I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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
-
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
jschell wrote:
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence
And yet you haven't bothered to do that. If you had you would know what law they broke. I know of at one that was used as the excuse for the school's foolish over-reaction. Why don't you know this?
jschell wrote:
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.
jschell wrote:
Most state property is owned by the state
I hate to be snarky, but what state property is NOT owned by the state? And here is a definition of public property: "public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public"
jschell wrote:
And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Actually, it does.
jschell wrote:
I would still like to know what you do think is acceptable for the removal of someone that does not want to be removed.
The least violent method. Pepper spray, as I have already said, is not justifiable.
jschell wrote:
If someone has chained themselves to a post in your living room
Again with the private property. Not relevant. Read about the "black bears" and how the courts found that pepper spray was not justifiable.[^] As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
Myself I like to actually examine all of the evidence
And yet you haven't bothered to do that. If you had you would know what law they broke. I know of at one that was used as the excuse for the school's foolish over-reaction. Why don't you know this?
jschell wrote:
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.
jschell wrote:
Most state property is owned by the state
I hate to be snarky, but what state property is NOT owned by the state? And here is a definition of public property: "public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public"
jschell wrote:
And free speech does NOT trump that restriction.
Actually, it does.
jschell wrote:
I would still like to know what you do think is acceptable for the removal of someone that does not want to be removed.
The least violent method. Pepper spray, as I have already said, is not justifiable.
jschell wrote:
If someone has chained themselves to a post in your living room
Again with the private property. Not relevant. Read about the "black bears" and how the courts found that pepper spray was not justifiable.[^] As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Actually, it does.
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Majerus wrote:
The least violent method.
Which means you don't know of one. The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers. There is a reason that officers are trained to use methods that do have the potential to lead to injury. And you might find it a learning experience to try to get someone to move when they intend to not move. There is no technique that does not carry risk.
Majerus wrote:
gain with the private property. Not relevant.
Very relevant - you are claiming that free speech trumps everything.
Majerus wrote:
As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
Nonsense. That doesn't make pepper spray illegal. That case was specifically based on the case itself and moreover was specifically related to the specifics of the various suits might proceed (or not) based on the the evidence of that case. And either you are attempting to gloss over the facts of that case or didn't even bother reading them since they are completely different. Not to mention that even that case wasn't about pepper spray itself but rather in how it was used.
-
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
Majerus wrote:
Note the portion highlighted.
I see so it is perfectly ok for you to express your personal opinion as stated in the following... "...sounds passive to me." And then from that follow up with the conclusion (I can only suppose) that your opinion is a legal one.
-
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:
Actually, it does.
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Majerus wrote:
The least violent method.
Which means you don't know of one. The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers. There is a reason that officers are trained to use methods that do have the potential to lead to injury. And you might find it a learning experience to try to get someone to move when they intend to not move. There is no technique that does not carry risk.
Majerus wrote:
gain with the private property. Not relevant.
Very relevant - you are claiming that free speech trumps everything.
Majerus wrote:
As you will see, what the protester used was much more difficult to deal with than chains, and yet the police dealt with it many, many times without the use of pepper spray. When they did use spray, the court found that the use was not justified.
Nonsense. That doesn't make pepper spray illegal. That case was specifically based on the case itself and moreover was specifically related to the specifics of the various suits might proceed (or not) based on the the evidence of that case. And either you are attempting to gloss over the facts of that case or didn't even bother reading them since they are completely different. Not to mention that even that case wasn't about pepper spray itself but rather in how it was used.
jschell wrote:
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
jschell wrote:
Which means you don't know of one.
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
jschell wrote:
The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers.
No, that doesn't follow. For just one example of protesters removed with out injury review the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case again. "Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force. The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3. Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors: the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances. Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied). Because the officers had control over the protestors it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under cont
-
Majerus wrote:
Note the portion highlighted.
I see so it is perfectly ok for you to express your personal opinion as stated in the following... "...sounds passive to me." And then from that follow up with the conclusion (I can only suppose) that your opinion is a legal one.
-
Majerus wrote:
The amendment is clear. The first amendment trumps "restricted use".
You seriously need to learn more about the law. Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.
jschell wrote:
You seriously need to learn more about the law.
Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.That is funny!!! It is you that appears to have zero understanding of the meaning of the first amendment or the very limited exceptions carved out by the courts. Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
No it doesn't. Thousands and probably tens of thousands of arrests over the years prove that.
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
jschell wrote:
Which means you don't know of one.
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
jschell wrote:
The next most likely one is certain holds specifically intended to product pain which can lead to broken bones in the protester and injuries to the officers.
No, that doesn't follow. For just one example of protesters removed with out injury review the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case again. "Defendants asserted at trial that the protestors' use of “black bears” constituted “ ‘active’ resistance to arrest,' ” meriting the use of force. The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3. Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors: the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances. Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied). Because the officers had control over the protestors it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under cont
Majerus wrote:
Incorrect. The text of the first amendment and the rulings of the supreme court define the limits.
So you are claiming that tens of thousands of protesters have not been arrested over the last 200 years for breaking laws?
Majerus wrote:
It's not my job. Nor is my failure to explicity describe the specific methods that the police can use for each and every scenario that you might devise an affirmation of the use of pepper spray.
It seems obvious to me that you would reject any method in this case.
Majerus wrote:
No, that doesn't follow.
Spin it anyway you want. It didn't make pepper spray illegal. Which should be obvious given that it is still used and still used against protesters who break the law.
Majerus wrote:
o, I haven't. All along I have been clear about the distinction between public and private property.
You however have no understanding of limited use restrictions.
Majerus wrote:
I haven't been arguing that pepper spray was illegal. ...it was determined that any use was unreasonable.
Sigh...you don't appear to know what you are arguing.
-
Well, no that wasn't just my personal opinion. I followed that statement with and extended excerpt and link to a case directly on point. Something that you did not do.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
jschell wrote:
You seriously need to learn more about the law.
Or at least you need to be sure that you never try to assert your social activism in some way besides a forum.That is funny!!! It is you that appears to have zero understanding of the meaning of the first amendment or the very limited exceptions carved out by the courts. Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Your extremely broad, unqualified claim that any and all "restricted use" of public property trump the first amendment is completely incorrect.
Which would be valid if it had anything to do with what I said. What exactly do you not understand in the following statement? The protesters broke a law. They were arrested for breaking that law. They were not arrested for what they were saying. Free speech does not preempt other laws.