I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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
-
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
-
I suggested a possible reason why that officer might have used it. Until the officer states the reason then the possibility remains.
-
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:
So you think the govenment owns federal property and the government is some entity that doesn't not represent us.
Yes the government owns the property. Your second assertion is flat out wrong and does not follow from the first.
Majerus wrote:
If we do not own it, then who does? Obama, and before him Bush? Is the pentagon owned by the joint chiefs of staff?
Nonsense. The car company Ford owns property - it doesn't follow that the CEO then actually owns it.
Majerus wrote:
As the owner of the apartments I do not have unrestricted access to leased apartments.
Actually for the most part you do. The rights of the tenants, which is different than the actual property rights, is mandated by varying local ordinances. But I suspect that in almost all local districts there are circumstances where the property owner has absolute access rights. Such as when looking for water damage (external or internally caused.)
Majerus wrote:
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.
There is no such thing as an unrestricted right. All have restrictions. All will continue to have restrictions. The restrictions now are much better in terms of protecting the individual than they have ever been.
-
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
Majerus wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting ...
Sigh...it has been determined by the courts numerous times that is NOT an unrestricted right. You CANNOT yell fire in a theater. You WILL be charged with something if you do so. You are NOT allowed to sit in the middle of a highway for weeks on end just because you want to protest cars, highways, ducks or anything else.
Majerus wrote:
No, they aren't.
Many have notions that are nothing but fantasy and yet believe them to actually be possible. That certainly defines "nut-job" to me.
Majerus wrote:
Pepper spraying them is not acceptable and the police chief and officer Pike have been suspended. The school administration agrees with me on that.
Public relations has nothing to do with the validity of the actions. On the other hand it would certainly be relevant to me if either of them was charged with a crime.
-
You've made some broad statements that are for the most part true. It would be nice if you tied it to some point.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
So you think the govenment owns federal property and the government is some entity that doesn't not represent us.
Yes the government owns the property. Your second assertion is flat out wrong and does not follow from the first.
Majerus wrote:
If we do not own it, then who does? Obama, and before him Bush? Is the pentagon owned by the joint chiefs of staff?
Nonsense. The car company Ford owns property - it doesn't follow that the CEO then actually owns it.
Majerus wrote:
As the owner of the apartments I do not have unrestricted access to leased apartments.
Actually for the most part you do. The rights of the tenants, which is different than the actual property rights, is mandated by varying local ordinances. But I suspect that in almost all local districts there are circumstances where the property owner has absolute access rights. Such as when looking for water damage (external or internally caused.)
Majerus wrote:
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.
There is no such thing as an unrestricted right. All have restrictions. All will continue to have restrictions. The restrictions now are much better in terms of protecting the individual than they have ever been.
jschell wrote:
Your second assertion is flat out wrong and does not follow from the first.
It does follow from the first. And it is wrong. We own, through the govenment, all government property.
jschell wrote:
The car company Ford owns property - it doesn't follow that the CEO then actually owns it.
The CEO doesn't own it, the shareholders do. We, the people, are the equivelent to the shareholders.
jschell wrote:
Such as when looking for water damage (external or internally caused.)
Since there is a reason here, the right is not absolute. Just because I own the apartment I do not have the right to walk into an occupied apartment just because I want to. I, along with every person in the country owns the national forests. Individually I don't have unrestricted access to that land, or the right to exploit it.
jschell wrote:
There is no such thing as an unrestricted right.
I haven't said there is. Thought the text of the first amendment doesn't carve out any exceptions. The courts have created a number of exceptions, but inconvience is not one of them.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting ...
Sigh...it has been determined by the courts numerous times that is NOT an unrestricted right. You CANNOT yell fire in a theater. You WILL be charged with something if you do so. You are NOT allowed to sit in the middle of a highway for weeks on end just because you want to protest cars, highways, ducks or anything else.
Majerus wrote:
No, they aren't.
Many have notions that are nothing but fantasy and yet believe them to actually be possible. That certainly defines "nut-job" to me.
Majerus wrote:
Pepper spraying them is not acceptable and the police chief and officer Pike have been suspended. The school administration agrees with me on that.
Public relations has nothing to do with the validity of the actions. On the other hand it would certainly be relevant to me if either of them was charged with a crime.
jschell wrote:
You CANNOT yell fire in a theater.
True.
jschell wrote:
You are NOT allowed to sit in the middle of a highway for weeks on end just because you want to protest cars, highways, ducks or anything else.
True. None of which is relevant to UC-Davis.
jschell wrote:
Public relations has nothing to do with the validity of the actions.
If it's all about PR, then why aren't the defending their actions? If it's justifiable, then justify it. If any laws were broken by the protesters, why are they not charged? Don't make the mistake that if the protesters broke any laws, that would justify pepper spraying them, it would not.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
The possibility remains that he had a "reason". There is no possibility that there was any justificaton for the use of pepper spray here.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
There is no possibility that there was any justificaton for the use of pepper spray here.
There are certainly impossible things in the world in which I live in. Given the information that I have at this time this situation is not one which is impossible.
-
Majerus wrote:
There is no possibility that there was any justificaton for the use of pepper spray here.
There are certainly impossible things in the world in which I live in. Given the information that I have at this time this situation is not one which is impossible.
Then give me the hypothetical that would justify pepper spraying a dozen kids sitting on the ground, completely passive. The video is right there in the OP. Take a look at it and justify the pepper spray.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
Your second assertion is flat out wrong and does not follow from the first.
It does follow from the first. And it is wrong. We own, through the govenment, all government property.
jschell wrote:
The car company Ford owns property - it doesn't follow that the CEO then actually owns it.
The CEO doesn't own it, the shareholders do. We, the people, are the equivelent to the shareholders.
jschell wrote:
Such as when looking for water damage (external or internally caused.)
Since there is a reason here, the right is not absolute. Just because I own the apartment I do not have the right to walk into an occupied apartment just because I want to. I, along with every person in the country owns the national forests. Individually I don't have unrestricted access to that land, or the right to exploit it.
jschell wrote:
There is no such thing as an unrestricted right.
I haven't said there is. Thought the text of the first amendment doesn't carve out any exceptions. The courts have created a number of exceptions, but inconvience is not one of them.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
It does follow from the first. And it is wrong. We own, through the govenment, all government property.
You have a different view of property rights than I do. I own my house. In the vast majority of cases (but not all) I have unrestricted access to it. I in no way have unrestricted access in any way to much of the relevant property that the US government owns. At best the US government holds it in trust for the people. That however neither implies that I personally own it nor that the trust extends to me the same property rights as if I owned it myself.
Majerus wrote:
The CEO doesn't own it, the shareholders do. We, the people, are the equivelent to the shareholders.
Absolutely wrong. The company as a legal entity is not fictional. It actually exists. You are attempting to override the very real legal definition of ownership via nothing more than a conceptual ideal.
Majerus wrote:
Since there is a reason here, the right is not absolute. Just because I own the apartment I do not have the right to walk into an occupied apartment just because I want to. I, along with every person in the country owns the national forests. Individually I don't have unrestricted access to that land, or the right to exploit it.
No idea what your point is. I am specifically discussing you, specifically you, in terms of what rights you, specifically you, might have or not have. And the restrictions that all rights have in regard to you, specifically you, in terms of that. If the entire population of the US decided to walk into the national forests and do 'something' then I am rather certain that they would in fact succeed and no government entity would attempt to stop them. Regardless of what they were doing.
Majerus wrote:
haven't said there is. Thought the text of the first amendment doesn't carve out any exceptions. The courts have created a number of exceptions, but inconvience is not one of them.
I can note that the constitution doesn't say anything about them protesting in my house either. By I fully expect that if they do so they will be prompty removed by the police. People can fully excercise their right to free speech without blocking roads, public/private buildings or otherwise causing disturbanc
-
jschell wrote:
You CANNOT yell fire in a theater.
True.
jschell wrote:
You are NOT allowed to sit in the middle of a highway for weeks on end just because you want to protest cars, highways, ducks or anything else.
True. None of which is relevant to UC-Davis.
jschell wrote:
Public relations has nothing to do with the validity of the actions.
If it's all about PR, then why aren't the defending their actions? If it's justifiable, then justify it. If any laws were broken by the protesters, why are they not charged? Don't make the mistake that if the protesters broke any laws, that would justify pepper spraying them, it would not.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
If it's all about PR, then why aren't the defending their actions? If it's justifiable, then justify it.
That statement suggests you have a wildly different view than I concerning PR in large organizations.
Majerus wrote:
If any laws were broken by the protesters, why are they not charged?
I can't speak specifically to this case but I do in fact know why many protesters are not charged these days. Because it is a specific tactic that protesters use. The tactic is rather simple. 1. Find a law to break. 2. Get a lot of people to break that law. 3. Every single person then insists on a trial by jury. Since jury trial costs a significant amount of money and time the DA dismisses the cases because it would cost the district too much (including time away from real cases) to prosecute all of the cases. Thus they get away with breaking the law.
-
Majerus wrote:
It does follow from the first. And it is wrong. We own, through the govenment, all government property.
You have a different view of property rights than I do. I own my house. In the vast majority of cases (but not all) I have unrestricted access to it. I in no way have unrestricted access in any way to much of the relevant property that the US government owns. At best the US government holds it in trust for the people. That however neither implies that I personally own it nor that the trust extends to me the same property rights as if I owned it myself.
Majerus wrote:
The CEO doesn't own it, the shareholders do. We, the people, are the equivelent to the shareholders.
Absolutely wrong. The company as a legal entity is not fictional. It actually exists. You are attempting to override the very real legal definition of ownership via nothing more than a conceptual ideal.
Majerus wrote:
Since there is a reason here, the right is not absolute. Just because I own the apartment I do not have the right to walk into an occupied apartment just because I want to. I, along with every person in the country owns the national forests. Individually I don't have unrestricted access to that land, or the right to exploit it.
No idea what your point is. I am specifically discussing you, specifically you, in terms of what rights you, specifically you, might have or not have. And the restrictions that all rights have in regard to you, specifically you, in terms of that. If the entire population of the US decided to walk into the national forests and do 'something' then I am rather certain that they would in fact succeed and no government entity would attempt to stop them. Regardless of what they were doing.
Majerus wrote:
haven't said there is. Thought the text of the first amendment doesn't carve out any exceptions. The courts have created a number of exceptions, but inconvience is not one of them.
I can note that the constitution doesn't say anything about them protesting in my house either. By I fully expect that if they do so they will be prompty removed by the police. People can fully excercise their right to free speech without blocking roads, public/private buildings or otherwise causing disturbanc
jschell wrote:
the US government holds it in trust for the people
Great! We're on the same page.
jschell wrote:
The company as a legal entity is not fictional. It actually exists.
the US government also exists and is not fictional.
jschell wrote:
You are attempting to override the very real legal definition of ownership via nothing more than a conceptual ideal.
No, I'm not. It's always been about public/private and the right to assemble and protest.
jschell wrote:
I can note that the constitution doesn't say anything about them protesting in my house either. By I fully expect that if they do so they will be prompty removed by the police.
that's private property, not public. And even private property does not have an absolute right. You yourself said that no right is absolute.
jschell wrote:
I am specifically discussing you
I guess that explains the misunderstanding. i have been talking all along about the right to assemble and protest. The conversation about ownership has always been about the ability to congregate in a public space and protest. You took over the discussion midstream and perhaps didn't understand that.
jschell wrote:
People can fully excercise their right to free speech without blocking roads, public/private buildings or otherwise causing disturbances.
As I have already said, the constitution makes no exceptions or conditions other than it be "Peaceable". The court has carved out some exceptions and inconvience is not one of them. [EDIT]
jschell wrote:
Their choice to do just that has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with attracting media attention.
The two are not mutually exclusive. What's wrong with having the media pay attention? When one is protesting one wants as many people as possible to hear the message. It would be self-defeating to shun the media. It took weeks of around the clock occupation in New York, and countless other cities before the media began to pay attention. And it has payed off. Income inequality was almost never mentioned and now the topic is part of the political conversation in a way it has
-
Majerus wrote:
If it's all about PR, then why aren't the defending their actions? If it's justifiable, then justify it.
That statement suggests you have a wildly different view than I concerning PR in large organizations.
Majerus wrote:
If any laws were broken by the protesters, why are they not charged?
I can't speak specifically to this case but I do in fact know why many protesters are not charged these days. Because it is a specific tactic that protesters use. The tactic is rather simple. 1. Find a law to break. 2. Get a lot of people to break that law. 3. Every single person then insists on a trial by jury. Since jury trial costs a significant amount of money and time the DA dismisses the cases because it would cost the district too much (including time away from real cases) to prosecute all of the cases. Thus they get away with breaking the law.
So in the end, you are basically saying that the police brutality was completely pointless. It accomplished nothing and was bad PR. No laws were enforced. That may be a tactic that gets used, but it doesn't appear to be the point of this protest. The students didn't gather to break a law, they gathered to protest inequality.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Probably because it wouldn't have helped. Additional reports that I read stated that some of the students were held down and had the pepper spray sprayed directed down their throats.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
There is no documentation that I can find that says the Occupiers at UC Berkley were pepper-sprayed directly down their throats or even directly into their mouths. (I'm sure some of the spray did make it into some of their mouths, however, the spray was not directed there.) I have read the link you provided and there is no mention of it in the article.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
There is no documentation that I can find that says the Occupiers at UC Berkley were pepper-sprayed directly down their throats or even directly into their mouths. (I'm sure some of the spray did make it into some of their mouths, however, the spray was not directed there.) I have read the link you provided and there is no mention of it in the article.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunIt maybe because the protest was at UC-Davis, not Berkley. The subject line is incorrect. Sorry about the confusion. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. [^]
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Then give me the hypothetical that would justify pepper spraying a dozen kids sitting on the ground, completely passive. The video is right there in the OP. Take a look at it and justify the pepper spray.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
First let me say that I completely agree that the use of the pepper spray was ill advised and even unjustified. If the cops were ordered to have the students removed or otherwise dispersed from the Quad, then it follows that the cops ordered the students to disperse. The Law requires you to follow the lawful orders of Police. Ordering someone to disperse is a lawful order. The Police are within their rights to use reasonable force to effect compliance with a lawful police order. Are there reasonable means, more reasonable that Pepper Spray, to effect compliance? No doubt. Could they have been used without causing injury to Police and students? Maybe. We'll never know. It depends on how determined the students were to resist. I have no doubt though that the police were in a no-win situation. No matter what they did, it would have turned into a fracas. And they would have been vilified no matter what means they used to effect the dispersal. It would have been better to simply let things be and make sure things didn't get out of hand or grow too large. Personally, I don't see why the students "occupying" UC Davis would be such a problem. So long as it doesn't interfere with the mission of the university and other student's rights to get the education for which they paid. [Edit] changed "UC Berkley" to "UC Davis" [/Edit]
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
It maybe because the protest was at UC-Davis, not Berkley. The subject line is incorrect. Sorry about the confusion. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. [^]
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Thanks, that is horrible, and completely despicable. Unreasonable use of force. If the students were covering their faces, then their arms were likely no longer linked and could be easily arrested or removed. Shameful.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun