I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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 BraunI agree with you that the school should have left the students in the quad. I disagree with you on the lawful order part. A policeman ordering a peaceful, constitutionally protected assembly to disperse is not a lawful order. Obviously the school administration disagreed with that assessment.
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 Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
It is obvious from the video, based on how the protesters were arrayed that they intended to be arrested and that they intended to make it difficult for the police to remove them. If a single protester became agressive during that process then other protesters would likely sustain injuries. Officers might sustain injuries as well. Even low level agressive behavior in that array can lead to injuries such as strains.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
If I walk into your house and sit in the middle of your living room floor does it interfer with your use of your couch and your access to the tv and kitchen? I suspect that I can find some spot in your living room which would not in fact interfer with your usage of it. However I suspect that you would not in fact want me there and would want the police to remove me. Noting again that the video demonstrates that the protesters intended to get arrested. It wasn't a random collection of protesters just standing/sitting. They knew that the police would need to try to remove them and the specifically, with intent, set themselves up to make that as difficult (there are ways to make it even more difficult.)
-
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
Majerus wrote:
Then give me the hypothetical that would justify pepper spraying a dozen kids sitting on the ground, completely passive.
You do realize that they way they were sitting means that they knew that they were going to be arrested? And they intentionally set themselves up to make it difficult to do just that? To me that doesn't fit the definition of "passive". As for the hypothetical situation...where the alternative is to use clubs, tasers and/or water hoses.
-
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
Majerus wrote:
It accomplished nothing and was bad PR.
Probably.
Majerus wrote:
No laws were enforced.
I couldn't say.
Majerus wrote:
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 protesters in the video were specifically arrayed in a configuration that was intended to make it difficult to arrest them. I don't know what their intent was that lead them to that piece of ground up to the minutes before they took that stance but I know exactly what they intended and what they knew was going to happen once they did array themselves that way. So yes they did in fact "gather to break a law".
-
Majerus wrote:
Then give me the hypothetical that would justify pepper spraying a dozen kids sitting on the ground, completely passive.
You do realize that they way they were sitting means that they knew that they were going to be arrested? And they intentionally set themselves up to make it difficult to do just that? To me that doesn't fit the definition of "passive". As for the hypothetical situation...where the alternative is to use clubs, tasers and/or water hoses.
jschell wrote:
You do realize that they way they were sitting means that they knew that they were going to be arrested?
And they intentionally set themselves up to make it difficult to do just that?Of course. So what? It doesn't justify pepper spray, tasers, batons or water hoses.
jschell wrote:
To me that doesn't fit the definition of "passive".
Sitting are the ground with linked arms, sounds passive to me. Case directly on point: http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2011/11/did-uc-davis-pepper-spray-cop-use-excessive-force.html[^] In this case the protesters did not simply link arms they used "black bears". "A “black bear” is a cylinder with a rod or post welded into the center. The protestors placed their arms into the steel cylinders and attached steel bracelets worn around their wrists to the center rods or posts in the “black bears” by using mountain climbers' carabiners. When in place, the devices immobilized their arms and prevented their separation, although the protestors could disengage themselves from the devices by unclipping the carabiners from inside the cylinders. From 1990 until the fall of 1997, defendants had forcibly, but safely, removed hundreds of “black bears” from protestors' arms by cutting the cylinders with a hand-held electric grinder."
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
It accomplished nothing and was bad PR.
Probably.
Majerus wrote:
No laws were enforced.
I couldn't say.
Majerus wrote:
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 protesters in the video were specifically arrayed in a configuration that was intended to make it difficult to arrest them. I don't know what their intent was that lead them to that piece of ground up to the minutes before they took that stance but I know exactly what they intended and what they knew was going to happen once they did array themselves that way. So yes they did in fact "gather to break a law".
jschell wrote:
The protesters in the video were specifically arrayed in a configuration that was intended to make it difficult to arrest them.
Again, So what? You keep stating this like it is somehow significant. It isn't.
jschell wrote:
So yes they did in fact "gather to break a law".
No, the didn't. They gathered to protest inequality, among other things. Some did choose to accept arrest when the police warned them. But that was in no way the purpose of the protest or why they gathered on the Quad.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
It is obvious from the video, based on how the protesters were arrayed that they intended to be arrested and that they intended to make it difficult for the police to remove them. If a single protester became agressive during that process then other protesters would likely sustain injuries. Officers might sustain injuries as well. Even low level agressive behavior in that array can lead to injuries such as strains.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
If I walk into your house and sit in the middle of your living room floor does it interfer with your use of your couch and your access to the tv and kitchen? I suspect that I can find some spot in your living room which would not in fact interfer with your usage of it. However I suspect that you would not in fact want me there and would want the police to remove me. Noting again that the video demonstrates that the protesters intended to get arrested. It wasn't a random collection of protesters just standing/sitting. They knew that the police would need to try to remove them and the specifically, with intent, set themselves up to make that as difficult (there are ways to make it even more difficult.)
-
jschell wrote:
If I walk into your house and sit in the middle of your living room...
You can stop right there. The Quad is not private property. Full Stop.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
You can stop right there. The Quad is not private property. Full Stop.
Can't say for sure how public institutions there work. But I know how they work where I am. And they are NOT the same as a public sidewalk downtown. No more so than a stadium, courthouse, state house or even a 'public' park.
-
jschell wrote:
You do realize that they way they were sitting means that they knew that they were going to be arrested?
And they intentionally set themselves up to make it difficult to do just that?Of course. So what? It doesn't justify pepper spray, tasers, batons or water hoses.
jschell wrote:
To me that doesn't fit the definition of "passive".
Sitting are the ground with linked arms, sounds passive to me. Case directly on point: http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2011/11/did-uc-davis-pepper-spray-cop-use-excessive-force.html[^] In this case the protesters did not simply link arms they used "black bears". "A “black bear” is a cylinder with a rod or post welded into the center. The protestors placed their arms into the steel cylinders and attached steel bracelets worn around their wrists to the center rods or posts in the “black bears” by using mountain climbers' carabiners. When in place, the devices immobilized their arms and prevented their separation, although the protestors could disengage themselves from the devices by unclipping the carabiners from inside the cylinders. From 1990 until the fall of 1997, defendants had forcibly, but safely, removed hundreds of “black bears” from protestors' arms by cutting the cylinders with a hand-held electric grinder."
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Sitting are the ground with linked arms, sounds passive to me.
And again, that does not fit my definition. How exactly do you differentiate that "passive" behavior from that of an individual that was not in fact intending to get arrested? One who was not in fact deliberately taking action to make arresting them more difficult?
-
jschell wrote:
The protesters in the video were specifically arrayed in a configuration that was intended to make it difficult to arrest them.
Again, So what? You keep stating this like it is somehow significant. It isn't.
jschell wrote:
So yes they did in fact "gather to break a law".
No, the didn't. They gathered to protest inequality, among other things. Some did choose to accept arrest when the police warned them. But that was in no way the purpose of the protest or why they gathered on the Quad.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Again, So what? You keep stating this like it is somehow significant. It isn't.
Because they knew that they were breaking a law. They knew that they would be arrested for breaking that law - it had nothing to do with free speech.
Majerus wrote:
No, the didn't. They gathered to protest inequality, among other things. Some did choose to accept arrest when the police warned them. But that was in no way the purpose of the protest or why they gathered on the Quad.
Again the actions of those individuals and that specific time was specifically intended to knowingly break a law. Per your analogy if vegan stands outside a bank and demands that they stop accepting money from a meat packer then it is ok if they then blow up the bank.
-
Majerus wrote:
You can stop right there. The Quad is not private property. Full Stop.
Can't say for sure how public institutions there work. But I know how they work where I am. And they are NOT the same as a public sidewalk downtown. No more so than a stadium, courthouse, state house or even a 'public' park.
-
Majerus wrote:
Sitting are the ground with linked arms, sounds passive to me.
And again, that does not fit my definition. How exactly do you differentiate that "passive" behavior from that of an individual that was not in fact intending to get arrested? One who was not in fact deliberately taking action to make arresting them more difficult?
jschell wrote:
And again, that does not fit my definition.
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
jschell wrote:
How exactly do you differentiate that "passive" behavior from that of an individual that was not in fact intending to get arrested?
passive is passive. Intend is really not relevent.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
Again, So what? You keep stating this like it is somehow significant. It isn't.
Because they knew that they were breaking a law. They knew that they would be arrested for breaking that law - it had nothing to do with free speech.
Majerus wrote:
No, the didn't. They gathered to protest inequality, among other things. Some did choose to accept arrest when the police warned them. But that was in no way the purpose of the protest or why they gathered on the Quad.
Again the actions of those individuals and that specific time was specifically intended to knowingly break a law. Per your analogy if vegan stands outside a bank and demands that they stop accepting money from a meat packer then it is ok if they then blow up the bank.
jschell wrote:
Because they knew that they were breaking a law.
Only thing you can know for sure is that they were prepared to be arrested.
jschell wrote:
They knew that they would be arrested for breaking that law - it had nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech. You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is.
jschell wrote:
Again the actions of those individuals and that specific time was specifically intended to knowingly break a law.
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
jschell wrote:
Per your analogy if vegan stands outside a bank and demands that they stop accepting money from a meat packer then it is ok if they then blow up the bank.
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not. For the sake of argument I will accept the hypothetical that the protesters knowingly broke a law that would withstand a 1st amendment constitutional challenge. That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray. My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property. The few exceptions that the courts have allowed do not apply, so what the students were doing was legal. In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
It is obvious from the video, based on how the protesters were arrayed that they intended to be arrested and that they intended to make it difficult for the police to remove them. If a single protester became agressive during that process then other protesters would likely sustain injuries. Officers might sustain injuries as well. Even low level agressive behavior in that array can lead to injuries such as strains.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
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.
