I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
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 -
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
I think in light of this that the practice of hiring former military members as police officers should be stopped. It is causing the militarization of the police. It is especially a concern where military members served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those places the military is trained to see the native population as the enemy. Hence the natural reaction of a former military member in a stressful situation is to react with violence and attack.
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 think in light of this that the practice of hiring former military members as police officers should be stopped. It is causing the militarization of the police. It is especially a concern where military members served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those places the military is trained to see the native population as the enemy. Hence the natural reaction of a former military member in a stressful situation is to react with violence and attack.
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:
It is causing the militarization of the police.
Even more I think the militarization of the police is the result of our "war" on drugs and now terrorism. I came across this piece this morning - an interesting read. http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/11/28/scenario-fulfillment/[^]
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 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.)