I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
Majerus wrote:
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Again, the point of a protest is power in numbers. So your example is flawed. The idea is to have more than an executive force can come up with. So if you can gather 20, then the job of the protestors is to get 100. You still going to move them non violently??
Majerus wrote:
Yeah, they are.
No, you should actually look at what 'public' property means. For example, if you own a house and there exists a sidewalk in your front walk, that is considered 'public property'. However, it is not 'owned' by the public but owned by you. This is basic ownership vs access rights. The 'public' can NOT own land. Go ask a lawyer if you do not believe me.
Majerus wrote:
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
What about the poor sap trying to relax?? Ok I am being silly here. But to say that no one was obstructed is ridiculous. Any protest always skrews crap up for some bystander. This is why MANY protests go to the city or dean BEFORE hand and actually inform them they will be 'screwing' things up. Yes they have their 1st ammendment protecting them. However, when it states "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", one must keep in mind this also means they (the protestors) can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life. Therefore, if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling. The first amendment does NOT grant the right to protest. It does grant the right to assemble. Just don't mess with my day and you are OK. Read it again and again and again. You are one of many that miss this point. "Peacably" assemble != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Again, you need to read the 1st ammendment closer. It grants "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Peacably Assemble" != Protest "Petition" != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Be that as it may, when they
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So your example is flawed.
My example is not flawed, it was you who provided the example. You now provide another example. I could still do it. One protester at a time, if necessary. But we are not talking about some hypothetical, we are talking about the quad at UC-Davis. There weren't 100 protesters, maybe 2 dozen.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you should actually look at what 'public' property means
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The 'public' can NOT own land
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life.
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling.
You have no basis for that belief.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
"Peacably Assemble" != Protest
"Petition" != ProtestFalse. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
in masses in designated areas
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Anyones. It doesn't matter
Of course it matters. When protesters gather in the quad whose house are they invading?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yes. I have seen cases where the officers are afraid for their lives.
No, you said "antagonize". Where does fear come into the equation?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
does not mean it could not escalate to that point.
-
Viscious police brutality[^] The protesters' response to this disgusting behavior is to be admired. "Shame on you!". And at the end of the confrontation - “We are willing to give you a brief moment of peace so that you may take your weapons and your friends and go. Please do not return.” Police: 0 - Protesters: 1 million.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Just saw a picture on FB that has all of the officers contact info. That bad boy is sure to go viral. And its good. The cop that did that should be violated in ways only a "friendly" cell mate can accomplish. ;P Yeah, we may be debating on issues in this thread but as I said how this went down was horrible. The fact that it did go 'down' was expected and can't really bitch about it (the fact they got a violent responce).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
By doing so they became protestors and were also causing public disturbance. Your tactic would have been more acceptable. As I said in other posts "how" the force was executed was wrong. Not wether force should have been executed.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So your example is flawed.
My example is not flawed, it was you who provided the example. You now provide another example. I could still do it. One protester at a time, if necessary. But we are not talking about some hypothetical, we are talking about the quad at UC-Davis. There weren't 100 protesters, maybe 2 dozen.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you should actually look at what 'public' property means
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The 'public' can NOT own land
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life.
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling.
You have no basis for that belief.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
"Peacably Assemble" != Protest
"Petition" != ProtestFalse. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
in masses in designated areas
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Anyones. It doesn't matter
Of course it matters. When protesters gather in the quad whose house are they invading?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yes. I have seen cases where the officers are afraid for their lives.
No, you said "antagonize". Where does fear come into the equation?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
does not mean it could not escalate to that point.
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
-
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you saying you are the federal governement??
The citizens of the state ARE the state. Yes, we ARE the govenment. Or to put it another way - The government - at whatever level are our representatives. If I own an apartment building and hire a management company to manage the building - they do not own it, I do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Context is everything: In this context "Peaceably" means non-violent. For example, abortion clinics are routinely protested by large groups and they are not gassed by the police. They are considered "Peaceable". The convienence of bystanders (or even patients of the clinic) is not considered.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the world we live in.
Oh, I agree with you to a certain extent. We do live in a country where free speech is routinely suppressed when it inconviences the powerful. The teabagger protests where not subject to this kind of violence because they did not threaten to powerful.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
House or land, I still have the right to blast you if you are present on my property and I have requested you leave.
It public property - in this case state property - owned by the citizens of that state collectively. Pissing off a cop does not equal fear. Pre-emptive violence is not acceptable. You can't jput an abusive husband in jail because he might beat his wife. You can't do it until he actually does beat her.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But if a citizen antognizes and officer they will be punished as the officer as the authority to do so.
He doesn't have the authority to do so. Where is the law that says "If you shoot the finger at a cop, the cop is permitted to beat the shit out of you."?
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
you do realize that you are going now where fast with this person, right? once, I realized I was debating with a troll, I dropped off. Took me a while, but look at their profile. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
you do realize that you are going now where fast with this person, right? once, I realized I was debating with a troll, I dropped off. Took me a while, but look at their profile. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)Yeah, at first I was thinking he has some logic. But his 'logic' now seems to have gone in full circle. Thaks for the Heads up :) But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Yeah, at first I was thinking he has some logic. But his 'logic' now seems to have gone in full circle. Thaks for the Heads up :) But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums
Whenever I hang out for too long in the backroom I start to feel a bit dirty. Trolls do a very good job of getting raw emotions out of people for the wrong reasons. I know better but I still allowed this person to fish me up...this time. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
you do realize that you are going now where fast with this person, right? once, I realized I was debating with a troll, I dropped off. Took me a while, but look at their profile. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Well, I'm mostly in favor of the Occupy movement, and I agree with most of what you said. The membership of the movement varies quite a bit, so there's no single message other than the old Network fallback, "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore!" It's not about "Rich = Evil," except for the more extreme members of the protest... It's about the playing field being drastically tilted to favor the guys who are already ahead. Politicians are bought and paid-for by billionaires and corporations through lobbyists and special interest groups, so the 1% (Really the 0.01% or so, but that's a mouthful) can just change the rules to suit them. The OWS movement wants to get money out of politics, and rewind some of those idiotic rules (A corporation is a person? Really?) to give the little guy a fair shot. So corporations are good, but they need to play by the rules. (The following is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of OWS) As for the socialism angle, you and I seem to differ a bit. I'm not an all-out socialist, but I do think some social policies are needed. Capitalism is good, but PURE capitalism leads to the working class being relegated to little more than slave labor. Some socialism is good, but PURE socialism is unfair and encourages laziness and stagnation. You need a mix of the two... Medicare/Medicaid are good policies, but need to be tweaked to reduce costs and cut down on the abuse... Unemployment pay is necessary for some (People who had jobs and lost them, not perpetual slackers), but again needs to cut WAY down on abuse (Maybe combine with a government jobs program)... Welfare isn't ideal, but the alternative is to let people starve to death, and that's not an option in any civilized country. Social security needs to be adjusted to account for longer lifespans, but is necessary now that pensions are all but extinct. Other than social security and medicare (Health care for the elderly), I see social welfare policies as backstops... People need to climb the ladder themselves if they want to prosper, but before they can do that, they need a ladder to climb. When people get sick or laid off, or just fall on hard times, give them enough so they have the opportunity to get back on their feet and go back to supporting themselves.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
AuthIan Shlasko wrote:
The membership of the movement varies quite a bit, so there's no single message other than the old Network fallback, "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore!"
And that in fact is a serious problem. How exactly is anyone suppose to even approach addressing a concern when in fact there is no consensus on what those concerns are?
-
An American that hates the first amendment. Unfortunately not as rare as one would hope.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
An American that hates the first amendment. Unfortunately not as rare as one would hope.
There is no right in the constitution which is not in some way limited. And there is no right that is allowed to supersede other rights either. Your right to express yourself doesn't extend to allowing you to throw a brick through my window.
-
The quad on the campus of UC Davis is not private property. I suspect that if you pepper-sprayed someone sitting passively in your front yard, you be arrested and sued. Force is not always justified, and even when it is, there are limits. There is no justification for what the police did at Berkley. I know what torture is. If you want to argue that pepper-spraying does not rise to the legal definition of torture - that's fine, I won't disagree. Doesn't change that what they did was unjustified and police brutality. And I'll still call it torture.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
The quad on the campus of UC Davis is not private property.
Pretty sure however that it does in fact have different use restrictions versus a downtown sidewalk. Just as the street and the sidewalk have different restrictions.
Majerus wrote:
I suspect that if you pepper-sprayed someone sitting passively in your front yard, you be arrested and sued.
Ridiculous. If someone was sitting in my front yard I would call the police. And they would deal with it in whatever way current policies dictated. Which is exactly what is happening here. The US of course has a very long tradition and methodology for dealing with things that people don't like - pass a law. If you don't want police using some particular methodology to defend you then get out and pass a law about that. Myself pepper spray seems a lot better option versus clubs, stun guns and regular guns.
Majerus wrote:
I know what torture is. If you want to argue that pepper-spraying does not rise to the legal definition of torture - that's fine, I won't disagree. Doesn't change that what they did was unjustified and police brutality. And I'll still call it torture.
And the protesters are a bunch of nut-jobs that are more that willing to 'take' value from the general public in the process of doing nothing but basically partying. If they had a real specific consensus about what it is that they want then it would be different. As it is, it is hard to tell the difference between them and a babbling psychotic wandering down the street.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If I group arms with five of my friends and we blockade the entrance to your work, I highly doubt you are going to be able to move me or any of my friends without using some sort of violence
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Schools are not 'owned' by the public even if it is a public school.
Yeah, they are.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The pentagon maybe a governement owned building, but that does not grant you access or the right to sit on the foot steps preventing people from entering.
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I could probablly come up with a few, but the simpliest is public disturbance.
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But don't bitch when the machine fights back. It should be expected.
Be that as it may, when they overstep, I will bitch. They were wrong. The Chancellor has apologized(should be fired) and some cops have been put on administrative leave(shoud be fired).
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
OK instead of burgler lets use the term "Home Invader".
Whose home is being invaded?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
On a last point, for every peaceful protest that remained 'peaceful' there are countless protests that started 'peaceful' but became violoent. And no, not because of law enforcement. Often protestors antagonize officers. In addition, these officers have often seen when things go bad. They are merely trying to stay a head of it. So there is not another "Kent State".
What's your point? Peaceful protests should be broken up with violence before they become violent? The dead at Kent State have no one to blame but themselves?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Often protestors antagonize officers.
Does that justify a violent response by the cops? Of course not.
The Left - Taking shit for being right sin
Majerus wrote:
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
What exactly are you reading? Protesters are not getting arrested for free speech. They are getting arrested for numerous crimes. If you sit down in the middle of the street I want you arrested. If you camp out in a public park then I want you arrested. If you start yelling incoherently at 3 in the morning using a bullhorn under my bedroom window then I want you arrested. Alternatively if you want to stand on a street corner sidewalk in such a way that I can still walk to lunch, say between the hours of 8am to 5pm and yell out anything you want then go for it. The difference of course is that in the other cases you are infringing on my rights. In the last case you are not. And NONE of that has anything to do with what words are coming out of your mouth.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you saying you are the federal governement??
The citizens of the state ARE the state. Yes, we ARE the govenment. Or to put it another way - The government - at whatever level are our representatives. If I own an apartment building and hire a management company to manage the building - they do not own it, I do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Context is everything: In this context "Peaceably" means non-violent. For example, abortion clinics are routinely protested by large groups and they are not gassed by the police. They are considered "Peaceable". The convienence of bystanders (or even patients of the clinic) is not considered.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the world we live in.
Oh, I agree with you to a certain extent. We do live in a country where free speech is routinely suppressed when it inconviences the powerful. The teabagger protests where not subject to this kind of violence because they did not threaten to powerful.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
House or land, I still have the right to blast you if you are present on my property and I have requested you leave.
It public property - in this case state property - owned by the citizens of that state collectively. Pissing off a cop does not equal fear. Pre-emptive violence is not acceptable. You can't jput an abusive husband in jail because he might beat his wife. You can't do it until he actually does beat her.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But if a citizen antognizes and officer they will be punished as the officer as the authority to do so.
He doesn't have the authority to do so. Where is the law that says "If you shoot the finger at a cop, the cop is permitted to beat the shit out of you."?
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
The citizens of the state ARE the state. Yes, we ARE the govenment. Or to put it another way - The government - at whatever level are our representatives. If I own an apartment building and hire a management company to manage the building - they do not own it, I do.
Nonsense. I suggest you test your theory by trying to enter a secure federal facility. Or try to fire the security guard that prevents your entry. Or try to switch governments because they wont let you in. You can certainly do that with your analogy.
Majerus wrote:
Oh, I agree with you to a certain extent. We do live in a country where free speech is routinely suppressed when it inconviences the powerful.
Wrong. It can only originate from complete ignorance about the current availability of media and ignorance about history. Or it originates from some psychotic paranoid delusion. The current time in history is probably the most free in terms of free speech in all of the US history. What exactly do you think would have happened to you 100 years ago if you even looked at pornography much less wanted to 'express' yourself by creating it? Do you think anyone is executed these days for revealing US secrets? Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were. You do know about the whistler blower laws correct? Do you think that they existed 50 years ago? In the past the 'media' was limited solely to the printed press and wide spread dissemination even at the local level was difficult. These days anyone can grab a camera and become a photo journalist. The web makes print journalism insanely cheap but even print journalism is MUCH cheaper than it was in the past. The routine plastering of every available surface with printed announcements of concerts, protests, lost dogs, new age classes, etc is just one example of how cheap and available just the printed medium is versus in the past. The actual result of this is NOT suppression of free speech but rather exactly the opposite in that because there is so much breadth and depth that absolutely everyone regardless of how disconnected from reality they are, can express their thoughts to a vast number of people and via a vast array of different mediums.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
If UC Davis owns the land the quad is on then it is private property
Apparently you don't understand the concept of public ownership.
Slacker007 wrote:
Force is always justified when someone is breaking the law and they won't stop.
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
Slacker007 wrote:
Sure there is. They were enforcing the law.
Not good enough. Can you even cite the specific law? Again not all levels of force are acceptable under all circumstances. In these circumstances pepper spray is not acceptable.
Slacker007 wrote:
You have no bloody idea what torture is.
Of course I do. It's not complicated. In addition, you seem to have forgotten all about the 1st amendment - "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."
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
Wrong. The video specifically depicts the protesters using a methodology that was specifically created to prevent exactly that. The confrontation on the protesters part wasn't random. It was set up to require that an arrest must occur and to make it as difficult as possible to arrest them (for the given location, as there are other planned methodologies that make it much harder.) Pepper spray could have been employed either to get them to move and/or to get them to stop locking arms. I would guess that you are also unaware that the specific technique used by the protesters WILL likely lead to injuries to protesters even IF the protesters in no way resist. If even a single protester resists then the chance for injury goes way up.
-
Majerus wrote:
An American that hates the first amendment. Unfortunately not as rare as one would hope.
There is no right in the constitution which is not in some way limited. And there is no right that is allowed to supersede other rights either. Your right to express yourself doesn't extend to allowing you to throw a brick through my window.
-
Majerus wrote:
The citizens of the state ARE the state. Yes, we ARE the govenment. Or to put it another way - The government - at whatever level are our representatives. If I own an apartment building and hire a management company to manage the building - they do not own it, I do.
Nonsense. I suggest you test your theory by trying to enter a secure federal facility. Or try to fire the security guard that prevents your entry. Or try to switch governments because they wont let you in. You can certainly do that with your analogy.
Majerus wrote:
Oh, I agree with you to a certain extent. We do live in a country where free speech is routinely suppressed when it inconviences the powerful.
Wrong. It can only originate from complete ignorance about the current availability of media and ignorance about history. Or it originates from some psychotic paranoid delusion. The current time in history is probably the most free in terms of free speech in all of the US history. What exactly do you think would have happened to you 100 years ago if you even looked at pornography much less wanted to 'express' yourself by creating it? Do you think anyone is executed these days for revealing US secrets? Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were. You do know about the whistler blower laws correct? Do you think that they existed 50 years ago? In the past the 'media' was limited solely to the printed press and wide spread dissemination even at the local level was difficult. These days anyone can grab a camera and become a photo journalist. The web makes print journalism insanely cheap but even print journalism is MUCH cheaper than it was in the past. The routine plastering of every available surface with printed announcements of concerts, protests, lost dogs, new age classes, etc is just one example of how cheap and available just the printed medium is versus in the past. The actual result of this is NOT suppression of free speech but rather exactly the opposite in that because there is so much breadth and depth that absolutely everyone regardless of how disconnected from reality they are, can express their thoughts to a vast number of people and via a vast array of different mediums.
jschell wrote:
Nonsense.
No, not nonsense. The analogy is not perfect. They never are. So you think the govenment owns federal property and the government is some entity that doesn't not represent us. If we do not own it, then who does? Obama, and before him Bush? Is the pentagon owned by the joint chiefs of staff?
jschell wrote:
I suggest you test your theory by trying to enter a secure federal facility.
