HuffPo: UC Davis Police Pepper-Spray Seated Students In Occupy Dispute (VIDEO) (UPDATES)

[ABQCOWBOY]

People are going to protest. Cops are going to use Pepper Spray. This is the long and short of the entire deal. If you are a protester, you know you are going to challenge the limits. If you are a Cop, you know you are going to try and prevent this behavior.

[Prosperity]

I asked a question a while back, and haven't seen a response.

My question was, if the protesters were completely blocking the sidewalk, then is that a situation in which the government has the authority to un-block that sidewalk? (Using force that's appropriate to the situation)?

I assume from reading posts, here, that the reason nobody's responded is because everybody thinks the answer is "yes".

(Is it possible that Tailgate actually agrees on something? Is that allowed?)

(I even think the answer is yes, myself. I just really don't like that answer. To me, I'm not certain that "freedom of speech" ought to be less important than "obstructing a sidewalk". So, to me, it's a really reluctant, grudging "yes".)

the answer is presumably yes unless someone sues and beats the executive branch's interpretation

the best answer is lobby to have the mayor or the executive use different tactics

[Teller]

when did I say don't ask for ID? When did I say don't issue them a citation?

How about you address the argument I made instead of the one you want to beat.

Here's your plan in its entirety:

1. take pictures

2. create fake facebook account

3. join UC network

4. friend as many students as possible

5. look through pictures

I missed the "get ID" part. And in a non-violent situation, I'm cool with taking ID, issuing a citation, and telling them to leave the area. No problem whatsoever. I already suggested that. But don't try to say I misquoted you, because I didn't. Further, why would you need to ID them by photograph if your plan does include getting ID?

It's OK to say you're wrong, or misspoke. I won't think less of you; promise.

[gbear]

Larry, the hard part there in my mind is showing how the peaceful obstruction caused actual harm or risk. It's not like there should be major deliveries of medical supplies coming down the walkway. It's also not like they blocked the sidewalk as the cop just stepped over them in the video. I know the sidewalk in fron to f my house is public property. I can't say "Nobody is allowed to come here!" and expect obediance. Heck, Verizon tore up the ground between the sidewalk and the road burrying our rain drainage despite my signs in English and Spanish telling them not to do so. I'm not sure where the public school gets more authority than a home owner to make arbirtrary decisions about what can be done on a public sidewalk.

[Dan T.]

Yeah, I was against the pepper spraying in this case, but I'm not feeling the "create an undercover Facebook account" solution...

[Prosperity]

Here's your plan in its entirety:

I missed the "get ID" part. And in a non-violent situation, I'm cool with taking ID, issuing a citation, and telling them to leave the area. No problem whatsoever. I already suggested that. But don't try to say I misquoted you, because I didn't. Further, why would you need to ID them by photograph if your plan does include getting ID?

It's OK to say you're wrong, or misspoke. I won't think less of you; promise.

Gee I wonder if it's possible that I reserved that as an option in cases where they don't hand over ID

but please continue beating up the weakest conceivable interpretation of what I said

Yeah, I was against the pepper spraying in this case, but I'm not feeling the "create an undercover Facebook account" solution...

I don't either, but it's a tactic that the more sophisticated police departments already use

[Larry]

Larry, the hard part there in my mind is showing how the peaceful obstruction caused actual harm or risk. It's not like there should be major deliveries of medical supplies coming down the walkway. It's also not like they blocked the sidewalk as the cop just stepped over them in the video. I know the sidewalk in fron to f my house is public property. I can't say "Nobody is allowed to come here!" and expect obediance. Heck, Verizon tore up the ground between the sidewalk and the road burrying our rain drainage despite my signs in English and Spanish telling them not to do so. I'm not sure where the public school gets more authority than a home owner to make arbirtrary decisions about what can be done on a public sidewalk.

I guess part of my problem is that I think a Constitutional Right ought to mean something above and beyond "well, we'll allow you to do it, if we can't think of a single rule, no matter how trivial, that we can hit you with".

But then, I think we can all see problems if we had a rule that says that "I'm a protester" made people exempt from laws, even only some laws, too.

[Teller]

I don't either, but it's a tactic that the more sophisticated police departments already use

It's a tool. It's not THE solution. And yes, it absolutely should be a part of a case that requires investigation. This is not one of those.

But we're in agreement here? The cops ask for idea in this case, the kids give it, are issued a citation and leave. Does that make sense to you?

[twa]

I asked a question a while back, and haven't seen a response.

My question was, if the protesters were completely blocking the sidewalk, then is that a situation in which the government has the authority to un-block that sidewalk? (Using force that's appropriate to the situation)?

I assume from reading posts, here, that the reason nobody's responded is because everybody thinks the answer is "yes".

(Is it possible that Tailgate actually agrees on something? Is that allowed?)

(I even think the answer is yes, myself. I just really don't like that answer. To me, I'm not certain that "freedom of speech" ought to be less important than "obstructing a sidewalk". So, to me, it's a really reluctant, grudging "yes".)

Perhaps if you would read my posts? :evilg:...post # 84

Yes there is a CA law against blocking the sidewalk, there is also a ADA law(handicap access)

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7668725_laws-blocking-sidewalks-california.html

---------- Post added November-21st-2011 at 01:58 PM ----------

Pepper spraying children keeps them from drowning?

They were not children,though they may behave like one.

It is the cover your ass principle where inaction is safer than action(do you need me to bump the thread on public servants watching a guy drown because of CYA regs?)

If these cops received OK from supervisors (which the tape suggests) for the pepper spray use ,they should not be disciplined.

added

The drowning thread

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?347957-msnbc-Handcuffed-by-policy-Fire-crews-watch-man-die&highlight=watch+drown

[sacase]

This thread is funny in so many ways. First, the kids were wrong. They got what they deserved. Any good protester would wear the fact that they got pepper sprayed as a badge of honor. It kinda comes with the territory. LOL But lets get into the meat of it.

I think it was Larry (may have been someone else) who said that it is their constitutional right to protest wherever they like, then I think it was mentioned that it was public property. Well guess what, the university has the right to tell them to leave and if they don't, its called trespassing. Just because it is public land or property doesn't mean you can protest there. Please try to Protest on a military base, inside the FBI or CIA, hell, try to do that in the White House, I mean after all they are public property. Do the right thing and get a permit. You violated the law, you did not have a constitutional protection when violating that law. You were warned by the police to move from the area, you disobeyed and violated another law. You were pepper sprayed, which on the use of force scale is very low. Use of force is to protect both the public AND the officer. Whenever you have an officer put hands on someone you have a chance for something to go wrong. Pepper Spray was the right call.

Most likely the only reason anyone is suspended is not because they actually did anything wrong, but because of how it looks. The UC system of schools has plenty of rich alumni as well as a connection to protesting. While its the right choice, it looks bad, which is why the suspensions happened.

So yes, it is your right to be a dirty hippy and protest whatever you like however you like, but realize that this country has rules and they without those rules anarchy would ensue and that there are consequences for your actions. I have no problem with the protests or the pepper stray.

[The Evil Genius]

Perhaps if you would read my posts? :evilg:...post # 84

Yes there is a CA law against blocking the sidewalk, there is also a ADA law(handicap access)

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7668725_laws-blocking-sidewalks-california.html

I guess it depends on how blocking the sidewalk is defined. One of the policemen in question is able to easily move around the students.

Here - I will remind everyone (perhaps some NSFW language).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

Watch the first 30 seconds.

If these cops received OK from supervisors (which the tape suggests) for the pepper spray use ,they should not be disciplined.

It's not the military. If their bosses told them to open fire - they are off the hook? Eh, no. Just because someone above allegedly okayed them to use pepper spray - that doesn't absolve them from being able to THINK and REASON as to when that spray should be used. I know, it's hard to be able to use the noodle when you take pride in beating down civilians who are dangerous lawbreakers. We all know that blocking the sidewalk is a gateway crime. Next, these rulebreakers will be raping kids and murdering our white women.

Yeah, I get carried away.

But how this isn't absolutely disgusting to the majority is beyond me. Is this what we have become?

[Prosperity]

It's a tool. It's not THE solution. And yes, it absolutely should be a part of a case that requires investigation. This is not one of those.

But we're in agreement here? The cops ask for idea in this case, the kids give it, are issued a citation and leave. Does that make sense to you?

look, all I am saying is that there are legal remedies for this sort of thing outside of pepper spraying.

step 1. figure out who person is

step 2. issue them citation

step 3. present your (government's) case in court

where's the emergency that requires immediate removal?

[visionary]

They're talking about this on cnn now...

[Larry]

Perhaps another question:

What do the protesters have to do, to not break any law, no matter how trivial?

If protests are only permitted if every single law, no matter how trivial, is fully complied with, then what does a protest look like?

A assume that the protesters can't just move from the sidewalk to the lawn. Is sitting on somebody's lawn without permission legal?

Maybe if they only sat on one half of the sidewalk, is that OK? Or are there laws against, say, loitering or vagrancy or some such?

Are they allowed to shout slogans? Or is there a noise ordinance that says they can't?

In the Land of the Free, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." gives the people the right to do exactly what?

[visionary]

They were not children,though they may behave like one.

The drowning thread

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?347957-msnbc-Handcuffed-by-policy-Fire-crews-watch-man-die&highlight=watch+drown

I meant the person who drowned, not the protesters.

I apparenlty mistakenly recalled the situation involving a young girl drowning.

(maybe I confused it with a different drowning incident/thread)

[Teller]

look, all I am saying is that there are legal remedies for this sort of thing outside of pepper spraying.

step 1. figure out who person is

step 2. issue them citation

step 3. present your (government's) case in court

where's the emergency that requires immediate removal?

So we're on the same page. We just took the long road getting there.

As far as why it was so important to remove them when they did, I admit, I don't know. I'm at work, and can't see the video.

Look, you know me. I'm not a kick ass, take names, shred the Constitution type. But I'm also a rule of law kind of guy. Protest all you want, for as long as you want. Just don't break the law in the process, and limit your infringement upon the rights of others as much as possible. That's all.

[Larry]

I think it was Larry (may have been someone else) who said that it is their constitutional right to protest wherever they like, then I think it was mentioned that it was public property. Well guess what, the university has the right to tell them to leave and if they don't, its called trespassing. Just because it is public land or property doesn't mean you can protest there.

Actually, no one said "wherever they like". (Well, no one who wasn't trying to put words in somebody else's mouth.)

So I'll ask you:

I guess we both agree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." gives citizens the right to protest, exactly where?

1) On their own property

2) Where else?

[More Complete]

Yes. Trolling. But I noticed in your user notes that the last time you got a month ban, I wrote a suggestion that the next time you "even sneezed" you'd be punted for good. This was quite the sneeze. Gesundheit ban-dershoot!

Usually I'm a little sorry when I boot someone who's been around as long as you, but as I became familiar with your posting history the last time you were banned, I felt only chagrin we hadn't noticed what a frequent dick you were before. Adios, assholio. Now you have more free time to look for that extra job you might need in the future.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this banning? The ban hammer is not unlike the cops' pepper spray. Name calling? Taunting? Do as your told indeed.

There's a part of the American Physche that loathes authoritarianism.

Exactly.

[Prosperity]

So we're on the same page. We just took the long road getting there.

As far as why it was so important to remove them when they did, I admit, I don't know. I'm at work, and can't see the video.

Look, you know me. I'm not a kick ass, take names, shred the Constitution type. But I'm also a rule of law kind of guy. Protest all you want, for as long as you want. Just don't break the law in the process, and limit your infringement upon the rights of others as much as possible. That's all.

Yeah. Bottom line is that there is an area between A) let the protesters do whatever the hell they want without consequences and pepper spray or beat them when they don't comply. It's actually a pretty damn big area, and I like to think of it as Due Process.

[Larry]

The ban hammer is not unlike the cops' pepper spray.

Right.

In fact, I understand that the protesters were given a choice: Pepper spray in the face, or being banned from ES, and they all voted for the pepper spray.

[More Complete]

Right.

In fact, I understand that the protesters were given a choice: Pepper spray in the face, or being banned from ES, and they all voted for the pepper spray.

Geez, that's harsh! Don't say things I don't like, or else. By the power of greyskull, I have the power!

[sacase]

Actually, no one said "wherever they like". (Well, no one who wasn't trying to put words in somebody else's mouth.)

So I'll ask you:

I guess we both agree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." gives citizens the right to protest, exactly where?

1) On their own property

2) Where else?

Do you belive that you can protest in the White House or on a Military installation?

Do you believe that someone can peaceable protest on your lawn?

Do you believe that we can say anything we want under the context of free speech? IE shouting fire in a movie theater?

You can protest, you just have to acquire the permit. Most likely the permit will be granted.

[The Evil Genius]

Serious question for those defending or those ok with what the police did here (and hoping to get a serious answer).

At what point, would their (the police's) actions crossed the line for you?

[sacase]

Serious question for those defending or those ok with what the police did here.

At what point, would their (the police's) actions crossed the line for you?

If they started using batons or shooting.

[twa]

Yeah. Bottom line is that there is an area between A) let the protesters do whatever the hell they want without consequences and pepper spray or beat them when they don't comply. It's actually a pretty damn big area, and I like to think of it as Due Process.

Doesn't Due Process only begin after you are in custody or wronged?

Is enforcing law a integral part of Due process?