when the police tell you to do so! That's what I hate...no despise!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I love freedom of speech, but when you are asked to go, then you should leave, especially when the police tell you to do so!

You mean you claim to love freedom of speech only when it doesn't become inconvenient for the listener. At that point, measures taken by the police to suppress it are acceptable to you. What other freedoms do you hate?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The pepper spray is a tool to preserve peace, not break up peaceful protests. At the core of all this is Pike's body language. This was not a cop who was threatened. He didn't spray in anger, or desperation, but in disdain. And his sheer coolness, the stride, the relaxed angle of his arm reveals the fundamental unfairness of the moment. It's too easy to blame it all on Pike. The responsibility for the Davis incident goes back to the training of the UC Davis cops, who thought pepper spray was meant for a situation like this. It extends up the ladder to Chancellor Katehi. She had directed that Occupy movement be removed. If anything, she didn't play through all the secnarios with the cops. I doubt she can survive this politically, and I'm not sure she should.

By the way, the history of Pike shows an alleged anti-gay slur figured in a racial and sexual discrimation lawsuit a former police officer filed against the department, which ended in a $240,000 settlement in 2008. Pike has a bad history.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Triumvere - That's a bizarre and whole incorrect definition of "meme." Like lostrune2 says, a "meme" is merely something that gets repeated over and over.

What is the definition of lostrune2's phrase "internet meme"? An "internet meme" seems to be a "photoshopped" picture that has little to do with reality (aka "a distortion of reality").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - Not according to my dad, he is a FBI acadamy graduate; 7 year county Sheriff; 12 Chief of Police and 5 year patrol officer.

Same answer as before. And I'm looking strongly at your posterior as the location of where you came up with your answers. If you have police SOP, I apologize but the SOP I read on the pepper spray used was that it was not to be used closer than 10 feet away. It was deployed at less than 10 inches away.

Sorry, I don't trust your word. You're going to have to provide a link to something more substantial than you saying, "yes they did" for anyone with an ounce of sense to believe you.

I would have no idea who your dad is or how believable he may be without a link. As far as your 10 feet and 10 inch distances, I didn't see in the video where protestors were sprayed from 10 inches away. However, I have seen police officers use OC to subdue perps during hands-on struggles which are less than an arms length away and definately closer that 10 feet. I'm glad you're sorry.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yabits - The orders that the police were given were to remove the tents, not the students.

Only according to the chancellor whos job is now on the line. If she can't convince the people she works for, and the public, that the police acted on their own, she'll be looking for another job soon. She may be looking for work anyway.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I wrote:

... in this case the use of force was pre-emptive and in unreasonable measure.

arrestpaul replied:

"Pre-emptive"? Only the protestors who were in violation of the law were arrested. None of the other protestors who were protesting the tuition increases were arrested.

Yes, pre-emptive. A reasonable use of pepper spray is to quell or disperse violent rioters, not people sitting on the ground. Like I said before, the police were likely just taking the opportunity to play with a 'toy' they cannot often use.

The entire event was an example of unreasonable police response. The police didn't need helmets, rifles and pepper spray (which, in the event, exposed them as jack-booted thugs). Three or four officers in regular uniform armed with ball point pens and ticket pads would have been sufficient. Give tickets to the people blocking the sidewalk* and then go back to the police station.

*If tickets for this inanely mild violation of the public order were really necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites