Police officer pepper-sprays seated, non-violent students at UC Davis

reply to post by macman

The response, in numbers, for LEO is not capable to equal the crowd being responded to.
That is why the City/Town/Campus authorities have given the Police the ability to use tactics, force and everything else.

It's a given that LE isn't typically equal to the crowd being responded to. Although imo the numbers of LEOs sent was obviously too small. This became apparent when LEOs began to cautiously back away. Imo LE felt they were in fact so outnumbered that pepper spray was no longer a viable option and chose to retreat. So much for pepper spray actually being a good tactic for dispersing a crowd. The only people I saw leaving was LE and those who were arrested.

If one does not like the response, instead of killing the messenger, why not go after those that control the law?
I know why, it is easier and more convenient to go after the cop, following the Use of Force, then going after the Democrat stronghold People in power.

Well we see what we get when we go after the political/corporate stronghold...we get ignored. It's fairly obvious it's not "easier" to go after the cop when you're met with pepper spray. I don't see anyone offering up any "easy" solutions to the public only more excuses to use excessive force.

In addition to your comment that most here agree.
Armchair Police and ATS members making judgements after watching videos is not really the definition of a deciding base.

Yes we might be a bunch of armchair police but we are tax paying citizens who vote, send our children to college and we have a say like it or not. Are you suggesting we at ATS aren't members of the deciding base? I'm willing to bet most of us feel we aren't considered valued members of much of anything these days, that's why so many come to ATS.

reply to post by Morningglory

The use of pepper spray dispersed the people that it was intended for.
The use was successful.

Just because you are ignored by the politicians does not give you or anyone authority then to turn on the police.
That is an excuse just to provide ground work for the lazy journey.


As for Tax payers? Tax payers make decisions via the political representative, not by clashing with LEO.

Not feeling valued is a personal issue first.
When you don't value yourself, others wont either.
Same as being happy.

Apparently someone didn't agree with the police on the pepper spray incident.

Two University of California, Davis police officers involved in pepper spraying seated protesters are being placed on administrative leave as the chancellor of the school accelerates the investigation into the incident. UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi on Sunday said she has been inundated with reaction over the incident, in which an officer dispassionately fires pepper spray on a line of sitting demonstrators.

The faculty association on Saturday called for Katehi's resignation after video of the incident was circulated widely on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter on Saturday, saying in a letter there had been a "gross failure of leadership."

www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by kdog1982


That is the standard procedure after use of force is applied.

reply to post by macman


But calling for the resignation of the chancellor of the school ,I do believe is not standard procedure.

reply to post by macman
You're using the terms "turn on the police" and "clashing with LEO." I'm sorry but I really didn't see any of those things happening. It was a peaceful sit in. They failed to disperse because they were exercising their freedom to protest peacefully. Was LE really called in to just clear the sidewalk then leave? So when peaceful protesters don't do what LE orders that's considered clashing with police. I would think clashing would be more physical. Here's one definition I found.

Clashing: Meet and come into violent conflict: "protestors clashed with police".

I imagine the students felt somewhat safe in protesting on the very school grounds they support via tuition. In fact one of their issues was an increase in tuition. It's a bit disturbing to know you're starting out life with enormous debt and few opportunities. They're upset and rightly so.

If you're considering the responses in this thread as showing "clashing" or "turning on police" well that's public feedback.You can't dictate the opinions/feelings of others. Public opinion/violent protest wasn't what caused LE to act the way they did.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Im actually suprised no one shot that cop in the face, if i was there i wouldnt be able to control myself watching that happen to innocent people.
Why does the government not want us to have a voice?

If you don't have a voice, you aren't complaining/protesting. That way the majority, (sheeple), will just go along as though nothing out of the ordinary is happening. That's just what TPTB want.

I think Chancellor Linda Katehi has to go.

It's her campus and she called in the cops. With any situation like this she needs to be thinking about what could happen.

It seems she's called them in and then left all operational aspects & decisions to them. That was a big mistake.

Maybe that's normal in the USA? or maybe she did have a chat with them and said " do whatever it takes to move them" but either way she handled it wrong.

1. Why does she need to call the cops? let the kids have their peacefull protest they'll soon get bored & cold. It seems bizarre on a university campus the chancellor is calling in the police because a few students are letting off some steam (peacefully)

2. If she's going to call cops it should be to prevent any disorder or violence. She should be instructing them to standby incase any of them start rioting then get the pepper spray out.

3. the police are complete bozos but apparently its in their "guidelines" that pepper spraying people in the face is preferred to just lifting them out of the way. so that cop was just following his script. I think someone needs to have a look at their guidelines.

If you give the police carte blanche it wont end well. She has to accept responsibility.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Morningglory

 

The use of pepper spray dispersed the people that it was intended for.
The use was successful.

Just because you are ignored by the politicians does not give you or anyone authority then to turn on the police.
That is an excuse just to provide ground work for the lazy journey.


As for Tax payers? Tax payers make decisions via the political representative, not by clashing with LEO.

Not feeling valued is a personal issue first.
When you don't value yourself, others wont either.
Same as being happy.

edit on 20-11-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

LMAO - No it wasn't successful....the cops left, NOT the protesters


You obviously didn't watch the video, did you?

So you are trying to argue a point with NO accurate information.


You know what that makes you?

reply to post by macman


"The use of pepper spray dispersed the people that it was intended for. The use was successful."

LOL. If you call hundreds of thousands of dollars that UC Davis will need to pay for legal expenses to defend this, as well as John Pike being targeted on the net, i.e., all of his personal information is given out there, including his $100K plus salary (40 plus percent paid by fees by students he attacked), and all the phone lines of the university police department as well as university administration units being clogged by outraged people calling from all over the nation -- if you call this a success, it's simply laughable. It's an utter FAIL.

The police failed miserably. They were all dressed in riot gear, wielding rifles and batons and pepper spray, strutting about and attacking people, and they were *forced out* by peaceful chanting protesters who used no force at all. Very successful operation, indeed -- by the protesters!

reply to post by macman


"No matter how many adjectives are used, it is still the law currently."

Wrong. See:
caselaw.findlaw.com...

To quote from this ruling:
"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....

"For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for Lewis and Philip and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with our prior decision to reverse the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law on behalf of Humboldt County, the City of Eureka, and their respective police departments."

Originally posted by mileysubet
They where blocking a through fair, The policeman had every right to remove the people blocking the common path, (as I am sure he and several (verbally) others did multiple times). peaceful protest does not include interfering with the passage rights of the people commuting.

These individuals where attempting to make maryters of them selves. They where doing these actions to get attention, although they where breaking the very laws the supposedly protect.

edit on 19-11-2011 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)

Sorry, but peaceful protest means any protest that doesn't involve violence.

You're wrong and that's all there is to it.

Also - You clearly don't seem to understand this, but civil disobedience and peaceful protest can and does involve disobeying unjust laws.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Riffrafter

Originally posted by poundpuppy
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Many FAIL to realize that the FAILURE to comply with a police order or request to disperse is probably what brought this on.

I do not agree with it per say but I really find it hard to have empathy nor sympathy for those who FAIL to respond to a verbal order to disperse in a non violent way.

For the 100th time - then the students should have been ARRESTED. Not ASSAULTED.

What part of that don't you get?

This is not assault.
Please show me the Law stating that use of pepper spray by LEO and the Department during non compliance is such.

You're right. This was not assault. By definition, this was battery. Assault involves aggitating someone, where as battery by definition is causing someone physical harm.

Please show me the law stating that it is okay for police to forcibly move peaceful protestors.

Nobody needs to show YOU anything, because battery is illegal and everyone knows that.

YOU need to put YOUR money where your mouth is, because you're the one stating that it's okay for police to do any illegal thing they want simply because they're on duty.

You're the kind of idiot that sees a student put a flower into a policeman's gun, see the same policeman shoot the student in the head, and then say "Well, they shouldn't have put that flower in that gun barrel."

Originally posted by Thaxter
reply to post by macman

 

"The use of pepper spray dispersed the people that it was intended for. The use was successful."

LOL. If you call hundreds of thousands of dollars that UC Davis will need to pay for legal expenses to defend this, as well as John Pike being targeted on the net, i.e., all of his personal information is given out there, including his $100K plus salary (40 plus percent paid by fees by students he attacked), and all the phone lines of the university police department as well as university administration units being clogged by outraged people calling from all over the nation -- if you call this a success, it's simply laughable. It's an utter FAIL.

The police failed miserably. They were all dressed in riot gear, wielding rifles and batons and pepper spray, strutting about and attacking people, and they were *forced out* by peaceful chanting protesters who used no force at all. Very successful operation, indeed -- by the protesters!

I've read your ridiculous and brutal little justifications for brutality, macman, and YOU, sir, are the reason I will be back on the streets protesting. I'm sick and tired of this nation being taken over by a minority of belligerent, bullying thugs who think that unwarranted violence by corporate sponsored police is perfectly legal and morally acceptable. It is neither, and believe me, macman, you haven't even begun to see what the 99 percent are capable of.

YOU are not part of the 99 percent, you are a little lap dog who is unsuccessfully trying to justify the brutality of the 1 percent criminal corporate thugs. You're a tiny barking poodle leashed by the 1 percent, and the 99 percent REJECTS your sociopathy and your loyalty to blatant thuggery. You're part of the sheep that will be culled by the 1 percent that rule them.

You think you understand the law in this case? You have no CLUE how hard hit UC Davis police department will be by lawsuits. NOT a "success," Mr. Psychopath for the One Percent.

Well macman they have made you look a right fool, I wouldnt say anything more as each time you do you add more fuel to the fire.

There is absolutely no justification for unleashing a family sized can of pepper spray on peacefull protestors, strange how its come to be the norm to use pepper spray, its classed as a illegal weapon in the UK, see this:

It's illegal to possess mace, pepper spray or CS gas in the UK unless you're authorised by law. Also I know adding chillies to make your own sounds like a good idea, but remember if you are searched by police and it is found on you, then even though it's not "official" pepper spray, chances are you'll be arrested for possessing an offensive weapon, as it is what is called a "made" offensive weapon, which is: something which has been manufactured to hurt or maim another person. I know it's tempting to carry something like this for protection, but I'm a police officer and have had to arrest lots of seemingly law abiding people for having something like this on them. i don't make the law or necessarily agree with it, but trust me, it's not worth taking a chance of gaining a criminal record for it.

Madness how its the norm, in a year they will be electrocuting the protestors as the norm, on a slippery slope to Syrian police tactics against protestors..

reply to post by macman


If you were to look back at my previous post - which is why I said "as I stated before" - I can only speak about Wisconsin Defense and Arrest Tactics model which clearly defines "passive resistance" and "active resistance". Maybe you can enlighten me on the approved methods of this particular department, as well as the reasoning why all LEOs shouldn't be held accountable on the same scale.

Thanks.

I want to add something to this thread after digesting a lot of what I've read here lately.

These young adults are heroes. Nothing less.

They had the balls to do what many citizens don't today, which is to say NO when justified.

Their actions are a statement, an effort to protect the rights that you brainwashed/manipulated deniers (of not only how wrong something like this is on our soil, but that things are even wrong at all) offend with your sentiments.

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Now, proceed to tell me about how this wasn't public property (what % of our nation's land is free, could you elaborate?), they weren't in a designated protest zone, that a statement like this doesn't equate to speech, etc. Go ahead and complicate what were intended to be CLEAR and SIMPLE rights.

How powerful the joint emotional spirit of those young people must have been when they locked arms and took that FOR YOU AND I. I am not saying people haven't taken worse, I'm just saying that if more people had this kind of resolution, maybe our police wouldn't be looking more and more like the police in the game Half-Life 2 every day.

Every single person involved in this offense should be unemployed TODAY. The cops who sprayed (even the cops who did not step in to protect the students tbh), the higher-ups at the university who are now promising to "think about whether they let their students express themselves enough", yadda yadda. Even if they did not say "Pepper spray them.", I am sure they gave the go-ahead to use whatever it took (escalation of force) to disband the students. Maybe they assumed the students would be pushovers, and hadn't considered what played out -- TOO BAD. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by macman

 

But calling for the resignation of the chancellor of the school ,I do believe is not standard procedure.

Good. She should figure out what the **** is going on in the world, and not try and decide what her students think for them. And if she can't do that she shouldn't have gotten the job in the first place.

war has been declared. Whether passive peoples recognize it or not.
Obviously there are places we can not sit. This is news to me.

reply to post by Sanity911


No.. your point was not made.
We don't have to see the beginning of the tape, because we are not ignorant of the world. Never in the history of America has a group of people done something wrong and after the cops got control of the situation have they lined the people up and pepper sprayed them to punish them. That is what you imply with the whole story statement.

It doesn't matter what we don't see at the beginning. They aren't resisting and didn't need to be sprayed. So unless you are suggesting he missed his chance to spray them in the heat of whatever we supposedly didn't see, then we know the whole story. There is no excuse for this. It isn't the cops jobs to punish people.

So no, I didn't make your point. Far from it.

this is ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.
DOUBLE STANDARDS persist!
Police shoot your dog in a search warrant, no problem. You "injure" a K-9 dog and its assault on an officer.
Police use pepperspray which is banned by UN treaty for use in war and its fine, but what would happen if some protesters sprayed the police? I don't think I want to know how the police would react to being peppersprayed.