As the owner of the apartments I do not have unrestricted access to leased apartments. For the rest - You never actually made any relevant response concerning suppression of free speech. You went off into a tangent about whether we have more free speech now than in the past. That might be an interesting discussion, but not what I was talking about.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
What exactly are you reading? Protesters are not getting arrested for free speech. They are getting arrested for numerous crimes. If you sit down in the middle of the street I want you arrested. If you camp out in a public park then I want you arrested. If you start yelling incoherently at 3 in the morning using a bullhorn under my bedroom window then I want you arrested. Alternatively if you want to stand on a street corner sidewalk in such a way that I can still walk to lunch, say between the hours of 8am to 5pm and yell out anything you want then go for it. The difference of course is that in the other cases you are infringing on my rights. In the last case you are not. And NONE of that has anything to do with what words are coming out of your mouth.
I was reading the text of the first amendment. What are you reading? They were arrested for numerous crime - you say that with apparent certainty. So, enumerate those crimes. Bear in mind there are no charges pending on those protesters. Onother poster also argued that free speech is only acceptable as long as no one ever gets inconvienced. Well the 1st amendment doesn't have an inconvience exception. But I have not arued that there can never be circumstances that would require the arrest of protesters. I have argued that the police, in this case, were not justified in using pepper spray.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
Wrong. The video specifically depicts the protesters using a methodology that was specifically created to prevent exactly that. The confrontation on the protesters part wasn't random. It was set up to require that an arrest must occur and to make it as difficult as possible to arrest them (for the given location, as there are other planned methodologies that make it much harder.) Pepper spray could have been employed either to get them to move and/or to get them to stop locking arms. I would guess that you are also unaware that the specific technique used by the protesters WILL likely lead to injuries to protesters even IF the protesters in no way resist. If even a single protester resists then the chance for injury goes way up.
jschell wrote:
Pepper spray could have been employed either to get them to move and/or to get them to stop locking arms.
No, pepper spray is not acceptable under these circumstances. For example: The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, which advises police agencies and officers statewide, says pepper spray "can have very serious and debilitating consequences," and "should only be generally used as a defensive weapon" and never to intimidate or retaliate.[^]
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
The quad on the campus of UC Davis is not private property.
Pretty sure however that it does in fact have different use restrictions versus a downtown sidewalk. Just as the street and the sidewalk have different restrictions.
Majerus wrote:
I suspect that if you pepper-sprayed someone sitting passively in your front yard, you be arrested and sued.
Ridiculous. If someone was sitting in my front yard I would call the police. And they would deal with it in whatever way current policies dictated. Which is exactly what is happening here. The US of course has a very long tradition and methodology for dealing with things that people don't like - pass a law. If you don't want police using some particular methodology to defend you then get out and pass a law about that. Myself pepper spray seems a lot better option versus clubs, stun guns and regular guns.
Majerus wrote:
I know what torture is. If you want to argue that pepper-spraying does not rise to the legal definition of torture - that's fine, I won't disagree. Doesn't change that what they did was unjustified and police brutality. And I'll still call it torture.
And the protesters are a bunch of nut-jobs that are more that willing to 'take' value from the general public in the process of doing nothing but basically partying. If they had a real specific consensus about what it is that they want then it would be different. As it is, it is hard to tell the difference between them and a babbling psychotic wandering down the street.
jschell wrote:
Pretty sure however that it does in fact have different use restrictions versus a downtown sidewalk.
"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."
jschell wrote:
Ridiculous. If someone was sitting in my front yard I would call the police.
Good for you, but I was responding to an example created by another poster. In any case the police would not have been justified in using pepper spray either.
jschell wrote:
The US of course has a very long tradition and methodology for dealing with things that people don't like
And protests are part of that tradition.
jschell wrote:
Myself pepper spray seems a lot better option versus clubs, stun guns and regular guns.
Maybe, and none of those options are justifiable either.
jschell wrote:
And the protesters are a bunch of nut-jobs
No, they aren't. But whether they are or not is irrelevant to the police response. Pepper spraying them is not acceptable and the police chief and officer Pike have been suspended. The school administration agrees with me on that.
jschell wrote:
If they had a real specific consensus about what it is that they want then it would be different
That too, is irrelevant. Free speech is still free, even if you can't figure it out.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass