Police officer pepper sprays line of sitting students at UC Davis
262 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33348186]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.[/QUOTE]
I kinda doubt you would pass free in court if you killed a cop. Unless the cop was threatening to shoot you or something.
Actually I doubt police brutality during protests would pass in court. Because if the citizen was in the right, the cops who did this and the rubber shooting would already be fired.
It does kinda feel like government is oking force against campers.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33348165]So uh, why did they get arrested anyway?[/QUOTE]
Arrested for resisting arrest.
Is this your first OWS thread?
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33348283]I kinda doubt you would pass free in court if you killed a cop. Unless the cop was threatening to shoot you or something.
Actually I doubt police brutality during protests would pass in court. Because if the citizen was in the right, the cops who did this and the rubber shooting would already be fired.
It does kinda feel like government is oking force against campers.[/QUOTE]
It probably wouldn't work in these cases because society has gotten to the point where peaceful resistance = violence but you never know, precedent is there. You're allowed to resist if you're doing nothing wrong.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33348290]Arrested for resisting arrest.
Is this your first OWS thread?[/QUOTE]
It makes no sense to me.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;33338549]As long as nothing gets as bad as Canada losing Hockey.[/QUOTE]
Oh please, the Hockey riot is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33348290]Arrested for resisting arrest.
Is this your first OWS thread?[/QUOTE]
Isn't it more like arrested for impeding the police when they came to take down the tents? The police need to be arresting someone before they can resist being arrested.
For the record, pepper spraying non violent protesters is specifically illegal. In the following case, the protesters were even using locks to tether them to eachother.
[quote]"...alleging that the officers' use of pepper spray on the activists' eyes and faces during three peaceful protests constituted an excessive use of force in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights."
"...in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), in which the Supreme Court describes the way in which to proceed when state officials assert qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force action.   Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case in light of Saucier, this panel reaffirms its conclusion that Lewis and Philip are not entitled to qualified immunity.[/quote]
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33348519]For the record, pepper spraying non violent protesters is specifically illegal. In the following case, the protesters were even using locks to tether them to eachother.
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url][/QUOTE]
From reading that link, it seems like the fact they were using locks, which could easily be cut off, is what made the pepper spray excessive.
[quote] The facts reflect that:  (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors;  (2) the officers could safely and quickly remove the protestors, while in “black bears,” from protest sites;  and (3) the officers could remove the “black bears” with electric grinders in a matter of minutes and without causing pain or injury to the protestors.[/quote]
so i guess sitting down makes it much harder to arrest someone, than if they physically lock themselves together? is that the point your trying to make?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347473]The case you mentioned was in regards to what was acceptable force in arresting someone; it had nothing to do with the First Amendment.[/QUOTE]
...But we're talking about arrests, not the First Amendment. You made a bizarre procedural claim, it's incorrect, I explained why.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347473]Also, I happen to disagree with your conclusions to the list of things police should consider when using force.[/QUOTE]
You also haven't actually read the manual, as evidenced by a couple of your responses to those factors being non sequiturs.
[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).[/QUOTE]
Go back and read the Supreme Court case. Prioritization comes from context. Now read the manual. The context didn't merit pain compliance techniques and had an explicit mention of this type of situation.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347473]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]
Hilariously, if you'd read the link, you'd notice the "stand your ground" rules hold up even if you're on private property.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347473]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]
[I]I already fucking explained this,[/I] but fine, Supreme Court said it best anyway. Not a Cali case, but I've already cited statutes that make it apply to Cali.
[QUOTE]“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33348519]For the record, pepper spraying non violent protesters is specifically illegal. In the following case, the protesters were even using locks to tether them to eachother.
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Thank you.
I would have thought a goddamn police manual explicitly saying it was a bad idea would have been enough, but that's about as definitive as you can get.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33347951]Which brings me back to the question, if it was illegal, what would be the best way to arrest the protesters.[/QUOTE]
Handcuffs. seriously how the fuck can you not think of this shit?
THE FUCKING PIGS!
Are there different grades of pepper spray? Since when is it legal to spray someone who isn't a direct threat?!! Pepper spray is fucking awful.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33348987]...But we're talking about arrests, not the First Amendment. You made a bizarre procedural claim, it's incorrect, I explained why.
You also haven't actually read the manual, as evidenced by a couple of your responses to those factors being non sequiturs.
Go back and read the Supreme Court case. Prioritization comes from context. Now read the manual. The context didn't merit pain compliance techniques and had an explicit mention of this type of situation.
Hilariously, if you'd read the link, you'd notice the "stand your ground" rules hold up even if you're on private property.
[I]I already fucking explained this,[/I] but fine, Supreme Court said it best anyway. Not a Cali case, but I've already cited statutes that make it apply to Cali.
Thank you.
I would have thought a goddamn police manual explicitly saying it was a bad idea would have been enough, but that's about as definitive as you can get.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I should have read over your link in more detail.
But still, why are we talking about arrests? Shouldn't we be talking about if what the police were doing was legal (they where trying to remove tents by request of the person in charge of the school, correct?) which led to the students trying to stop the police (which to me, implies they were interfering with the police while they were trying to do their job) which led to the incident.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33348909]so i guess sitting down makes it much harder to arrest someone, than if they physically lock themselves together? is that the point your trying to make?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying by them sitting down and interlocking their arms the police have to use force on them to unlink their arms, whereas by locking themselves together with the chain or whatever that thing was the police to use force on the chain rather than the people.
[QUOTE=Xain777;33349054]Handcuffs. seriously how the fuck can you not think of this shit?[/QUOTE]
Alright, so what, you're going to handcuff the people who have interlocked their arms and are sitting on the ground how exactly? You're not, which is why you need some way of forcing them to unlink their arms. My question was more: What "better" way was there to separate them in order to then arrest them. I assumed that was implied, I guess not.
If they just sit there, where people walks, then they are blocking the way. I would have sprayed them with that.
For those wondering, the linking arms and sitting was in response to this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQw7wSGrfYk[/media]
To all the police officers out there hurting people and using "following orders" as justification: You do not understand the concept of a government for the people by the people. WE give the orders when we are the majority. You best stand down or i'm fairly certain few heads on a platter will be our people's next "order". Serve 'em up motherfuckers.
Oh man this is making me boil espeically since it is in Davis.
Honestly, at this point, seeing someone slaughter a cop during something like that wouldn't surpise me at all.
Am I fucked up for wanting this?
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33339063]Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more biased article and source. The first sentence of the article just screams "We will only give you one side." I don't doubt the validity of these claims, but since Facepunch cries every time Fox is posted try to find a more legitimate source.
[editline]19th November 2011[/editline]
I'd like to see a source on that claim[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms"]Stop![/URL]
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;33341242]Have any officials (bankers, businessmen, politicians, high ranking police etc.) opened a dialogue with any of the Occupy movements yet?[/QUOTE]
About the closest thing to "opening dialogue" with the protestors I've seen was when the Chicago Board of Trade scattered job applications on the protestors, sending the clear and powerful message of "What are you people doing making all this ruckus when you could be out there making us more money?!"
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;33350327]About the closest thing to "opening dialogue" with the protestors I've seen was when the Chicago Board of Trade scattered job applications on the protestors, sending the clear and powerful message of "What are you people doing making all this ruckus when you could be out there making us more money?!"[/QUOTE]
Yeah it pretty much seems like they're being one sided.
[QUOTE=J!NX;33350092]Honestly, at this point, seeing someone slaughter a cop during something like that wouldn't surpise me at all.
Am I fucked up for wanting this?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
using pepper spray against non-violent protestors isn't just wrong, it's illegal
Relevant text: "...alleging that the officers' use of pepper spray on the activists' eyes and faces during three peaceful protests constituted an excessive use of force in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights."
"...in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), in which the Supreme Court describes the way in which to proceed when state officials assert qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force action.   Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case in light of Saucier, this panel reaffirms its conclusion that Lewis and Philip are not entitled to qualified immunity."
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Lazor;33351149]using pepper spray against non-violent protestors isn't just wrong, it's illegal
Relevant text: "...alleging that the officers' use of pepper spray on the activists' eyes and faces during three peaceful protests constituted an excessive use of force in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights."
"...in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), in which the Supreme Court describes the way in which to proceed when state officials assert qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force action.   Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case in light of Saucier, this panel reaffirms its conclusion that Lewis and Philip are not entitled to qualified immunity."
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm rather sure someone already posted this. Do note that they used "black bear" things to hook themselves together rather than sitting down and linking their arms. In other words, not the same.
Here's a much more relevant quote from your source:
[quote]The facts reflect that:  (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors;  (2) the officers could safely and quickly remove the protestors, while in “black bears,” from protest sites;  and (3) the officers could remove the “black bears” with electric grinders in a matter of minutes and without causing pain or injury to the protestors.[/quote]
The police can't just use an electric grinder on peoples arms.
[QUOTE=Lazor;33351149]using pepper spray against non-violent protestors isn't just wrong, it's illegal
Relevant text: "...alleging that the officers' use of pepper spray on the activists' eyes and faces during three peaceful protests constituted an excessive use of force in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights."
"...in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), in which the Supreme Court describes the way in which to proceed when state officials assert qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force action.   Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case in light of Saucier, this panel reaffirms its conclusion that Lewis and Philip are not entitled to qualified immunity."[/quote]
Can we find any sort of identifying markings and get him arrested?
Pepper spray was created as a non-lethal way to subdue aggressive people . This isn't subduing, this is punishing, which isn't the police department's job(and what judge would issue pepper spray as a punishment)
I am confused as to how this is legal.
[editline]19th November 2011[/editline]
oh it's not? cool
Snip
[QUOTE=Lambeth;33351804]Pepper spray was created as a non-lethal way to subdue aggressive people . This isn't subduing, this is punishing, which isn't the police department's job(and what judge would issue pepper spray as a punishment)
I am confused as to how this is legal.
[editline]19th November 2011[/editline]
oh it's not? cool[/QUOTE]
Personally, I'll wait for official word as to if the polices actions were legal.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33351932]Personally, I'll wait for official word as to if the polices actions were legal.[/QUOTE]
You'd wait until the supposedly guilty party admitted to guilt before thinking they were guilty.
You should have said this at the beginning, then I'd at least have known you didn't give two shits about the actual law.
It gets powerful to see a crowd of cops being pushed back as they shout "Shame on you"
Although after playing Skyrim all day, I hear it as "SHAY MUN YU"
[QUOTE=Ripvayne;33352203]It gets powerful to see a crowd of cops being pushed back as they shout "Shame on you"
Although after playing Skyrim all day, I hear it as "SHAY MUN YU"[/QUOTE]
Your Thu'um greatly irritates your foes, stunning them as they wipe their eyes and cover their face.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.