Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Im confused as to why everyone seems to be upset by UC Davis students being pepper sprayed

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 9:57 p.m. EST by owschico (295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Im confused as to why everyone seems to be upset by UC Davis students being pepper sprayed for breaking the law, if you are engaged in Civil Disobedience non violently you are just breaking the law in a non violent manor. What did you expect?

242 Comments

242 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 14 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Then why don't they pepper spray people who get stopped for speeding?

[-] 6 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

People are now getting tasered at traffic stops and for other minor infractions, if they argue with officers or don't comply with a "command" fast enough.

The police in this country are out of control.

They are over-militarized and there's an us vs them attitude.

DHS is creating a well-equiped domestic military force.

"Non-lethal" weapons specifically deployed for riot control - give a bunch of overgrown kids some toys and by golly, they are going to use them.

"Campus police" omg, 30 years ago campus police meant a bunch of unarmed security guards, now they're a militia.

No need to call out the National Guard any longer. Just dial the campus police.

[-] 0 points by simi34103 (14) from Lake Placid, FL 8 years ago

because speeders usually cooperate with law enforcement

[-] 2 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Because Law enforcement usually cooperates with their own fucking laws. I can't tell you how many times i've personally chased down and confronted cops for running red lights and stop signs in (or outside of) their own fucking jurisdictions. THEY ARE LITERALLY SHAMELESS...

Or the idiot fucking pigs who leave their unlocked patrol cars RUNNING while sitting inside a starbucks and drinking coffee. I should take off with their shit and run it off a bridge. I don't pay them for this kind of gross negligence...

This was in West Valley City, UT...one of the most corrupt and gang infested cities in the nation....

The entire County of Salt Lake City of a real work of shit...And I can say this having lived in the streets for less than two years of my life...Don't even get me started on the many endless occounts of the citizens who have lived and had to put up with this shit for their entire fucking lives...

[-] -1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

They do if the people resist the ticket by tearing it up and then resist arrest by refusing to be taken in. Did you notice that the people had arms locked and that the cops were having to fight strenuously with them to try to break them apart so that they could arrest them?

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

-Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power So if you were refusing to obey the law, demands, and commands of the police they may go as far as to take your life. Your example is nonsense and the fact that people like your argument is sad

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

I wouldn't want to live in your world.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

I had the same reaction, but after engaging in a few exchanges with "owschico" I'm happy to have him aboard.

If "we" really are "the 99%" we need to engage each other. I haven't had a conversation end badly yet. I appreciate all the challenges to OWS. It makes OWS stronger.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

sorry to break it to you but you do, if you have "professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of law enforcement" force can and will be used against you by law enforcement up to and including lethal intervention

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Not true. "Lethal intervention" is the last resort against a violent offender, used for self defense or to protect the lives of others. Police are routinely tried and occasionally convicted for excessive force.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you just said I am wrong then went on to say I am right. Depending on the situation the police have the right to take lethal intervention. This was not one of those situations but it can be said that more damage could have been caused by trying to break the protesters up (sprains, broken bones, and dislocations) not to mention the danger to the officers person in attempting to do so.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

False. I said I didn't want to live in your world, which by your definition is one where police can kill you for non-violent civil disobedience.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

In no way did I say non-violent. I don't understand how you can't understand the basics of law enforcement. Cops are legally allowed to used lethal intervention, that is why they have a gun. A doctors scope of practice includes amputation do you then assume they amputate your leg for a heart attack?

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

"I don't understand how you can't understand the basics of law enforcement."

lol - PKB, bro

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

What? I take it you don't have anything to say?

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

just laughing at you inability to understand how others are unable to understand "the basics of law enforcement" when everything you've said proceeds from fascistic delusion (or, more charitably, a woefully inept understanding of the protection of rights and the authorization of state force under both the common law and the constitution)

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Practice what you preach. Instead of laughing, engage. "owschico" is not the enemy or the problem, and "we" need him(?) in order to have a solution.

nor is he delusional. we all need to get over this shit. this is how we have been trained to divide ourselves. the people who are REALLY laughing are the 1%.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you do not have a right to resist arrest

[-] 3 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

I agree that there is no such thing as a Right to resist arrest. (That's kind of a confusing concept??). I also think that protestors should willingly submit to arrest... or at least "passively" submit to it.

But I am Very troubled by the idea (that you seem to share) that someone who is breaking a law (especially a law that is Not posing an immediate threat to anyone) can be immediately "punished" (even killed??) by police. Aren't police obligated to... make arrests?? Police are not supposed to be judges & juries, much less carrying out punishments. It's really a simple process. You are arrested, charged with a violation of law, then you go to court, you get a lawyer, everyone decides what's what... and Then... IF you are guilty... you get punished.

And god bless America for that.

But dude, seriously?? Immediate, on the spot "violent" punishment just because you sit your ass down in a park or even on the street? Or actually on a university campus where you are enrolled and paying tuition as a student??!?

I think the speeding-ticket example is very good analogy. By speeding you can easily be jeopardizing the lives of others. But the police don't pepper spray you! They give you a ticket. Even if you are drunk they don't pepper spray you?!

But you see OWS-ers. This is why 'we' need to submit willingly to arrest. So that there is No excuse (there is none anyway) for this kind of police behavior.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I did not say anything about punishment, i did say they can take a life. They have a gun for a reason, and it can be said that someone who is threatening others at gun point is actively resisting arrest so they have the power up to and including taking a life. Like I said earlier a doctors scope of practice includes amputating limbs but do they do that for a heart attack, NO.

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Of Course! if someone is threatening anyone (especially a cop) with a gun they can be shot. That would be something like a "clear and present danger" or something. We are (thankfully) a long way from guns and threats of that nature.

By "punishment" I mean being pepper-sprayed, beaten with batons, fired-at with rubber bullets, and even tear-gased... (though that's slightly different because it is so much less targeted and an argument can be made, and also, it's not so painful and it fairly easy to avoid it/ get away from it).

Cops don't have the right (I assert) to use unnecessary force. I maintain it's unnecessary to pepper spray/ beat students on campus, old people (c.f. Seattle OWS) and others that are not "actively" resisting arrest.

[-] 3 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

you do, however, have a right not to be pepper sprayed while passively resisting arrest - a right whose remedy can be found in filing civil suit against your unlawful attacker, and may extend to criminal prosecution

[-] -1 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

And I hate to break it to you, but when this nation finally erupts into violence, little Nazis like YOU will be to blame. And of course, you'll be the first ones to scratch your heads and say, "How did this happen?" COWARDS and TRAITORS, every last one of you...

[-] -1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

Actually, if the world breaks into violence, I'd rather have Nazis than anarchists. At least, I'd know who to hide from. With anarchy, each person is the law unto themselves and does what they want. The first step to anarchy is civil disobedience being tolerated by the police. The police are not supposed to choose which laws they wish to enforce and which ones they do not. So, if they are going to let you break the law by blocking ingress or egress, where does it stop? The answer is simple: it stops at the scene of great violence you just described if it is allowed to go further. People emboldened by breaking small laws start breaking bigger ones, such as looting the evil Wall Street buildings. It, then, becomes the mayhem you describe, and no citizen is safe.

The right to "peaceably assemble" has never meant to be a right to break laws regarding regular park hours or jaywalking (such as are broken by street blockades). Your right to protest under the constitution was NEVER meant to be a special exemption from respecting the rights of others to walk where they want to walk or drive where they want to drive. Your rights end where the nose of the other person begins, and the police are there to make sure you don't bully others or trample them or block them from their path just because you have a point you want to make.

"Civil disobedience" is not civil at all. Now, if you break the law AND are willing to be peaceably arrested without resistance, that is a somewhat different matter. You still broke the law. You still NEED to be arrested so that law breaking doesn't grow to even greater problems, but you are, at least, respecting the fact that, as a lawbreaker, you go to jail. If that were the case at U.C. Davis, then the police did wrong. From what I saw in the videos, it was not. The people sprayed were STRONGLY resisting arrest by locking arms, so the police had to weaken them. It is not fair to expect the police to wear themselves out and risk dislocating or straining something to break people up who lock arms to refuse arrest. I've seen other cases of civil disobedience in Occupy movements where people held out their arms to be cuffed, talked nicely to the police who were just doing their job, and walked away peaceably. I respect them for that.

The solution is simple. If you're going to practice civil disobedience to make a stronger point, do not resist arrest. I think, however, civil disobedience is completely counter-productive. It always encourages escalation toward violence, but it also always loses a lot of respect for your cause.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 3 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

The police are in a difficult position. They are still receiving decent paychecks and benefits from the corrupted system. How bad will the laws have to be before people will stop trading morals and the future of their country for a paycheck? That I don't know. I'm amazed people have stood idle this long while the government has become the monster it is. So what recourse is left for the people? How can the citizens of this country save themselves when their leaders have gone mad and have hidden themselves behind an army?

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

"The people sprayed were STRONGLY resisting arrest by locking arms, so the police had to weaken them."

Fed Courts have ruled that even using "black bears" (plastic pipes used to connect the arms of protesters, preventing police from breaking them apart) is not "active resistance" of the kind required before the use of intermediate force is authorized:

"Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force.   The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3.   Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors:  the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

If that's what the courts have ruled. I, however, have to wonder what the police are supposed to do in that case when people resist arrest. Just beg?

Was the court above merely deciding on the application of Eureka's law, which clearly stated that "active resistance" against its police had to mean actions that would cause pain to the officer. What is the law in Davis that defines "resisting arrest?" Was the federal court making a statement to all communities that their laws must be like Eureka's and require that the officer experiences pain before using stronger tactics?

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

good questions...

first, it's worthwhile pointing to the distinction between active and passive resistance - both are resisting arrest, and both can carry criminal penalties as a result, however it is only when resistance is "active" that the authorisation to compel compliance through the use of escalated force kicks in - meaning that using 'intermediate force' (between physical and lethal force) is never justified against those passively resisting in absence of some palpable threat

as to whether relevant definitions vary across jurisdictions, and how significantly, I wondered that also, but don't have a good answer for you at this point - in general, though, there is a preference for compatibility which is attributable at least in part to the ideal of the single common law (the idea being that the various legal hierarchies at regional and state level are united under the Supreme Court) - this is a phenomenon which has tended to increase over the intervening decade since this decision

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

Well, I am for the protest, but also for abiding by law and not starting down a path that leads to anarchy. I do appreciate the additional information.

Happy Thanksgiving, All

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 8 years ago

First you ought to look up the real definition of anarchy, then mouth off about your fears.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

Why? Have you changed the definition. Last I heard it meant "without rulers" or "without authority." That's what I'm talking about. What are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Thank you for making your arguments. It's good at least that I think we agree on at least 1 important point, which is that those engaging in Civil Disobedience should Willingly submit themselves for arrest.

I challenge the idea that protestors are really resisting strongly. I've certainly seen enough videos of police going immediately to pepper-spray with no attempt to arrest. I don't really buy the idea that locking-arms means that pepper-spray is required or justified.

These are some details... I guess we'd have to agree on the facts before having that argument.

As for the principle of Civil Disobedience, I disagree with you because I believe it is an Essential element of American democracy and has a strong grounding in the 1st Amendment. Where should people assemble?? In their homes and backyards? Sort of ruins any chances for "redress of grievances". Have you read Thoreau or Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"? Again, I think both agree with you that you have to be willing to submit to arrest and face the Law. King especially stresses this point. But he also says that breaking a (small?) law in order to draw attention to a larger injustice is actually a form of paying the "highest respect for the law". Check it out, if you haven't already.

We really agree on the "solution". Submit to arrest. But, aren't you also just Wrong on the the fact the Civil Disobedience doesn't work? It certainly worked for Dr. King and Civil Rights.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

I have seen videos of some wonderful examples of people peacefully submitting to arrest and talking kindly to the officers while their hands were bundled. So, that kind of peaceful disobedience is happening as you say.

I don't see anything in the First Amendment that grants anyone the right to ANY kind of disobedience at all. In fact, the requirement to "peaceably assemble" sounds like it rules that out. Certainly, there is no language allowing disobedience to the law, and such disobedience is rarely necessary in order to stage a public protest.

Most cities will issue permits to hold major events in parks and will even allow some events to stay overnight in certain parks. Anyone can gather on the lawns of their court houses and city halls during the daytime and say just anything they want, so long as it is not viewed as being hatefully inflammatory. Often, even that is allowed. Some cities allow no one in such public spaces at night, but it was never to limit free speech or assembly, but to eliminate the need to police parks of dangerous people at night (like muggers) when it is also dangerous for the police because of limited visibility. Those are normal civil laws. So long as they are not created specifically to terminate the speech or assembly of one group, there is no need to break them in order to make your speech audible to the masses.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

You are correct that there is no "right" to "disobedience" in the Constitution or anywhere. It sounds nonsensical to say you have a right to disobey a law. But the 1st Amendment enshrines the principle that citizens can assemble to protest laws (or the lack of them), and it seems silly that the Founders would enshrine such a Right if they were also thinking that we had this Right "as long as we didn't break any other laws or inconvenience anyone". Why enshrine it if it doesn't need protection and status? Obviously we would have had the "right" to follow all the civil laws and follow all the orders of the police.

Civil Disobedience comes from Thoreau and is picked up by Dr. King (who had seen how Gandhi used it to great effect). By definition it is breaking the law. When Rosa Parks refused to move she was breaking the law, and she was pepper-sprayed. (JK!) King was arrested for "parading without a permit" and in his "Letter" he writes that there is nothing wrong with having a permit law, but he was forced to break it when the city continually delayed (basically refused) issuing the permit for his "parade".

Civil Disobedience acts as a pressure. It serves as a way (kind of a last resort) for the people to retain power. It relates to the idea that ultimate power resides with the people in the first place, so that those who have been granted that power (police, politicians) must always appeal to the authority of the people.

To my American way of thinking, the 1st Amendment is very much in the same vein, because it is all about safeguarding citizens from the tendency of those in power to go to far by enshrining ultimate authority in the minds and hands of the people.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

The right to assemble was not enshrined ever with the intent of establishing an avenue for you to break the law. The right was enshrined because the British often made it illegal to ASSEMBLE at all if they didn't like what you were saying ... even in your own home. They would break your meeting up -- even in your own house, but especially in public -- and jail your for sedition against the crown.

So, our forefathers solidly established the right to assemble to talk about anything you want (freedom of assembly AND freedom of speech) to make it clear that the government cannot break your assembly up because people don't like what you are saying. They were also WISE enough to add the word "peaceably" in front of "assemble" because they had the foresight to know that some would take free speech and assembly as the right to create mayhem or the right to anarchy or the right to break laws.

What they wanted to make certain was that you can assemble AND that your assembly does not interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of life (does not disturb the peace of others). You have the right to give your message, but you do not have the right to block other people's access to anything just because you're a big mob and have the power. The law just as much protects the right of the individual to go about his business over the objections of the mob.

Since Thoreau did not write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights amended to it, his opinion on whether you can break the law is meaningless from a legal standpoint. There has wisely never been anything in U.S. law that allows for civil disobedience that I am aware of.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

I'm not accepting your assertions about what the Founders had in mind. I assume there is quite a relevant history behind this as well as volumes of judicial precedents. But we are both coming at this from different points of view.

The expectation that 1st Amendment "assemblies" not disturb or inconvenience anyone ever seems rather absurd, and in any case I would argue that 1st Amendment trumps a good deal of this "inconvenience". Similar arguments are/ have been made about free-speech. The mean-spirited wackos from that disturbed church that keep showing up at the funerals of gay people and soldiers for example. That is pretty "inconvenient" for the family, but the Supreme Court has ruled that their free speech is protected. I accept that as the price of a free society.

I think I said this once already (maybe it was a different thread)... it doesn't make any sense to say that the law allows for Civil Disobedience. By definition, Civil Disobedience is breaking the law. How could the law allow for it?? (If there was a law that allowed it... I might want to protest that law, but I'm not sure I would be able to because I would be allowed to break it??!? : P) Of COURSE civil disobedience is breaking the law, and the law never allows for itself to be broken. And for this reason, every single protestor breaking a law can and perhaps SHOULD be arrested. And Thoreau and Dr. King both say that when you engage in Civil Disobedience, you should expect to go to jail.

But now we do have complex and interesting legal situation that need to be sorted out in the case of a 1st Amendment assembly (which is protected) and the breaking of civil laws (which is not protected). So arrest all the protestors you want for "blocking traffic". And let them argue their case in court (as they are legally entitled to do) And let them lose too! and let them pay their petty fines for their petty "crime".

I'm not a lawyer. So I don't want to push my luck. I want to return to this question/ expectation that the 1st Amendment is only valid if you don't bother or annoy anyone. To say that you can only have your assembly if it doesn't bother anyone seems again to nullify the assembly clause or render it useless. These assemblies are, after all, taking place on Public space. Yes, there are competing and potentially conflicting claims to that public space by different users, but-- to my way of thinking-- the protest has a very legitimate claim that should be given a large margin of consideration. But I don't ask for a consideration outside the law! Again, arrest whoever you can (legally).

And no Thoreau never wrote Any legal documents as far as I know. He was a Transcendental philosopher. But I take his writings seriously, and consider them very much to be part of our American culture and heritage, in the same way I consider Dr. King's writings and speeches to carry a certain degree of "authority" and cultural standing, and many other writers, artists, poets, thinkers. Call me crazy, but I think Herman Melville's "Moby-Dick" has a lot to say about OWS!!

Have you read Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"? I wonder what you would/ do think of his arguments in favor of Civil Disobedience and the Law.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

The expectation that first amendment rights not disturb the peace might sound absurd to you, but the word "peaceably" immediately qualifies the word assemble. So, there is not absurd about it to me and obviously not to the framers of the Bill of Rights or they wouldn't have added that important word. In other words, they were guaranteeing you the right to assemble so long as your assembly was not to create mayhem. The first amendment does not "trump this inconvenience." It establishes it. It INSISTS that your assembly is peaceable.

Why? Because they were not the least bit interested in your right to get your way by annoying people or bullying them. They were concerned only that you had the right to SPEAK the ideas that you believed were important and to ASSEMBLE to hear those ideas. They did not believe you had the right to shut down civilization by using your assembly to choke off the streets.

The framers of the constitution hadn't even heard of Civil Disobedience as a form of protest. That's a fairly new concept as a form of mass protest. As you've said, Civil Disobedience is against the law, including the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be allowed. If people want to break the law and then passively be arrested, fine. If they resist arrest, then I think the police need to do whatever it takes to get them to submit to arrest. Otherwise, the level of disobedience just grows more and more as people in the movement get braver, seeing nothing was done to stop their last act. Next thing you know, they're looting the dirty Capitalists. I've seen it happen on television many times.

So, as you say, ever protestor breaking the law can and should be arrested. If they submit willingly to the arrest that should happen, then I have no ill feelings toward them really, but that is only because I'm not the injured party. If I was in the traffic they blocked and missed an interview for the job of a lifetime because of them, I'd be furious. My life could be forever altered because of a great missed opportunity that they FORCED on me. And I wasn't even against their cause. In fact, I AGREE with their cause completely ... except when it runs as far as pushing for anarchy or pushing for civil disobedience. At that point, it seems to me that their strategy for protest becomes their cause.

So, they should expect to go to jail, and, if they go willingly, I think a single night in jail is enough. I don't think they should even have to go to jail if all they did was block a building, sidewalk, or street. They should be sited for jaywalking or disturbing the peace, whichever is appropriate, and if they WISH to go to court to challenge the ticket, fine; but there is no more reason they should HAVE to go to court than with any other ticket for a minor infraction.

If they resist arrest, however, they are going beyond what King or Thoreau advocated, and that is much bigger deal (though not because it goes beyond King or Thoreau). That's worse ripping up a traffic citation in front of the cop and throwing it at his feet. Resisting arrest cannot be allowed. Even those who know they are not guilty of anything are expected by society and the courts to NOT resist arrest. You're to go in willingly and plead your case later. If you were falsely arrested, you can plead that case later.

So, when these protestors are so clearly resisting arrest, I don't have much sympathy for them. As you say Thoreau said, you should EXPECT to be arrested for civil disobedience because neither the Constitution nor any other law has any place for it.

As for not "bothering" anyone. You're taking my words more dismissively than I intended. Disturbing the peace is a little more than just bothering someone. Saying things someone doesn't like is completely your right. You can bother them with what you SAY just about as much as you want, so long as it isn't name-calling that can be construed as instigating a fight or creating a public uproar. If you're creating gridlock in Manhattan, I'm sure that fully constitutes "disturbing the peace," a law that has its roots in the first amendments requirements that your assembly always be "peaceable." You're going to be making a LOT of people angry who do not even know you are assembling, much less hear what you saying. So, it will not be your words and ideas that are creating public uproar, but your actions, and actions are not protected under the constitution. Only speech.

I appreciate your conversation. I think it has been quite fair and balanced. If the Occupy movement wants to stand high in public opinion in order to increase the pressure on politicians and Wall Street mongers of greed, then Civil Disobedience is not a path that will likely get you there. Try to be more CREATIVE than blocking streets. The ambulance that cannot get through a mile away, which you cannot even see, may be the one that is rushing to save your child who was just hit by a car that drove through your neighborhood in order to avoid the gridlock you're creating downtown.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

more problems with grammar... : ) nor am i conceding your assertions about what was in the minds of Jefferson et. al. I am going to read Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" as soon as I can, because I am indeed running out of arguments for you.

but like I say, I haven't conceded on my original point-- Why enshrine a Right that apparently doesn't add anything to the already enumerated Right to Speech?

I contend that the Right to assembly is very much a right of "action" because, as it specifies, it's an assembly in order to petition (demand) a "redress of grievances". Why enshrine this if it means nothing more than the right to speech or the "right" to follow all municipal codes and not make any "noise"-- so to speak.

I didn't say Civil Disobedience was "against the law". I said that statement does not make any sense-- or rather is a complete and absolute redundancy. Civil Disobedience by definition is breaking the law, but breaking it intentionally and in an effort to demand and insist on a greater justice, or in other words, correct an injustice, or in other words, demand a "redress" of a grievance based on an injustice.

Please read Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Every American interested in this subject really must.

But we agree that resisting arrest is going to far and is wrong (legally and morally)-- though I don't blame them or judge them. I think it would help the cause to not resist arrest because it would clarify this issue you and I are debating. But I am no Dr. King nor a Thoreau. I don't mind a fight, a struggle... some messiness. I think the issues are that important and worth it.

Lastly... "if you create gridlock in Manhattan"... I have to laugh. Everyone driving a car into NYC is "creating gridlock"!

And I have to cry... it is truly a disturbing thought that automobile traffic is more "sacred" than the fundamental basis and ideals of our American Democracy, and the very important issues OWS is trying to get ALL of us to face.

it's just another traffic jam for cryin' out loud. we can handle that while we take just a few months (or years!) to get this great country back on track.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

i'll come back and read the rest... but i gotta run and i'm going to respond to just your first sentence/ argument.

In the wording of the 1st Amendment... "peaceably" is and adverb applying to the manner in which the assemblers are assembling. if 1000 people assemble themselves peaceably on the street... they are certainly within the grammar of the wording in the amendment! even if all hell breaks lose around them!

: )

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 8 years ago

Disagree. They are REASON all hell breaks lose around them because they are blocking the rights of everyone else, which makes everyone else mad as hell. Therefore, THEY are the disturbance to the peace, and they don't have a right to speak that way. It is not their speech that is being corralled but their ACTIONS.

As for why enshrine the right to assemble, I already made that clear. They lived in an environment where that right was clearly taken from them ... even in their own homes. The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to make clear that people could meet for any reason they wanted so long as they met peaceably. You keep ignoring the "peaceable" part. There is nothing peaceable about sticking your finger in someone else's eye by blocking off the street like a bully so they cannot use it. It is not your street to block. You cannot park a car with a billboard in the middle of an intersection either just because you want your message to be seen.

You are now resorting to parsing words strangely just to try to hold your argument together when you say, "I didn't say Civil Disobedience was "against the law" and go right on to say, "Civil Disobedience is by definition BREAKING the law." I don't know how you can BREAK the law without doing something that is against the law. That its broken intentionally always makes a crime worse than if it is broken in ignorance or by accident, for it is willfully going against the law. The result is supposed to be that you get arrested. As we both have no problems with that, maybe our divide is not that great.

Your claim that I think traffic is more sacred than our fundamental ideas is completely off. It is you who do not fully embrace the fundamental ideas of America. You drop out the "peaceably" part of assembly. Taking over the streets is NOT peaceable. It is an illegal act of provocation that takes the rights of others away from them so you can exercise what you BELIEVE are your rights. However, they are not your right. You have a right to say what you want, but not in the middle of an intersection while you block traffic. That has never been an American idea.

The one who disturbs the peace is the one who provokes the public to riot in the streets. It does not matter in the least if he is speaking very softly in the intersection while he inflames them by blocking their way. You are being way too simplistic if you think how NICE or PEACEABLY you are speaking matters if your ACTIONS are provoking a riot. The mere act of intentionally blocking streets provokes riots in New York even if no word is spoken at all. People get very angry in traffic if you block them from something that is very important. And who are you to say that the thing they need to get to is less important than the justice you are fighting for. Maybe one of the people being blocked is someone who needs to make it to their own court appointment who will have a default judgment against him if he cannot get there. When thousands and thousands of people are blocked for hours, I can guarantee you that SOME of them were on their way to enact a just cause as important as yours and were prevented from doing so by a deliberate act that impeded their rights to their life. You presumptuously think that because they are in cars they have no legitimate need to get somewhere that could be as high as your own cause.

Find a better way to speak for justice than thumbing your nose at the rights of thousands of others who have nothing against your cause.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/

P.S. In response to the final statement below where the discussion has run out of room: fair enough. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

i don't think we are advancing very far and so now that we have both stated our cases... that's about it. i understand your points. i agree that laws should be enforced and people breaking them should be arrested and those being arrested should cooperate with police Especially if they are claiming to be engaged in Civil Disobedience.

I continue to assert that the Right to assemble deserves deference and latitude, and that as inconvenient or annoying as it might be... we all benefit from this civic liberty. I don't say, however, that the 1st Amendment grants some kind of immunity to laws. I keep repeating... go ahead and arrest anyone and everyone who is breaking a law. Just be clear about wha the law is, and don't pepper-spray people who are not resisting arrest.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

funny you say that, because I have not stated I support the actions of the police once. Im just stating they had proper justification to do so, and the protesters were breaking the law ( the definition of civil disobedience)

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

you are erroneously stating that they had proper justification to do so, despite multiple extracts from controlling jurisprudence

[-] -3 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

this situation is different considering they were blocking a public sidewalk, and resisting arrest. Other sited cases were involving trees

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

lol - I'm inclined to assume that's facetious trolling, but as it happens, there's relevant jurisprudential doctrine on that, too:

"As we recently noted, a law can be violated “notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent ․ [o]therwise, officers would escape responsibility for the most egregious forms of conduct simply because there was no case on all fours prohibiting that particular manifestation of unconstitutional conduct.”  Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1274-75 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted)." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

"The Supreme Court has explained that, “officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances,” and has rejected, “a requirement that previous cases be ‘fundamentally similar’ “ to the facts at issue in a suit. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the state of the law at the time of the official conduct complained of was such as to give the defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was unconstitutional—that a fair application of well-established legal principles would warrant such a conclusion." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1578552.html

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

okay... yes, if they are "resisting arrest" i grant that force can (even should) be used to arrest them.

but police are not even trying to make arrests. they are just simply pepper-spraying (and the like, or worse, as you suggest).

"Hey police! Stop 'resisting' the idea that you should be making arrests!"

Of course I know it sucks for you... all that paper work and processing and crammed jails and trials where the judges throw out your case because it was lame to begin with. But I'm not an anarchist (at least in this sense). I think we need to Follow the Law. Especially when it is broken!

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I think the videos are not telling the whole story one video I saw showed protesters struggling against police trying to break them up.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Happy to agree that the videos are not telling the whole story. And certainly some protestors ARE resisting arrest.

But I have also experienced this myself. During WTO (Seattle 1999) I was suddenly cut off by a whole line of officers that formed suddenly in the street. I approached the line and asked if the street was closed. No response. Then they tried to shove me forward (down the block INTO the main protest). I immediately dropped to the ground and said "Please arrest me!" I didn't want to be beaten. It was 20 cops and ME... no crowd. One of them sprayed me in the face, even as I was cowering on the ground like a whuss! They took me into custody and detained me. But even then they didn't arrest me. Because they had nothing on me. But they sure didn't mind punishing me.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

exactly, this happens at every RNC and DNC we have had in recent history. I think its good that these issues are getting attention but this is nothing compared to the brutal tactics used against people who are not in "free speech zones" thats the real outrage

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

I agree. And we should ALL take note of what's going on in Egypt where protestors have been shot and killed by police.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

link works but video doesn't. i'm guessing this is another dangerous protestor that police were unable to arrest peacefully? : (

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Sorry youtube wont allow Adam Kokesh's video on statism to play. It is very graphic but it is real footage from syria (gun shot wounds to face and chest)

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Let's dwell on those 2 words for a second..."civil" (civilized, calm, polite?!?) and "disobedience" (refusal, resistance... "freedom"?!?).

civil = non-violent, and also supports your desire for submission to arrest

disobedience does NOT equate with "threats, violence, danger, terror". It is a refusal to act, more than an action, so their is not threat or danger that would warrant police to use lethal weapons.

And why do they need non-lethal weapons? Protestors are really not that strong... are they?? : )

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Civil disobedience is breaking the law, if it was not breaking the law it would be a demonstration of picketing. But in most cases weapons are not needed and it is very questionable weather or not they were needed in this situation. My point is that those who were pepper sprayed had the choice to move off the sidewalk but chose to get sprayed. I don't feel sorry for them because they had the choice

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

yes, and I am saying... NO, their choice was to move or to be arrested.

That's the choice. Yes, they are breaking the law and they should Expect to be arrested, go to jail, go to court, be found guilty and then be punished.

My objection is to the idea that police are not Obligated to arrest them and instead, can skip all of that legal stuff and just kick their asses off the sidewal/ park/ street or whatever.

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

Also, I wouldn't ask you to feel sorry for them. But I am asking you to feel outraged when OUR American legal system and our civil liberties are being trampled. Just separate the two issues. There is no "right" to break the law (that sentence doesn't even make sense) but there is a very clear and essential Right to due process when you have broken, or are being accused of breaking a law.

In all of this... it's unclear what laws are being broken. The park for example... what was the law that was broken? Police are just giving orders, without any regard for laws. Mayors are desperately coming up with lame excuses... like "safety" and "public health". Please...

But all that aside... fine... "we" break the law... "you" ARREST US.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they resisted arrest when the cops attempted to separate the protesters, so more force was needed, it can be debated that they did not want to injure the protesters by ripping their arms apart (possible dislocations, sprains, and potential for broken bones)

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

so are you acknowledging that the only force that police have a right to use is the (minimal?!) force necessary to make arrests?

I would be happy if you did.

As for specific situations, we won't get far here until we can agree and know what the Facts of the sitch were. I grant that many resist arrest, and I agree that is not only a mistake (tactically) it is Wrong morally (though I have more sympathy for them than you, but that's fine).

But come on, check some obvious videos of just blatant use of force. And also I put more of a burden on the police, it's true. They have a tough job, I agree. But their job is tough for a reason! They can do their difficult job. I have great confidence in their ability to do a tough job because many of them are indeed "tough" strong, well-trained, disciplined... highly evolved primates!

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Honestly I don't trust he cops, but these protesters are made out to be such victims when just a couple weeks ago Cal students were being assaulted with night sticks for peacefully assembling, I didn't see this kind of response to that. This is nothing when it comes to police brutality so I'm confused as to why people are so outraged

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

you're still assuming the police have a legitimate right to use pepper spray to get people to comply with any order they make

they don't

they only have the right to escalate force when they or others are endangered (cf inconvenienced/annoyed/etc) by the non-compliance

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

yes... but OWS can learn a lesson here. we shouldn't fall into this trap of worrying about pepper-spray. OWS needs to Go to Jail, Go Directly to Jail do not pas Go do Not collect $200.

1) submit to arrest. 2) if you ARE pepper-sprayed, INSIST on being arrested.

(just ideas... i grant that it's a lot easier to say and I'm not down there yet so I am not disparaging my heroes who are down their camping, marching and facing cops... bravo!)

But this will help more people like owschico to understand what we are about and join us. it will also literally disarm the police.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

blocking a public sidewalk can be called an inconvenience to handy capable people who don't have a off road wheel chair or blind people. What about EMS workers if someone needed medical attention how are they expected to get through, OWS already put an EMT in the hospital by blocking access to a patient.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

good point. perhaps the police could use their "force" to maintain a corridor and pathway for such emergencies. i am confident the OWS people would happily cooperate.

but let's get down to brass tacks... Do you believe the police (or those giving them orders) are really attempting to assist the protest? Do you have any suspicions that there really is an element of "crack down" because the protest is indeed a challenge-- not to "safety" or other non-participating citizens, but to the status qua and the "establishment"?

I'm just wondering. Not looking for a conspiracy... doesn't have to be a conspiracy... It's just the friction of the innate resistance to change. Honestly... all these "emergency" and "safety" scenarios seem contrived. There are emergencies and safety issues everyday, with or without protests. Nobody is shutting down the freeways just because people are getting killed or because traffic jams are blocking ambulances.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you hit the nail on the head, they tried to co opt this movement but failed. So they called in homeland security, the orders are coming from the national level. This movement has been healthy for our country it has everyone talking, and thats a big step. (ive been waiting years for that to happen) In my opinion this movement is the reason why Ron PauI is not the front runner in the GOP debate, it has helped to wake up some of the sleeping giant, and we know how scared the establishment is of Ron PauI

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

The coolest thing about OWS... is conversations like these. you posted something that I really didn't like. But now we find out that we agree on the main issues, and the other things could be sorted out or we could live with some kind of less-than-perfect in between.

I am really pleased. And I am inspired to get more people involved. I think OWS needs to find a way to engage the Tea Party or just Conservatives in general. Not Just Conservatives, everyone. The 99%. Even the cops. We need to get them involved too.

Thanks again.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Well said, Thank You! These forms need more positivity.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

amen (said the atheist). hey, for some comic relief check recent post "pepper spray baby"

thanks again. Carry on!

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

if any such concerns were pressing upon the minds of the officers at the time, I'm sure they'll remember to bring them up at their trials - abstract speculation is, of course, evidentially worthless

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 8 years ago

I have to object again, and I want you to consider revising your statement...

...if you disobey police "they may go as far as to take your life"...??!?

That sounds like fascism to me. I think we have Rights and police cannot take them from us. Indeed the whole point of having police is to protect our Rights. And one Right is that when we are accused or suspected of breaking the law, we have a Right to "due process". They can't kill us for breaking laws!? (of course if someone is threatening with a gun or bomb then the police Should protect everyone else's Right to Life by shooting such a person as soon as possible... though in Even in that situation there might be at least 1 command issued to "Drop your weapon" etc.)

You don't Really think police can shoot people for breaking laws, do you?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you have to understand disobey can mean many different things one of them would be drop your gun, if that is the case they can and will shoot you. This might result in your death.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

So it would have been okay with you if the police had just killed them?

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

-Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power

So if you were refusing to obey the law, demands, and commands of the police they may go as far as to take your life. Your example is nonsense and the fact that people like your argument is sad

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

Odd how those same police go into sports events among the drunks without riot gear. Odd how they have managed frat parties without pepper spray. Political acts are different somehow.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

They were assaulting police officers. That is different from disobedient sitting.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

They were illegally camping, you can not camp with out a permit political or not. That is why the police were there, they then blocked a public sidewalk (illegal) They proceeded to engage in civil disobedience refusing to obey the law, demands, and commands of the officers. Rather than risking the safety of the officers and the students (breaking the linked arms could have resulted in dislocations, sprains, and broken bones) The use of pepper spray was the least amount of force they could have safely used to deal with the protesters resisting arrest.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

And that is "worse" than the behavior of drunken louts? More difficult to deal with? Really?

There are other ways to move passive protesters than what they did. The other things take more effort, though. This wasn't best practice. It was laziness linked to nastiness.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

thats debatable, personally I do not think the police have to risk their own health and well being to separate protesters engaging in civil disobedience.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

There are training programs available for moving passive resisters without injury to either side.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I think these programs should be utilized but until we have major change to the political oligarchy we will continue down this road

[-] -3 points by justcause (44) 8 years ago

lol, those people comply when they pull them over, if they don't then they are usually chased and then dragged out of their car, are you really that stupid?

[+] -4 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

Because people STOP and PULL OVER and OBEY.


Did you really need that explained?

[-] 2 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Oh, please--they don't pepper spray them even if they DON'T pull over--they chase them, stop them, and arrest them. The only time a cop might use pepper spray in such a situation is if the person is physically resisting. Are you really trying to say that the police have the right to pepper spray anyone who doesn't absolutely obey everything a cop says? LOL...get the fuck outta here... What if I'm walking down the street minding my own business, and a cop asks me what I'm doing, and I decide not to respond, which is MY RIGHT? Do you believe the cop has a right to pepper spray me for not "obeying" him? If you do, then you're just part of the problem. And you know what's worse? When cops start getting hurt and killed--and they will--the blame will lie with fearful, petty, bureaucratic little fascists like YOU, who have done more than anyone to create the insane, out-of-control police state that we now live in. YOU are the enemy, pal...

[-] 4 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

again, this case ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1578552.html ) concerns a driver pepper-sprayed after being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, while not physically resisting in any way - even the purported fear of a "broccoli-based assault" (yes, the court uses this phrase), came only after the pepper spray had been administered from behind and without warning

needless to say, the court reached the only view it could, and confirmed the that such usage could not be lawfully justified - police are not allowed to use pepper spray just because someone refuses to obey them, but only when there is an immediate threat to themselves or others

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

Very revealing. I did not realize that pepper spray was considered a dangerous weapon..."affirming district court finding that pepper spray is a “dangerous weapon” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and describing trial evidence that pepper spray causes “extreme pain” and is “capable of causing ‘protracted impairment of a function of a bodily organ' "


You did neglect to mention the baton blows, but it seems that pepper spray was considered equally when determining the amount of force.


However, I still think that these students' actions are misguided and much of the OWS movement is carried out at the expense of the general public.


Occupy Congress where you'll find the root of many of the problems that are at the forefront of this movement.

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

Have you seen how chases end? I live in LA and have seen this MANY times. Thrown to the ground...Knee to the back of the neck...handcuffed and dragged away. Not pleasant for the driver.


Try ignoring a cop when he addresses you. See where that leads and how much sympathy you get when you end up in court. Sure, many cops are bad, but you shouldn't lump them all together.


My guess is that I'll lead a moderately successful life, retire in my early 60s and live happily to a fairly old age without ever being handcuffed or pepper sprayed. If I am part of the problem, we have a major disagreement as to defining "problem".


You have decided to add insult and anger to this debate. "get the fuck outta here"..."When cops start getting hurt and killed--and they will"..."fearful, petty, bureaucratic little fascists like YOU"


I've grown out of my rebellious years. I hope that you do as well. I sincerely hope that OWS makes some changes for the better (there is plenty of room for that). But, it seems that disobedient, angry rebels are getting much of the attention. I've read many posts on this forum and have followed the movement through the news. I don't see any progress. Congress is where OWS should have its focus. Government is the root of the problems that I've heard defined by the people of this movement. Blame Wall Street for their greed, but Congress has allowed it; They even legislate and encourage it.

[+] -5 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they do if they are engaging in civil disobedience

-Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1578552.html

This is a case from August this year in which a guy was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, and then refused to obey the cop's order for him to remain in his car, instead getting out to sit on the curb and eat broccoli - he was pepper sprayed from behind, without warning, then hit with a baton.

The case explores the circumstances under which the use of 'intermediate force' is warranted, and concludes (with reasoning highly applicable to the UC Davis incident) that the government's legitimate interest in having force used in the circumstances did not justify the nature and quality of the intrusion on fundamental rights.

in answer to your original question, people are upset about it because it was an compelling illustration of precisely the sort of circumstances in which it has been ruled that the use of pepper spray unambiguously constitutes excessive force.

the visceral and passionate reaction is, itself, indicative of the obviousness of the resolution of the relevant legal question that would arise in any trial - it was manifestly not reasonable to use that level of force in the circumstances.

there's also an examination of the principles of 'qualified immunity' which protects police officers from civil suit for actions carried out within the ambit of their authorization - the key here is "whether, “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct,” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 816, such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202."

relevant extracts which make it entirely clear that the officers at UC Davis were expected to be aware of the limits to the lawfulness of using force in the circumstances follow and are, in my humble submission, conclusive:

"... The principle that it is unreasonable to use significant force against a suspect who was suspected of a minor crime, posed no apparent threat to officer safety, and could be found not to have resisted arrest, was thus well-established in 2001, years before the events at issue in this case...

In addition to Blankenhorn's holding as to the notice provided to reasonable officers by 2001, our holding in Headwaters II would have provided a reasonable officer in Wells's position with specific and unambiguous notice that the use of pepper spray and baton blows constituted excessive force. In Headwaters II, we held that police officers employ excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they use pepper spray upon an individual who is engaged in the commission of a non-violent misdemeanor and who is disobeying a police officer's order but otherwise poses no threat to the officer or others. 276 F.3d. at 1131. While the facts in Headwaters II are in some respects distinct from those of this case, that case's straightforward holding would have provided explicit and unambiguous notice to any reasonable officer in Wells's position that the use of intermediate force in general, and of pepper spray in particular, would, under the circumstances as alleged in this case, constitute an excessive response to a suspect's commission of a misdemeanor and disobedience of a police order."

[-] 5 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

lol, my Please don't feed the trolls comment seems to have disappeared from this thread. So I guess we're feeding the trolls.

It just seems so obvious to me that this is a troll topic. Very few people support what the police officer did. Once a person is pepper sprayed in the eyes, the person would not want to stand and expose their eyes to the wind and dry out their tear ducts with the pepper spray in them.

So, spraying somebody with pepper spray who is sitting down would be done only if you wanted the person to continue staying down on the ground.

[-] -3 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they were arresting the protesters for breaking the law, they were engaged in civil disobedience -Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power

They were resisting arrest its cut and dry

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

When you say it's cut and dry, you're referring to the protestor's eyes. If you want to arrest somebody, you don't force them to get up off the ground when doing so can damage their eyes.

I seriously hope that the victims not only win a lawsuit, but that it is extracted from the U.S. Police pension funds. If it comes from anywhere else, it will be the students who lose additional scholarships.

[-] 5 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Whose law? Certainly not OUR law?

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

YOUR law? You sound crazy or stupid. Really!!

[-] -3 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

It is illegal to block a public sidewalk, it is also illegal to camp with out a permit. After being evicted from the illegal camp site they blocked the sidewalk and refused to move when asked by law enforcement. They were engaging in civil disobedience and knew there would be a response, they were looking for one. I don't understand people being surprised by this? -Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

IT DOESN'T WARRANT PEPPER SPRAY!

Riot control is for riots. A sit-in is not a riot.

This country is getting what it screams for and what it deserves - a police state.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I don't agree with it but they were asking for it, they were resisting arrest.

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

fwiw, Fed Courts have ruled that even using "black bears" (plastic pipes used to connect the arms of protesters, preventing police from breaking them apart) is not "active resistance" of the kind required before the use of intermediate force is authorized:

"Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force.   The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3.   Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors:  the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

It is illegal to block a public sidewalk, it is also illegal to camp with out a permit. After being evicted from the illegal camp site they blocked the sidewalk and refused to move when asked by law enforcement. They were engaging in civil disobedience and knew there would be a response, they were looking for one. I don't understand people being surprised by this?

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Last time I checked, it's illegal to bankrupt your business, and expect the taxpayers to bail you out. It's tantamount to treason to use your taxpayer bailout money to pay yourself a "performance" bonus, and use the remainder to play the takeover market.

Get your priorities in order.

These people maced were doing what you are afraid to do; stand up to the real criminals amongst us.

[-] 4 points by nerdherd (67) 8 years ago

Ownage.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

a bit too late on that one, and what about 9-11? these kids are protesting tuition hikes. "the sky is falling but no one will care as long as it falls overseas"

[-] 4 points by olas13 (36) 8 years ago

Police have guidelines on how to handle situations. Oleoresin capsicum is to be used when there is a threat of harm or someone is actively resisting arrest. The protesters were passive. Protesters breaking rules does not allow police to.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

by refusing to provide identification, follow orders, and unlock arms they were actively resisting arrest. You do not need to be violent to be actively resisting arrest. By engaging continuing to actively engage in civil disobedience they were actively resisting arrest.

[-] 2 points by olas13 (36) 8 years ago

Lundberg v. Humboldt. Pepper spraying these protesters was an excessive use of force.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

interesting, thanks for that. I wonder what will come of this case, I think the blocking of public sidewalk may change things but who knows. I'm not sure what they want police officers to do with people in these types of situations.

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

You're a fucking COWARD, just like the police you love so much...

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

wrong - I got citations - how 'bout you?

[-] 3 points by Magnolia1948 (4) 8 years ago

Being arrested for breaking the law is a consequence that one takes into consideration when engaging in civil disobedience. What was the need for pepper spraying individuals who were not harming the police officers? UC Davis seems to have second thoughts about the incident as they are now paying for medical treatment for the students who were pepper sprayed.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they have a medical center, they are concerned with the bad press but it was justified

[-] 2 points by Marquee (192) 8 years ago

I expect the police to NOT escalate thru lower levels of force directly to level 3; pepper-spray. The use of pepper-spray is illegal when used against people that are not physically combative.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

the video shows them physically struggling against the police when they tried to break them up by hand.

[-] 1 points by Marquee (192) 8 years ago

"The" video.... fascinating.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Pepper spray today, rubber bullets tomorrow, what comes next?

Call in an airstrike?

I'm thinking the 1 % want war.

Not sure if they are ready for it.

Not even sure if the military will back them.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you'd be surprised what people will do for a paycheck

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Yes. I'm also not surprised when one voice in the crowd turns everyone's head.

It only takes a little nudge, and a show of courage, and the 1% will be on their own.

That is why they are trying to control the internet, and buy off the police.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

That is also why they are making you so poor and our country so bankrupt, they will be the only employer left. you will work for them

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

I'm confused as to why the 1% and their minions cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of our protest.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

Some people just don't get it. If you aren't viscerally horrified by peaceful, seated protestors being pepper sprayed, I feel sorry for you.

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

I worked in a prison for three years. I was unarmed and outnumbered by criminals. I never once needed to resort to violence or physical force to get an inmate to do what I needed him to do. I treated them with respect and they respected me. If these cops need to use force it shows me that they are weak minded. The truth is that if the police ignored the protesters it would reduce the publicity and therefore the voice of the protesters.

[-] 2 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 8 years ago

To be arrested in a likewise, non-violent manner?

The police are within their right to use necessary force to ensure safety and do their job. They are not allowed to engage in the use of excessive force as they do what they need in order to ensure safety and do their job, even when the part of that job currently called for is arresting people breaking the law, and even if the police in question are kind of annoyed at those people for breaking that law and inconveniencing them.

It's called professionalism :)

If a cop came across a person breaking any other law, who didn't try to evade capture or physically resist or provoke in any way, say someone j-walking, or caught shoplifting a pack of gum, would you ask what the big deal was if before securing restraints on the pliant ne'er do well the cop stopped to spray them repeatedly with pepper spray first as they stood waiting to be cuffed, rather than simply arresting them?

It seems doubtful that most would question this, which makes me inclined to think you are only bewildered when you disagree with the politics of those citizens about why people should care about police exercising levels of restraint when interacting with citizens commensurate with the incredible power over those citizens they are afforded to allow them to do their job.

I will leave other likely conclusions unstated, in the name of the civilized restraint that the officers in question were legally expected to maintain but chose to abandon in favor of indulging a childish display of temper. :)

It's hard to make the right decision all the time, but cops are given guns and the legal license to make decisions that effect the freedoms of the rest of the population, up to and including the licence to take away their freedom to breath by using lethal force. With that kind of power bestowed on them by the citizenry they serve, they should not be surprised that citizens might be outraged to see them lose control of themselves and resort to violent suppression of peaceful Americans, a blatant abuse of that power in response to very little provocation.

How did they expect people to react? People with so little mastery of their own emotions have no business being cops.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they were actively resisting arrest the videos show it, the cops tried to break them up but were unsuccessful.

[-] 2 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

"active resistance" has a distinct legal meaning - you keep using the term (and variants) as if it doesn't, but it does - this is important, and you can neither properly understand what you're talking about, nor be taken seriously by others, without making some effort to inform yourself, or at least engaging with the attempts of others to try to help inform you:

"Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force.   The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3.   Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors:  the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I'll give you that, I'm not a cop and I'm not a fan of cops either but it seems to me struggling against the police would be considered and active motion. I won't use that word again, thank you for the correction.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 8 years ago

They were passively resisting and the cops made a show of trying to break them up, if it were more than just a show, they would have succeeded. They are trained to break up linked arms using their batons, it is a simple matter of leverage, and even if all the protesters were built like the govenator if they apply the correct technique they can break two people apart. It is an arduous process though, and not nearly as satisfying to a violent person as blasting the annoying punks with tear gas first. So again, the only thing the cops were unsuccessful at there was in holding on to their temper and remaining aware that they can't do that shit anymore now that the entire population carries a video camera on them.

[-] 2 points by Kooch (77) 8 years ago

To the OP and others that don't just see the over-reaction of the police as reprehensible in the first place, keep this in mind: The use of pepper spray in California is illegal unless used in self-defense. This law applies to the police as well as citizens. That UC Davis pig broke Cali law. He should be jailed.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

that is debatable, by engaging the protesters physically they would be putting themselves at risk, the protesters were resisting arrest and police can use force in the form of pepper spray to subdue those resisting arrest.

[-] 2 points by RedSkiesAwaitUs (57) from Quebec, QC 8 years ago

sigh this has been covered 50 times in the past 4 hours.. Read around a little before posting, will ya?

To answer your question, the law in this instance was unjust, and therefore breaking it was completely justified. What cannot be justified is using this kind of force on peaceful protestors, badge or no badge.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

If you are breaking the law you are inviting the use of force, I agree and think the use of force is only justified in self defense. But they were asking for it. Sorry I have not been on here very long

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Total contradiction.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

my philosophy is not the reality, the reality is they knew what they were doing and were asking for it. If you engage in civil disobedience by definition you are breaking the law
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

ok sorry i misread that i guess. By breaking the law it would be wise to expect the use of force but I don't think the police have the right to hurt people for at most passively resisting arrest. It looked like they were just disobeying not even really resisting. Why didn't the police just cuff them and arrest them?

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

From the video it looked like the protesters were locking arms so they could not be cuffed. I agree they did hurt the protesters but they may have hurt them more if they tried to pull them apart considering they were resisting. I think an hour of burning eyes and throat is preferable to sprains broken bones and dislocations.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

That may be. I only watched the video once right after it happened. I don't think I could stand to watch it again. Did the police make an attempt to arrest them first or did they just go right for the excessive use of force for the purpose of intimidation?

[-] -1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

They knew that it was coming well in advance and were given the opportunity to leave. They basically said bring it on. Watching the longer vid gives a much different impression than the short clip that's been shown mostly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

[-] 3 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

this idea that 'they were warned, they stayed anyway, ergo they deserved it' is genuinely disturbing for its enthusiastic embrace of fascism

it requires one to see police as a priori justified in whatsoever they choose to do, so long as they announce it in advance - it also leads to a completely misconceived view of the legitimacy of force

pepper spray is not authorised for use as a mechanism to enforce compliance; it is intended to be used for incapacitating otherwise-uncontrollable arrestees - the idea that it can be used as punishment for refusal to comply with an order (whether lawful or otherwise) from a police officer is completely unsupported in law, which requires unambiguously that there must be an immediate threat to the officers or others

it's also nauseating to watch people try to defend it as legitimate and justified - do you really want the law to agree with you?

to summarise: illegal, immoral, nauseating

"Our conclusion comports with the logical notion that it is rarely necessary, if ever, for a police officer to employ substantial force without warning against an individual who is suspected only of minor offenses, is not resisting arrest, and, most important, does not pose any apparent threat to officer or public safety. Indeed, we have found the use of pepper spray to be excessive in such circumstances even when a warning was provided. Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1129–30 (9th Cir.2002) (Headwaters II )" http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1578552.html

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

You link goes to another case where just a mention of the Headwaters decision appears. A better link to the actual Headwaters v. Humbolt case is here:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1178646.html

You'll also note that "...in such circumstances..." as quoted include the specifics of the case cited which state "...is not resisting arrest" (among various other considerations).

The actual Headwaters decision was not centered on whether the use of pepper spray necessarily is excessive. In fact, it found that the reasonableness of the use of such force is a matter which should be left to a jury given that use of reasonable use of force depends on the circumstances (which was the legal issue at hand since the District Court had issued a judgement as a matter of law following a deadlocked jury).

Accordingly, it states, "Similarly, we hold here that whether the use of pepper spray in this case constituted excessive force is a question of fact that should have been submitted to a jury for its decision."

There also was an associated matter of immunity previously granted by the District Court.

The court did not make a decision on the merits of the case; rather, it remanded it back for retrial (which was recently settled in favor of the plaintifs).

So, bottom line, the take-away from the Headwaters case is that the reasonableness of use will be a matter for a jury to decide should it go to court. Intentionally creating an incident in which being sprayed was exactly what the protestors wanted also will be evaluated in reaching that decision.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

my link was to the quoted paragraph - I've also quoted from and linked directly to the Headwaters II decision in numerous other posts - here it is again: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

this case followed on from the one that you refer to, and deals specifically with the question of qualified immunity (setting out, 10 years earlier, the analysis which constitutes part 4 of the decision linked in the post to which you are responding)

on the reasoning in Headwaters II, combined with the Jones case from August this year, the issue of qualified immunity can scarcely even arise for argumentation given the strength of the authority against it in remarkably similar circumstances

[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

Your link goes to YOUNG v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 09–56372, which, while relying on some of the findings, is not directly comparable on all aspects with respect to "...in such circumstances" and was not the matter of law under consideration in the Headwaters case. The issue of immunity isn't in question, I simply mentioned it as a separate consideration in the Headwaters case.

In any case, my original comment wasn't to whether use of pepper spray was or wasn't legal. It was to hamalmang's question regarding whether they were warned and the impressions drawn from the shorter versus longer clips.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

...precisely why I provided the quote that I did, with the italicised section emphasising that the provision of a warning was manifestly insufficient to enliven the right to use the level of force that was resorted to in all cases - meaning that, in all cases, the use of force was excessive

see if this makes it any clearer for you:

"In Headwaters II, we held that police officers employ excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they use pepper spray upon an individual who is engaged in the commission of a non-violent misdemeanor and who is disobeying a police officer's order but otherwise poses no threat to the officer or others. 276 F.3d. at 1131. While the facts in Headwaters II are in some respects distinct from those of this case, that case's straightforward holding would have provided explicit and unambiguous notice to any reasonable officer in Wells's position that the use of intermediate force in general, and of pepper spray in particular, would, under the circumstances as alleged in this case, constitute an excessive response to a suspect's commission of a misdemeanor and disobedience of a police order."

[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

Per your post below since we've reached the end of the line here...

Headwaters II dealt primarily with the issue of immunity and simply references the earlier findings in the first decision which is why I went back to the ealier case. In fact, if you actually read Headwaters II, the only new aspects addressed are as the specifics relate to the question of immunity under Saucier.

Again, it's a subtle distinction but the matters of law addressed are distinct from whether the use of pepper spray represents excessive force under any and all circumstances (regardless how they may have referenced and more loosely presented in the Young case). In particular, for example, ¶15 - ¶18 all deal with specific aspects of Headwaters that are not exactly comparable (i.e., what constitutes necessary force to remove, what constitutes active resistance as defined by the Eureka dept, repeated use, denial of wash, etc.). While I would expect that any future court certainly would rely on both cases, whether the decision would be exactly the same is not necessarily certain given different circumstances.

Given the cases cited, if you were to ask the court whether the use of pepper spray as in the case of the video represents "excessive force," I'd expect that the response would be that it's a matter for a jury to decide what was excessive given the specific circumstances, not absolutely positively so simply because the protestors were sprayed.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

agreed, whether any particular use of force was excessive in the circumstances is a matter of fact for a jury to decide - the importance of the holding from Headwaterss II concerns, specifically, the availability of qualified immunity (hence the location of its discussion within the Jones decision)

while this is a separate inquiry from that into whether any given use of force was excessive, it remains intimately related both for the reason that a finding of excessive force will nevertheless be unpunishable if the officer is able to establish immunity, and because it goes to the legitimacy of that force - officers are expected to know the limits of their powers and to remain within them

if you're interested in the countervailing analyses into, on one hand, the nature and quality of the intrusion, and, on the other, the governmental interest in the use of force - which are necessary to establish excessive force - goto Young which sets out the principles with admirable clarity and applies them in a manner entirely and explicitly consistent with Headwaters II

just so you're aware, it's a decision reversing in part the grant of summary judgment, and it remands the question of excessive force for determination below (presumably by a jury properly instructed as to the law) - I'd remind you, though, that the reason judgments of appellate courts are so instructive is that they are able to consider questions of law in a somewhat more abstract way, and thus clarify principles more acutely, than lower courts

[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

Once again, your quote, while accurately quoted from the case that you cite, is specific to circumstances of the Headwaters and Young cases. Note the text "...under the circumstances as alleged in this case." In fact, the Court made no decision with respect to whether the use of pepper spray is prohibited in all such cases and under any circumstances.

For example, among other considerations and differences, the Headwaters case involved direct application of the compound to the eyes. The Young case involved repeated spraying and use of a baton and it did not involve resistance (among other considerations). There is no assurance that the court would hold in the same way under other specific circumstances. The application of either case to this situation, should it go to court, would be a likely point of contention and judgement.

As above, the Court made no explicit decision in Headwaters with respect to whether the use of pepper spray is prohibited in all such cases. Rather, again, what was decided was whether such findings could be made by the court as a matter of law. All of the text around whether the use of pepper spray constitutes excessive force is to that end, NOT as a matter decided by the court. The relevant sections of the decision in full are below. The rest re the use of pepper spray specifically is simply to support the decisions made as below with respect to whether a jury was required to determine the question of excessive force.

III. B.

Forrester did not hold “that pain compliance techniques are constitutionally permissible as a matter of law.”  25 F.3d at 809 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting).   Nor did it establish a rule of qualified immunity for the use of pain compliance techniques to arrest passively resisting misdemeanants.  Forrester simply held that whether the use of OPNs as a pain compliance technique constituted excessive force was a question of fact that was properly submitted to the jury for its decision.   Similarly, we hold here that whether the use of pepper spray in this case constituted excessive force is a question of fact that should have been submitted to a jury for its decision.

IV.

The inherently fact-specific determination whether the force used to effect an arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment should only be taken from the jury in rare cases.   See Chew, 27 F.3d at 1443;  Barlow, 943 F.2d at 1135.   This is not such a case.   Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties, a rational juror could easily conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.   Indeed, the fact that the district judge, after initially declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial, stated that “reasonable people can differ” on the issue of excessive force in this case speaks directly to the wisdom of our decision now to reverse the court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants.

VI.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's decisions to enter judgment as a matter of law for defendants Humboldt County and its Sheriff's Department and the City of Eureka and its police department and to dismiss Sheriff Lewis and Chief Deputy Sheriff Philp on the basis of qualified immunity.   We REMAND this action for a new trial in accordance with the views herein expressed.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

"As above, the Court made no explicit decision in Headwaters with respect to whether the use of pepper spray is prohibited in all such cases."

if you take them at their word in the Jones case, they disagree with you: "In Headwaters II, we held that police officers employ excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they use pepper spray upon an individual who is engaged in the commission of a non-violent misdemeanor and who is disobeying a police officer's order but otherwise poses no threat to the officer or others. 276 F.3d. at 1131."

the confusion seems to stem from your reliance on an earlier judgment from May 2000, while I (and the 2011 Jones court) are both referring to the later judgment of January 11, 2002 (do I need to provide the link again?)

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

the problem is they were resisting arrest, the police were justified in their use of force

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

Bad police will defend bad laws. They will probably even get off on it. Collusion is also illegal and it is at the core of our government.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

yeah, you can keep saying it, but until you're appointed to the Supreme Court and are in a position to overrule the 9th Circuit, it means precisely nothing - other than marking you out as as an insufferably obsequious fasciophile who is distinctly out of place in what used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 8 years ago

a non-violent response or how about just leaving them alone. as an american, you should be extremely concerned about the reactions of power to non-violent protests. this is america, supposedly the greatest open society in the world, we should value, protect and accommodate non-violent protest, especially as our votes become diluted by money interests. the inconvenience of non-violent protest is a cost of liberty and democracy. if the fact that young people non-violently protesting corruption between DC and Wall Street get pepper-sprayed by civil servants in response to blocking a sidewalk doesn't concern you, then i worry for you and america (and our Founding Fathers worry, too)

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Because non-violence does not ever warrant a violent response.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 8 years ago

Cops aren't judges, and therefor are not supposed to issue punishment. The pepper spraying in question was clearly being used as punishment, as there are alternative ways to arrest citizens participating in Civil Disobedience, sit down chains have at other protests been broken up one at a time from end to end. This was clearly a case of punishment.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 8 years ago

Take pepper spray, point it at your face, keep your eyes open and trigger the spray. Are you still confused?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

yea I am, your response is confusing considering the lack of outrage of past abuses (RNC/DNC protests) that the total lack of response to the killing of syrian protesters. So after thinking about it, I am not confused just disgusted at the statist mentalities Americans have. "the sky is falling but no one will care as long as it falls over seas" THRICE

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 8 years ago

GOOD PIECE my friend ,how very true that statement is..people feel if its that minute its not really breaking the law...well I know murderers that FEEL they were not the law...BREAKING THE LAW IS BREAKING THE LAW PERIOD!

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

i agree with you! all the people around the world need to be handled the same way!

http://vimeo.com/30346691

[-] 1 points by weepngwillo2 (277) 8 years ago

I expected the authorities to properly train their officers on the use of force. I also expected them to prevent this kind of abuse of power instead of apologize for it after the fact. If it was so ok, they wouldn't have been put on administrative leave while the state looks into criminal charges.

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

U.S. Constitution Article 1: 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.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they did had the right to peacefully assemble, not to camp. They had the right to speak freely not to block a sidewalk. You're outrage is unjustified, try getting pissed off when your forced into a free speech zone at the RNC or your ear drums are blown out by the LRAD

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

My outrage? I challenge you to locate any evidence supporting your accusation. It’s obvious that you feel strongly about being “forced into a free speech zone at the RNC or your ear drums are blown out by the LRAD.” I would suggest that you voice these feelings in a straightforward manner. Perhaps you will find a dialogue. Best wishes.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

these students were not having their right to free speech infringed upon or their right to assemble taken away, they were engaged in civiv disobedience and refused to move off a public sidewalk. Freedom of speech is not protected when it puts others in danger, and example is yelling fire in a movie theater.

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

I agree that they went too far. The way I understand it, the students encircled the officers then locked arms preventing the officers from being allowed to access the sidewalk. This is unquestionably wrong. Either way, blocking free access of a public sidewalk is a violation. This is why someone should try and educate these persons instead of fighting their objective.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

If you see the full video, you see a police officer stepping over the line of sitting students without any difficulty. It occurs right at the start of the full video clip. They hold still and let him through.

That does not fit with a threatening encirclement.

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

The point is not whether the officer was able to “step over” the line of students or not. The students are clearly blocking the sidewalk. If this is a violation or not I don’t know. However, the officers pepper sprayed students not physically on the walkway. This is unquestionably and at least a federal constitutional violation if not a state constitutional violation as well.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

i think they wanted to be pepper sprayed or violated in some way as a PR stunt

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

Fortunately we live in a country where we are each entitled to not only our own opinion but are also entitled to voice that opinion. At any rate, you may be correct. As for myself I don’t know by any evidentiary burden what their intention was.

[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 8 years ago

When yoo park your car on a prohibited place you get pepper spray ?? or just a get a mult ticket. What terrible law they where infrigating?? been sit in a public park ??

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

if you are preventing the police from doing their job, yes you will be pepper sprayed

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

owschico, If you ask somebody to explain what is obvious, then it is no wonder you are confused. But I'll help you because I am nice. The people who get upset at watching this are able to put themselves in the shoes of both the campus police as well as the students shoes - and determine who is committing the real injustice.

In other words, just because the Stormtroopers had the legal backing of the ruling Empire, the audience, being good at heart, knew to root for Luke Skywalker. His cause for freedom against a repressive Empire resonated a hundredfold times more noble. Heck, even Han Solo, of questionable character himself, finally figured that out.

Now, wasn't that obvious.

[-] 1 points by stephenpaultaylor (6) 8 years ago

That doesn't beat the one I posted... but still... wow... thanks for sharing!

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

totally agree :)

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

What you see on that video is an example of what is called excessive use of force.

What you are witnessing is a *consumer revolt.

It has happened before.

In a harbor.

In Boston.

.

.

chaos is coming!!

. .

but you should not call me Paul . . .

[-] 1 points by qwyksilvr3 (5) from Lexington, KY 8 years ago

If you believe that, you are a part of a zombie nation that has come to believe that governmental powers "can do no wrong." By CA state law, those officers went beyond their bounds. Like several others I've told, if you won't investigate into something like this beyond "what you think you know," then you have no business in judging on it. There's a reason judges have to have a greater knowledge of the law than the police. To correct any wrong doings. If you think you know better, then go to law school. If you can afford it, that is. However, if you just like watching innocent kids being tortured, you are living on the wrong planet!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

just to start, its illegal to use pepper spray on non violent persons.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Police_Abuse,_Corruption,_Misconduct,_and_Treason

[-] 1 points by cba (9) 8 years ago

As a UC Davis alumni -- I actually agree with you.

I think it was bad judgement by the cop... but also not the big deal that it's been made out to be.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Thank you, I totally agree. What do you expect if you are being "civilly disobedient" If I break the law then continue to ignore the police in defiance I would expect force to be used to coerce me to comply, I would rather not be pepper sprayed but I would not be surprised.

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Coward...traitor...collaborator...tout...rat...you are ALL of these, you pathetic DOG...

[-] 1 points by entrepreneur (69) 8 years ago

what law are you talking about? protest is legal in democracy. Get a lawyer or go to law school

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

it is illegal to block a public sidewalk, it is illegal to camp on public property without a permit. The students admit they were engaged in "civil disobedience" So they knowingly were breaking the law, they were asked move to a legal space to sit but refused. They refused demands from law enforcement and were actively resisting. This calls for law enforcement to use force to obtain compliance.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

OMG..how about learning about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment?

Not only is it the Law of the Land but it overrides ALL State law and city ordinances UNLESS State law or city ordinances are SUPERIOR to the Bill of Rights.

btw, I am an immigrant and I DAMNIT KNOW The Constitution! AND I took an oath to uphold it when I became a citizen!

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Where in the first amendment does it give you the right to break the law when expressing your "freedom to assemble" or "freedom of speech"?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

these are YOUR words "if you are engaged in Civil Disobedience non violently you are just breaking the law in a non violent manor"

Peaceful assembly is NOT breaking the Law! What is it you do not understand? The Bill of Rights is part of the U.S Constitution which OVERRIDES all State and city laws UNLESS State and City laws are SUPERIOR!

Also everything NOT covered in the U.S Constitution is left up to the States and or local govt BUT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY IS NOT. It is COVERED by the Bill of Rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And as far as I can tell there was NO VIOLENCE in the addressing of grievances by the students!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Peaceful assembly on a freeway interchange is not breaking the law? Do you know what "civil disobedience" is? If it were not breaking the law it would be demonstrating, or picketing.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

They were NOT sitting on a freeway!!!!!!!!!

"""""""""University of California, Davis chancellor Linda Katehi, who has faced criticism from students, faculty and staff in recent days, told some 1,000 students gathered in an auditorium that she asked police to remove tents from the university's quad but did not direct them to forcibly remove the demonstrators.

IN PICTURES: Occupy Wall Street protests

"I explicitly directed the chief of police that violence should be avoided at all costs," she said. "It was the absolute last thing I ever wanted to happen."

She stressed that students have a right to demonstrate peacefully."""""""""""""""""""

But yes, the public CAN address grievances towards the government IN PUBLIC PLACES!

NOWHERE does it state a time or place in the U.S Constitution!

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Blocking a public sidewalk was the reason for the removal from that space, they had the right to assemble anywhere else as long as they were not blocking access to public areas. You are confused as to what they were doing, they were engaged in civil disobedience (breaking the law) demonstrating is not civil disobedience since is not illegal (civil action). You have to be breaking the law to have the title disobedient added.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

BUT BUT BUT........it does NOT say in the Constitution WHERE in public space they can or cannot assemble and UNLESS State and local laws TRUMP the Constitution does the Constititution STAND!

WHAT is it you do NOT understand about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights ?

FYI the Bill of Rights APPLIES to the Government and is to RESTRAIN the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon the peoples Civil Liberties and NOT the other way around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact is....people are NOT taught this in public school and so the masses have become so uneducated on any of this. Thats why we are where we are today.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

So you can peacefully assemble in intersections or freeways?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Under the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it does NOT restrict WHERE or WHEN there can be a peaceful assembly in public.

So technically UNLESS the STate or city laws give MORE RIGHTS and trump the Bill of Rights...does the Bill of Rights stand and supersede ALL State and City ordinances!

BUT.........I do want to add.....the Rule of Law is broken constantly and especially by those in power. Read Constitutional attorney and civil liberties advocate Glenn Greenwald on 'With Liberty and Justice for some' on the Two Tier justice system. But the more citizens hold govt accountable and are knowledgeble, the more chance the people stand.

http://www.truthout.com/why-elite-class-protected-under-americas-justice-system/1319566022

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

you can not peacefully assemble anywhere, I'm glad this conversation is now happening in this country but where we really need it is at the RNC and DNC when free speech is actually restricted (free speech zones)

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

that is exactly the point. These 'free speech zones' are UNconstitutional. Molly Ivens talks about this in her book "The Bill of Wrongs.

But I suggest you get Glenn Greenwalds book and see how the elite gets off for murder while we are thrown in jail for using our First Amendment right.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I'll check that out, I know plenty about our oligarchy and have been resisting for most of the last decade. I'm just not sure what to think about this it really doesn't seem that bad as compared to what has been overlooked for so long

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Police Brutality Bloody Black Friday Cops Bust Open Grandpa's Head You're Next!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbV6HvI05k

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

you are serious aren't you...?

the bit where it says "Congress shall make no law..."

it means that any law passed by Congress (or state legislatures - also includes administrative interpretations and the like) which has the effect of impermissibly interfering with the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional and invalid

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they were free to assemble, but not to block a public sidewalk. They were not free to camp on public property with out a permit. Nobody said they could not assemble. You can not engage in civil disobedience with out breaking the law, so by definition civil disobedience is illegal. You are allowed to demonstrate and picket all you want.

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

you misunderstand - the constitutional entrenched rights are prior, in law, to any purported attempt to limit them, whether by local government proscriptions against blocking sidewalks or camping or whatever...

the analysis as to whether the law is, in the circumstances, legitimate or illegitimate is highly contextual and, in a common law system, emerges ex post facto - the relevant considerations when looking at laws which restrict fundamental rights include the legitimacy of the governmental aim (ie the need to keep sidewalks clear for public usage) and the proportionality of the restriction on implicated rights - the point is, nobody knows in advance who is definitively in the right - each side acts on its interpretation and understanding of the balance of rights and wrongs in the circumstances, but it is ultimately only open to a court to decide definitively

using potentially lethal force on protesters presenting zero credible threat to anybody (irrespective of whether a court would ultimately determine that the public interest in clear sidewalks outweighed, in the specific circumstances under examination, the rights to freedom of assembly and free speech), is, however, clearly and simply illegal no matter how many warning were given

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

pepper spray is not lethal, even if it caused anaphylaxis interventions could be made (epinephrin) so that claim is unjustified. I don't think the courts will find in favor of the students, they were breaking the law period

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

it is potentially lethal - part of the reason the category of weaponry it was in had to be reclassified from "Non-Lethal" to "Less-Lethal"

you also seem to have missed the point that EVEN IF they were breaking the law, AND the law amounted to a legitimate infringement on their constitutional rights, the use of force was STILL ILLEGAL

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

they do not have a constitutional right to camp on public property with out a permit, or to block a public side walk. Force is legal when someone is breaking the law and resisting arrest.
And like I said the only way pepper spray can be lethal is anaphylaxis, but with proper medical care anaphylaxis is not lethal and (someone can have anaphylaxis to nearly any substance example: peanuts)

[-] 1 points by sentientelechy (51) 8 years ago

“An Army study concluded that pepper spray’s active ingredient, “is capable of producing carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular toxicity, as well as possible human fatalities.”

also, check out this report on how the FBI agent responsible for conducting the studies in the late 80s which led to the enthusiastic embrace of pepper spray by police forces was jailed and fired after it was revealed he'd been taking bribes from producers who had an interest in him reaching the 'right' conclusions about its safety and efficacy http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/05/20/NEWS10592.dtl&ao=all

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Sensitization is the danger here (as I already stated) In mice the ld 50 of capsaicin is 60 mg / kg so its toxicity is not so applicable, the same could be said for its carcinogenic effects.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

A police officer pepper sprays a guy for jay walking, just because you think that any supposedly illegal activity should be met with this kind of brutal force. Give it a rest..

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

-Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power If you are resisting the officers commands, refusing to obey the law and resisting the demands of law enforcement then yes you can have force used against you to subdue you. I would take mace over a real injury any day

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

A police officer isn't God...Some laws are just stupid..They need to be disobeyed...Yes expect thugs to pepper spray you and beat you with a night stick. Protesters come prepared!

http://www.ehow.com/how_7395476_defend-against-pepper-spray-attacks.html

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

I agree but blocking a public sidewalk is not one of them, sorry

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Blocking a public sidewalk is another overreach of law like having your car lights on during inclement weather.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

it is there so that everyone have access to public property, it is for public safety. The few can not take rights away from the many, public property can not be legally occupied as to obstruct use. That is what they did. Not having your car lights on at night, thick fog, or a blizzard is a good law, it is dangerous to not have them on.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Some of this shit is just a good excuse for some jackoff to write you a ticket to ensure revenue, to ensure job security...

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

so you think it blocking a driveway should not be illegal? It is there to insure the few can not take away equal access to public property

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

It depends...

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 8 years ago

Uh, I expect blister agents to be used against only those posing a threat?

[-] 1 points by Sample246 (43) from Pell City, AL 8 years ago

Well, when the nazis rolled through the streets demanding that the jews surrender themselves, they would have been breaking the law to hide right? Do you really believe that our government has our best interests in mind? This isn't the America you were raised to believe it was. Think for yourself. Violent oppression is just over the horizon.

[-] 1 points by ArialBoundries (18) 8 years ago

As long as they were offering no violent resistance and posed no identifiable threat. I would expect them to kneel down behind them, place some zip cuffs on them and walk them off as the WORST CASE. What they did was wrong, stepped over the line, and you could see the POS took great joy in it.

[-] -1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

They had arms linked. They were told to move. They were warned in advance and said bring it on. Basically, they wanted to be sprayed. Watch the longer vid that shows what happened prior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

[-] 2 points by ArialBoundries (18) 8 years ago

Yeah I did, and it was obvious that they could have moved them without any major issue.

My kid grabs on to the stair rail when he doesn't want to move, I just pull his hand off and march him out as he doesn't offer any real resisitance, these students would have been much the same way. If THAT didn't work, THEN maybe do something a little more drastic.

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

I guess you missed the part where they tried pulling people away just before and they weren't going to be moved. Could they have used much more physical force to do so? Probably but then people would have just screamed about that too. Sorry, they made their own bed so to speak.

[-] 2 points by ArialBoundries (18) 8 years ago

Believe what you want to believe (as it's obvious you will despite the facts) Those kids were dong 0.00000 harm to anyone. Had there been an emergency (if a ambulance would have come to get someone out of the building who was ill) they would have let them through. More to the point poeple were just walking AROUND them to come and go, it was more of a symbol than anything else, they blocked "an area" they did not prevent access to the facilities. So this was a pissing contest pure and simple. The Dean saying "It's MY University not YOUR univesity" Which is especially funny as she doesn't pay to be there, the students pay her.

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

BS. I'm not disputing the facts. Rather, you are intentionally ignoring the facts because it suits your view. Fact is that they intentionally chose to block the walk in order to provoke a reaction. They got exactly what they intended and wanted out of it.

[-] 2 points by ArialBoundries (18) 8 years ago

"Make a statement" VS "Provoke a reacion" is a large row to hoe. If the police had never shown up they still would have made their statment.

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

Had the police not shown up, then they would have been disappointed. lol And they would have failed in what they were attempting to do.

You don't seem to understand that they won. They got the viral video that they intended to get. The smarter thing for the police to do WOULD have been to just ignore them and let them sit there like idiots. But I suppose that they had their orders to clear the area so that's what they did.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 8 years ago

You got jokes..right!?

[-] 0 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

what about pepper spraying Jon Corzine the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and of MF Global, and a one time American politician, who has misappropriatedhundreds of millions of dollars PLUS is then found to have been in business without a valid (and required) securities license. Why isn't he in handcuffs? Isn't this a perfect example that the rule of law has totally broken down in USA?

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 8 years ago

If what you say is true, he should be and will be in handcuffs. What is your point?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 8 years ago

I'm confused also. I obey laws, show respect for others and our law enforcement, do what the police ask when they ask and where they ask. Guess what? Never been threatened with arrest, never arrested, certainly never been pepper sprayed.

So, I have little sympathy for folks blocking a public sidewalk (against the law), gathering without a permit (against the law), failing to to conform to a police request (against the law), and resisting arrest (against the law). Explain the outrage again....

[-] -1 points by daverose1270 (9) 8 years ago

True statement if you wish to protest and block a road you will have a reaction, you have to ask your self are you willing to accept that reaction.If no, go home; if yes by all means protest . and the law is justified to allow a fire truck or ambulance to get trough. It was just pepper spray , in other places they use live rounds. So a bunch getting a blast of pepper spray at UC Davis looks a little chicken shit to a protester in Syria.

[-] 2 points by fierofixer (6) from Griswold, CT 8 years ago

And perhaps one of the main reasons we do not live with those conditions here is because we have citizens with the strength and conviction to keep our elected government and it's authoritative forces in check. The recent crackdowns and efforts to shut down the protesters through violence is proof that we have been too complacent for too long. I'm proud that these youths, these students, these Americans are putting on such a show of strength and solidarity!

[-] 1 points by daverose1270 (9) 8 years ago

true, but will it last , will people in the US still be there if the authoritative forces you speak of decide to up the anti- and some thing the Kent shootings are the result. I will see if the movement can make it through the winter first with out fading away. then maybe you have some thing.

[-] 1 points by fierofixer (6) from Griswold, CT 8 years ago

I think you're getting off-point here. The protesters have already created a movement beyond anything this country has seen in a generation. My comment was only to argue that OWS has proven to the world that if peaceful protesters, exercising their 1st amendment rights, are met with violence from police, there will be public outrage and consequences.

[-] 1 points by daverose1270 (9) 8 years ago

i don't really think a little pepper spray is that violent. we used to get drunk and give one other a big blast in the face with the stuff it sucks us, harts like hell for a time. All i am saying is its not that big of a thing .Will they come be back for other one tomorrow ? As for the people just standing around watching if the spring was so violent why did they not do anything to stop it ? as for the world they will just think that those people in the U.S are a joke for making such a big deal out of it .

[-] 1 points by fierofixer (6) from Griswold, CT 8 years ago

It's not the level of violence, it's the fact that violence was even used. It's pointless to argue though because obviously you do NOT understand that we live in a country where we have the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and what it means when those rights are violated. Understanding my argument would require a small degree of abstract thought to which you, sadly, are incapable. It's my fault though, I should have read a few of your previous posts before replying to this. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered. Have a great night! :) Work on that spelling!

[-] 1 points by daverose1270 (9) 8 years ago

cry baby

[-] 0 points by fierofixer (6) from Griswold, CT 8 years ago

Keep proving my point for me. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 8 years ago

Syria is your benchmark for America? Comments such as yours really make me sad and scared for America.

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

Adam Kokesh made a video showing this exact situation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo6NMom2L0A&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1

[-] 0 points by daverose1270 (9) 8 years ago

and there you have it . if we had to face that, there would be no one in the streets in the U.S These people are willing to die for there freedoms.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

The protesters were not surprised so why are others so surprised?

[-] 1 points by tmn072 (4) 8 years ago

After finally looking at all the comebacks you made you even tried to say a police law overwrite the constitution and bill of writes. You just made yourself look like the biggest retard on this forum. So get out troll and next time don't repeat your answer to people over 10 times thx

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

The bill of rights does not allow you to peacefully assemble where ever you would like to in any manner you would like. You can not camp with out a permit, you can not block a public sidewalk. What don't you get. Law overwrites the constitution all the time, look at any drug law. You calling me a retard is proof you are just incapable of proving your point with logic, sorry about you deficit.

[-] 1 points by tmn072 (4) 8 years ago

no time and time again you don't understand that the bill of rights and the constitution override every law, people have said it to you time and time again. also the main reason for this post was you defending the cop and by that your retarded law enforcement investigators already said he did the wrong thing and he's suspended from duty so guess what he did the wrong thing pepper sprayed should not have been used your arguments fail thread/

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

not true, you don't have a right to bear arms in a national park.

[-] 1 points by fierofixer (6) from Griswold, CT 8 years ago

I don't think ANYONE is surprised. Angry yes.... Surprised... NO.
Please think before you speak.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Because the protesters have been thinking about this and watching this happen for a while now. The rest of the country still thinks we live in good ol' america where this can not happen. I think that is one of the reasons they just sat there and took it. So then everyone else can see what the police are willing to do.