If I walk into your house and sit in the middle of your living room floor does it interfer with your use of your couch and your access to the tv and kitchen? I suspect that I can find some spot in your living room which would not in fact interfer with your usage of it. However I suspect that you would not in fact want me there and would want the police to remove me. Noting again that the video demonstrates that the protesters intended to get arrested. It wasn't a random collection of protesters just standing/sitting. They knew that the police would need to try to remove them and the specifically, with intent, set themselves up to make that as difficult (there are ways to make it even more difficult.)
There is a difference between public and private property. What you are describing is a private property situation. What occurred at UC Davis is a public property situation. Your argument fails.
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 -
I agree with you that the school should have left the students in the quad. I disagree with you on the lawful order part. A policeman ordering a peaceful, constitutionally protected assembly to disperse is not a lawful order. Obviously the school administration disagreed with that assessment.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
I'm not sure that the order to disperse was lawful or not. I was speaking hypothetically. But, *if* the order was lawful, then the rest follows. Even so, the force used was excessive and unnecessary. There were other, safe means to effect removal of the students.
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 -
jschell wrote:
And they are NOT the same as a public sidewalk downtown.
How so? In what way are they different? In what way is the 1st amendment NOT applicable?
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
ow so? In what way are they different? In what way is the 1st amendment NOT applicable?
Restricted use requirements. I do not not need a permit to stand on a sidewalk with a sign at 3 in the morning on a downtown sidewalk. I do need a permit for all of the other places I mentioned. And the above has NOTHING to do with what is on my sign. Could be "Jesus saves", could be "Socialism rules" could be "Big Sale at Barneys".
-
jschell wrote:
And again, that does not fit my definition.
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
jschell wrote:
How exactly do you differentiate that "passive" behavior from that of an individual that was not in fact intending to get arrested?
passive is passive. Intend is really not relevent.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
Because they knew that they were breaking a law.
Only thing you can know for sure is that they were prepared to be arrested.
jschell wrote:
They knew that they would be arrested for breaking that law - it had nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech. You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is.
jschell wrote:
Again the actions of those individuals and that specific time was specifically intended to knowingly break a law.
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
jschell wrote:
Per your analogy if vegan stands outside a bank and demands that they stop accepting money from a meat packer then it is ok if they then blow up the bank.
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not. For the sake of argument I will accept the hypothetical that the protesters knowingly broke a law that would withstand a 1st amendment constitutional challenge. That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray. My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property. The few exceptions that the courts have allowed do not apply, so what the students were doing was legal. In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
You seem to be so sure that they broke some law, and yet you have no idea what the law is
Wrong. I am sure that they knew what the law was. It has nothing to do with my legal opinion.
Majerus wrote:
No, only thing we know for sure is that they intended to be arrested. They were told to leave and they chose not to.
Which is irrelevant. There is a law. They broke it. Period.
Majerus wrote:
Actually that makes no sense at all. Free speech is protected, blowing up banks is not
They were not arrested for what they were saying. They were arrested for what they were doing. You are the one ignoring the law that was being broken and which they knew they were breaking.
Majerus wrote:
That does not in any way minimize that the focus of the gathering was to protest the vast inequality in this country. It does not justify the use of pepper spray.
Nonsense. Second has nothing to do with the first.
Majerus wrote:
My position is that the quad on the campus of UC-Davis is public property.
My position is that I seriously doubt that. Most of the Occupy protesters around the country at located in areas that are restricted use locations. The fact that people think that means that there are no restrictions is meaningless because most people use those areas within the restrictions. Most state property is owned by the state and most such property has use restrictions. Just as the court house, which is owned by the state, is closed and locked at night. The fact that the state owns it doesn't give you nor anyone else the right to camp out there. And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Majerus wrote:
In addition, irrespective of the legality of the protests, this was an unforced error by the school chancellor, the campus police chief and the police Lt. that lead the officers. It was a stupid and violent overreaction. The chancellor should be fired, and the there should be a criminal investigation of the police.
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence rather than making knee jerk emotional reactions based on sparse information. Especially when that evidence exists solely t
-
Majerus wrote:
ow so? In what way are they different? In what way is the 1st amendment NOT applicable?
Restricted use requirements. I do not not need a permit to stand on a sidewalk with a sign at 3 in the morning on a downtown sidewalk. I do need a permit for all of the other places I mentioned. And the above has NOTHING to do with what is on my sign. Could be "Jesus saves", could be "Socialism rules" could be "Big Sale at Barneys".
jschell wrote:
Restricted use requirements.
"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 amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
I suggest you re-read what I said. I was quite clear in that I was talking about me.
Perhaps it's you that needs to reread.
Majerus wrote:
It doesn't matter what your definition is. The only definition that matters in the legal definition.
Note the portion highlighted.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass