• Police officer pepper sprays line of sitting students at UC Davis
    262 replies, posted
[url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/[/url] [release] [b]Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi[/b] Linda P.B. Katehi, [b]I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies.[/b] I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. [b]I am an asset to the University of California at Davis. You are not.[/b] ... Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. [b]When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. [/b]Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood. [b]This is what happened. You are responsible for it.[/b] ... You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. [b][highlight]As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.[/b][/highlight][/release]
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33338451]I'm sure they will be fine, they are after all trained to handle such situations. It's nice that you care so much though. Also, as to the video being one sided; if the students were told to leave by the police, then they should have. Instead, they chose to stay and resist. You don't have to be violent to break they law. The post I quoted below says it much better. The police needed to break up the students (and at that point arrest them), if they had tried to forcefully remove their interlocked arms it could have caused injuries to both the students and police. Pepper spray I would assume was safer for all involved parties.[/QUOTE] What the police say =/= the law
My state is better. when students protest here, the national guard shoots them.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;33340420]What. [SUB]What.[/SUB] [SUB][SUB]What. You know... Being able to restrict the right to peacefully assemble may as well be the definition of totalitarianism. [/SUB][/SUB][/QUOTE] Yet, I'm rather sure there are areas that you can't protest legally without permission. For (an extreme) example, I don't think anyone expects they can go protest inside a military base or the white house. Also, I'm rather sure you can demand protesters on your own property leave (otherwise a bunch of people could set up camp on your front yard and start shouting day and night about some cause). The school is private property, is it not? Thus it serves to reason that the administration (of the school) could demand the protesters leave/disperse and involve the police if they failed to do so. [QUOTE=The golden;33343729]As usual, the police officer goes for the pussy way of dealing with problems. (If you can even call this a problem) And uses the pepper spray. Not interested in asking them to move? Just fucking incapacitate them non-lethal weaponry! I hope that officer understands that by doing that, he's only making the protests grow bigger.[/QUOTE] Proving the point that the video is biased; the article states they refused to move. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33345059][url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/[/url] [b]Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi[/b] [/QUOTE] If the police were at fault, than it should have been quite easy to comply with their (the police's ) demands and then take the matter up in a court of law.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346371] If the police were at fault, than it should have been quite easy to comply with their (the police's ) demands and then take the matter up in a court of law.[/QUOTE] why should you comply if they're at fault? That makes no sense whatsoever
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346507]why should you comply if they're at fault? That makes no sense whatsoever[/QUOTE] He's saying that even if they are at fault, the place you're supposed to show that is in the courts. Fighting against the police will do nothing but potentially injure yourself whilst giving ammunition for them.
[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;33346630]He's saying that even if they are at fault, the place you're supposed to show that is in the courts. Fighting against the police will do nothing but potentially injure yourself whilst giving ammunition for them.[/QUOTE] so you're supposed to accept that they are completely in the wrong, and that they can break up your protest, and all you can do is complain later? The protest is what's important, the courts won't help that after it's already been broken up.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346507]why should you comply if they're at fault? That makes no sense whatsoever[/QUOTE] Arguing with the police will never make a situation better. Regardless of who's right, it's better (at least in my opinion) to do as they say and then deal with the matter in a court. I can't say that I see what refusing to leave served anyway, aside from a lot of people being injured and arrested. Publicity? If so, I don't think it was worth it; there would still be some publicity from them being told to leave and going to court about the matter anyway. [QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346662]so you're supposed to accept that they are completely in the wrong, and that they can break up your protest, and all you can do is complain later? The protest is what's important, the courts won't help that after it's already been broken up.[/QUOTE] You don't have to accept that you're wrong, just that you need to do as the police say and deal with the matter in a court. I fail to see how going to court won't help. Sure, that protest won't be helped, but all those to come will. It will also bring attention to the cause.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33340401]I understand that, but I also understand that there are exceptions to every rule, including the right to peacefully assemble. Without knowing what is and isn't considered acceptable in that regard, I find it very hard to pass judgement on the police. Perhaps I hold too much trust in our police forces...[/QUOTE] no.... NO. [b]FUCKING NO[/b] There isn't an exception to freedom of peaceful assembly. Anyone who says otherwise if a goddamn fucking idiot. The reason we have the right to assemble is for situations like this, where the government becomes a tool for the disposal of the highest bidder. There is no justifying what's going on. And of course you place too much trust in your police forces. These are the same people beating unarmed people down until their blood stains the streets. These are the same people pepper spraying a bunch of university students sitting down on the sidewalk in protest. These are the same people who have shot rubber bullets at unarmed protesters which can seriously injure or even kill. Now they've raided a Occupy protest and destroyed their property in an attempt to either agitate or silence the protesters electronically.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346667]Arguing with the police will never make a situation better. Regardless of who's right, it's better (at least in my opinion) to do as they say and then deal with the matter in a court. I can't say that I see what refusing to leave served anyway, aside from a lot of people being injured and arrested. Publicity? If so, I don't think it was worth it; there would still be some publicity from them being told to leave and going to court about the matter anyway.[/QUOTE] Ghandi refused to leave, that was kind of the point. MLK and Rosa Parks refused to leave, if they just went 'oh fine I don't want any trouble' then went to the authorities, nothing would get changed
[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;33346630]He's saying that even if they are at fault, the place you're supposed to show that is in the courts. Fighting against the police will do nothing but potentially injure yourself whilst giving ammunition for them.[/QUOTE] In times of such injustice, I say it's acceptable to resist arrest.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346667] You don't have to accept that you're wrong, just that you need to do as the police say and deal with the matter in a court. I fail to see how going to court won't help. Sure, that protest won't be helped, but all those to come will. It will also bring attention to the cause.[/QUOTE] I meant accept that police are wrong but still comply. And going to the courts takes a long time, it's a drawn out process. This is a now situation, resisting arrest in this context is more than justified
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346371]If the police were at fault, than it should have been quite easy to comply with their (the police's ) demands and then take the matter up in a court of law.[/QUOTE] Remember when I told you to stop talking unless you had done your homework? California considers the rights of an individual to be secure in a public area from unlawful force important, making it entirely lawful to [URL="http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html"]resist an unlawful arrest[/URL] with absolutely [URL="http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#law"]no requirement to flee or submit[/URL] for it to be considered reasonable. Some states disagree, which is probably where you're getting confused- for example, in mine, it's unlawful to resist an arrest [I]period,[/I] under the assumption you can sue later. But we're not talking about how it is where you live or what you think the rules should be, but what they [I]are.[/I] [QUOTE=DaMastez;33346371]Proving the point that the video is biased; the article states they refused to move.[/QUOTE] This is irrelevant. We've been over this. [QUOTE=MR-X;33343197]They're going to use OC (Which is fucking harmless, it only hurts for a little while)[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/1999/13.html"]Incorrect.[/URL] [QUOTE]The immediate medical risks of OC are severe enough, but the long-term damage that Capsaicin and Capsaicinoids can cause, are potentially even more disturbing. In 1993, the US Army concluded that OC could cause ‘mutagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities ... [and that] ... [B]there is a risk in using this product on a large and varied population.[/B]’[10][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MR-X;33343197]That is why we have a court of law, that is their job, the street is not for that.[/QUOTE] Incorrect. Read the first portion of this post. [QUOTE=MR-X;33343197]Just don't cry when you something like this happens, it is going to happen and if you can't handle it then maybe that person shouldn't be protesting.[/QUOTE] Your imbecilic bravado has no place in a discussion on what is or is not right to do to a protestor when the law itself clearly provides an explanation as to why this is wrong. [QUOTE=MR-X;33347013]Maybe because I'm one of the few people with actual law enforcement experience and actually worked with a department/office on this forum.[/QUOTE] I find this unbelievable based on the above comment and am afraid for anyone you might happen to encounter if/when you actually do field work.
[QUOTE=Carne;33344883]I don't get it. You always side with the police no matter what they do. Lazy cops is what I would call them. Why not just send in a bunch of policeofficers and drag the protestors off instead of spraying them? There's plenty of police, so I don't see the problem. How do you justify the cops beating peaceful protestors, intentionally shooting teargas at a Marine, throwing people to the ground for walking around with a camera?[/QUOTE] Maybe because I'm one of the few people with actual law enforcement experience and actually worked with a department/office on this forum. Everyone is so quick to jump at conclusions and cry brutality when there is no brutality. Yeah it sucks they got OC sprayed, but it is nothing close to brutality. Also if you read my other posts in the topics of the marine and camera guy I sided with the protesters and actually said what happened was disgusting. Some cases are pretty clear as to what is right and wrong and other ones like this I can see justifiable use of force. Instead of understanding or even attempting to express their opinion, people here would rather just rate dumb and go on because they can't form an argument or thought themselves and they all regurgitate the same lame ass excuse or saying.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33344972]So your university basically told you that you're not allowed to stand still on university property? Personally I'd be going to the administration and reminding them who is paying who money[/QUOTE] Well, the students, except that the majority of that money comes form the government through financial aid, and the government also gives the university millions in grants. I don't like it anymore than you, but honestly, if you think that purposefully protesting against university policy and potentially law, especially when the intent it purposeful dissent, isn't going to get you into lawful trouble, then you're mistaken. It is the jobs of the police to enforce policy, the students were not abiding by policy, even purposefully disobeying it.
pepper spray is less than lethal, with 63 deaths from it since 1990. It is banned in international warfare along with tear gass and a number of other chemical weaponry. They shouldnt be using it on a line of protesters. While it looks like something that isnt dangerous or something thats the equivalent of silly spray by the way the officers use it, its actually very dangerous and is up there with smashing each in the head with a baton to disorient them. The only difference is how much bad press it gives them and ease of use.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33345059][url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/[/url] [release] [b]Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi[/b] Linda P.B. Katehi, [b]I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies.[/b] I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. [b]I am an asset to the University of California at Davis. You are not.[/b] ... Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. [b]When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. [/b]Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood. [b]This is what happened. You are responsible for it.[/b] ... You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. [b][highlight]As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.[/b][/highlight][/release][/QUOTE] i love this so much
oh gawd bad reading I thought it said 1900. My apologies
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;33347237]As much as pepper spray is used 63 deaths in over a hundred years is a very small percentage. Saying bludgeoning someone over the head with a baton is just as damaging as pepper spray is kinda stupid.[/QUOTE] twenty years, not a hundred.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346371]If the police were at fault, than it should have been quite easy to comply with their (the police's ) demands and then take the matter up in a court of law.[/QUOTE] what the fuck i need to stop and break down how incomprehensibly stupid this sentence is "If the police were at fault it should have been easy to comply and then sue them" is what you're trying to get across, right? Just because you [b]can[/b] comply doesnt mean you [b]should[/b], nor does it mean you are in any way [b]obligated to[/b]. The officer could have told the students to drop his pants and blow his sad alcoholic wedge of flesh that disappears whenever he bends over and looks at his feet, and the protesters could have easily complied. Does that mean they have any reason to? Is there any justification for the officers orders or do you really blame the protesters for not cowtowing to the guy just because he said they should leave? And if the officers were at fault, [u]and they are[/u], why would you comply when you know the officer is at fault? Where in your mind did a synapse break loose so that you seriously continue to think, after reading all the reports of hospitalization and even a letter from a professor that suggests the chancellor resign immediately for how shameful their decisions were, that the protesters are to blame for getting pepper sprayed for sitting down? What kind of twisted vision of freedom do you have, where in your mind, as soon as the protesters disobey any completely arbitrary and even unconstitutional order that an officer gives, the officer is no longer is to be held accountable for the actions he takes, even if they directly contradict basic rules laid out in his police training? Your dwindling confidence is starting to show as your attempts to defend brutal and uncalled for treatment of entirely peaceful and innocent protesters start to fade into the realm of nonsensical pleas for everyone to just accept the officers word of law. I really hope for the sake of humanity you don't really believe anything you say, but you're just holding your horribly flawed position in an attempt to save face and not deal with the embarrassment of admitting how utterly stupid everything you've said thus far has been. [QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346697]Ghandi refused to leave, that was kind of the point. MLK and Rosa Parks refused to leave, if they just went 'oh fine I don't want any trouble' then went to the authorities, nothing would get changed[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346697]Ghandi refused to leave, that was kind of the point. MLK and Rosa Parks refused to leave, if they just went 'oh fine I don't want any trouble' then went to the authorities, nothing would get changed[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=strayebyrd;33346697]Ghandi refused to leave, that was kind of the point. MLK and Rosa Parks refused to leave, if they just went 'oh fine I don't want any trouble' then went to the authorities, nothing would get changed[/QUOTE] Read this over a few times, hopefully by way of a simple example you'll finally begin to understand that standing up to the police in times of injustice is a greater show of force than any armed rebellion
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;33347237]As much as pepper spray is used 63 deaths in [B]over a hundred years[/B] is a very small percentage. Saying bludgeoning someone over the head with a baton is just as damaging as pepper spray is kinda stupid.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, it's past 2090?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33346923]Remember when I told you to stop talking unless you had done your homework?[/quote] The case you mentioned was in regards to what was acceptable force in arresting someone; it had nothing to do with the First Amendment. Also, I happen to disagree with your conclusions to the list of things police should consider when using force. You're putting the cart (was the force too much) before the horse (were they within their rights to be protesting at that location). If what they were doing was lawful, than any force was too much; but if what they were doing was unlawful, then comes the need to decide if the force used was excessive. [quote] California considers the rights of an individual to be secure in a public area from unlawful force important, making it entirely lawful to [URL="http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html"]resist an unlawful arrest[/URL] with absolutely [URL="http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#law"]no requirement to flee or submit[/URL] for it to be considered reasonable. Some states disagree, which is probably where you're getting confused- for example, in mine, it's unlawful to resist an arrest [I]period,[/I] under the assumption you can sue later. But we're not talking about how it is where you live or what you think the rules should be, but what they [I]are.[/I][/QUOTE] May I ask what a "public area" is? I think of a park, street, etc... anyplace that anyone is allowed to go (without needed a reason). Not a school which, while being somewhat open, does not just allow anyone to walk around and such. [QUOTE=Kopimi;33347381]what the fuck i need to stop and break down how incomprehensibly stupid this sentence is "If the police were at fault it should have been easy to comply and then sue them" is what you're trying to get across, right? Just because you [b]can[/b] comply doesnt mean you [b]should[/b], nor does it mean you are in any way [b]obligated to[/b]. The officer could have told the students to drop his pants and blow his sad alcoholic wedge of flesh that disappears whenever he bends over and looks at his feet, and the protesters could have easily complied. Does that mean they have any reason to? Is there any justification for the officers orders or do you really blame the protesters for not cowtowing to the guy just because he said they should leave? And if the officers were at fault, [u]and they are[/u], why would you comply when you know the officer is at fault? Where in your mind did a synapse break loose so that you seriously continue to think, after reading all the reports of hospitalization and even a letter from a professor that suggests the chancellor resign immediately for how shameful their decisions were, that the protesters are to blame for getting pepper sprayed for sitting down? What kind of twisted vision of freedom do you have, where in your mind, as soon as the protesters disobey any completely arbitrary and even unconstitutional order that an officer gives, the officer is no longer is to be held accountable for the actions he takes, even if they directly contradict basic rules laid out in his police training? Your dwindling confidence is starting to show as your attempts to defend brutal and uncalled for treatment of entirely peaceful and innocent protesters start to fade into the realm of nonsensical pleas for everyone to just accept the officers word of law. I really hope for the sake of humanity you don't really believe anything you say, but you're just holding your horribly flawed position in an attempt to save face and not deal with the embarrassment of admitting how utterly stupid everything you've said thus far has been.[/QUOTE] The police made a "demand" that was both easy to comply with and not unreasonable. My point was, [b]in this case[/b], it would have been easy to comply with the police and avoid being arrested and injured. Then, they could have argued the matter in a court. And no, I didn't want them to sue the police, but rather prove that they had the right to protest there and that the police were wrong to evict them, if that was the case. Also, perhaps it's just the way it is around where I live, but I was under the impression that you should always comply with any reasonable demand by a police officer.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347473]You're putting the cart (was the force too much) before the horse (were they within their rights to be protesting at that location). If what they were doing was lawful, than any force was too much; but if what they were doing was unlawful, then comes the need to decide if the force used was excessive. [/quote] ... wut That isn't how you use that phrase. At all. Ever. Okay, so let's assume what you just said makes sense: we need to decide whether the force was excessive! Okay: -Students sitting in place, holding hands, not moving- -Pepper spraying them, forcing pepper spray down their throats, etc.- I'm pretty sure that's excessive. Oh hey, we already went over this. On the first goddamn page. Pay attention. [quote]May I ask what a "public area" is? I think of a park, street, etc... anyplace that anyone is allowed to go (without needed a reason). Not a school which, while being somewhat open, does not just allow anyone to walk around and such.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ucdavis.edu/about/[/url] [quote]Learn what makes UC Davis one of the nation’s top public research universities. One of 10 campuses in the University of California — the world’s pre-eminent public university system — UC Davis is known for its academic excellence and global impact.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Last or First;33347571]... wut That isn't how you use that phrase. At all. Ever. Okay, so let's assume what you just said makes sense: we need to decide whether the force was excessive! Okay: -Students sitting in place, holding hands, not moving- -Pepper spraying them, forcing pepper spray down their throats, etc.- I'm pretty sure that's excessive. Oh hey, we already went over this. On the first goddamn page. Pay attention. [url]http://www.ucdavis.edu/about/[/url][/QUOTE] Wait, really? I though it meant that you got a cart before you got the horse to move the cart. Oh well then, my point was it's important to determine if the students were doing something illegal before determining if the force was excessive. In regards to it being a public place, a public school simply means anyone can attend it if they wish, correct? It's not like some random person could pitch a tent in the grass and live there or anyone can just walk in to grab some food from a cafeteria, right? [QUOTE=Mattk50;33347089]pepper spray is less than lethal, with 63 deaths from it since 1990. It is banned in international warfare along with tear gass and a number of other chemical weaponry. They shouldnt be using it on a line of protesters. While it looks like something that isnt dangerous or something thats the equivalent of silly spray by the way the officers use it, its actually very dangerous and is up there with smashing each in the head with a baton to disorient them. The only difference is how much bad press it gives them and ease of use.[/QUOTE] I wonder how many people died when they had to be physically restrained before pepper spray was around. Anything less-than-lethal, regardless of how well it's designed or how safe it is, when as widely used as pepper spray is, will cause deaths. Does anyone happen to have a chart showing deaths by year? I suspect that there are less now a days as improved sprays and better training make it safer.
So, at what point do the protests escalate to violence?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347753]Wait, really? I though it meant that you got a cart before you got the horse to move the cart. Oh well then, my point was it's important to determine if the students were doing something illegal before determining if the force was excessive.[/QUOTE] What he is saying is, regardless of whether or not it was legal, the force used was too much.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33338488]Then how were the police going to arrest them? By interlocking their arms they were resisting arrest (if my understanding is correct that is). If you don't want to get hurt, don't break the law. Simple as that. It's not like they shot the students, they used a non-lethal spray which irritates.[/QUOTE] FYI being pepper sprayed is not fun. Nor is CS gassed.
[QUOTE=Xain777;33347783]What he is saying is, regardless of whether or not it was legal, the force used was too much.[/QUOTE] Which brings me back to the question, if it was illegal, what would be the best way to arrest the protesters. [QUOTE=JeffAndersen;33347945]FYI being pepper sprayed is not fun. Nor is CS gassed.[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying it was, but I still think it's less dangerous to everyone involved than having several officers pry their arms apart.
So uh, why did they get arrested anyway?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33346371] If the police were at fault, than it should have been quite easy to comply with their (the police's ) demands and then take the matter up in a court of law.[/QUOTE] Citizens (in the United States) are allowed to resist unlawful arrest up to and including killing a police officer, if their lives are in danger according to [i]John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529[/i]. In this case, a man was acquitted for killing a police officer who was illegally arresting him.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.