Since Stash can post obnoxiously large images it's only fair

The "Hipster" should have been labeled "The Leach". Other then that a huge amount of data herein.



What it all comes down to is a lot of American's (Sans the Socialists: Lumberjane, Beavis et al) are unhappy for similar and good reasons.

It is time to water the tree of Liberty?

Well, maybe that tree of liberty got a dose of pepper water already...

You confuse the definition and meaning of liberty, maybe. I for one cannot see what part of Liberty they are protesting for. Love the graphic though. "Just watering my hippies", LMFAO!

I never noticed before but in the background about everyone has a camera turned on the action. How dumb are these security people?

Sunday in the Park with George... Orwell.

They're protesting the same as the Tea Partiers, except the police never pepper sprayed the old folks at those rallies. Even your graphic pretty much showed that they share the same grievances in term. So, when you used a slogan that the Tea Partiers used, I turned the phrase.

That said: If the police did the same thing (pepper spray) to the Tea Partiers, I would be just as outraged. From all of the videos I've seen (about the UC Davis protest), there was no reason for that response. To peacefully protest is a right in this country. Once that protest goes sour (violence, etc.), then the authorities can step in and control it. That wasn't the case this time at UC Davis.

I won't speak about the other incidents, but to me, one instance of this tactic in this manner is too many. It doesn't even matter what they are protesting about, because that message is now lost in the spray of pepper.

(I'll get off my rarely used soap box now.)

Too dumb to be allowed to carry weapons.

I’ll take “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” from the Bill of Rights for $1,000 Alex.




Not security people as in “Security Guards” but they are actual law enforcement officers.

Gotcha. They are protesting peacefully for the right of people to peaceably assemble. Makes perfect sense.

And next you're gonna say that these occumorons should be given free education. Good thing the 14th amendment gives Special and Unique Snowflakes free rides to school.


Care to try to explain my original question now. Here, simple talk: Liberty = freedom from a tyrannical government.

What part of a government are they protesting as tyrannical?

TEA Partiers protested the scope and size of Government. Equating the Federal Government to being Tyrannical. Big enough to give everything and take everything. As well as the enslavement of the American people by the so-called "Federal Reserve" a privately owned bank.

Occumorons are protesting Wall Street. Well, 1/99 are. Remember there are 99% bitching about 99 different things: War / Legal Pot / Student Loans, the list counted is extraordinary. Nothing about a Tyrannical Government.

If they want to "protest". Run for office, don't get bought, like Obama, by Wall Street and change it. Until then they are creating more of a public nuisance then anything else.

Also "Law Enforcement" doesn't show up at UC campus' and pepper spray people. They were called on campus or at least called to the scene because of something the protester provoked, thus negating any shread of "peaceful assembly" they may have had.

Since you classify them as you do, I’m going to take a guess that you don’t agree with anything they are objecting too so why bother explaning any of it to you. They do have the right to “peaceably to assemble” regardless if you agree, or understand, their reasons.




So you’re the official spokesperson with the official message of what they were protesting? Funny, I saw many other messages but if you’re the official representative with the official cause, then ok. If only the OWS crowd could get one spokesperson like you to distribute their official message then it may be easier for Tea Partiers to digest their reasons.




Just like almost every big politician with an R or D, and sometimes I, with their name, the only ones to make it are the purchased politicians.



Were you aware that UC Davis has their own Police Department (with Law Enforcement Officer too by golly). If I’m not mistaken, all the state universities in California have them and even some community colleges. In this case, the UC Davis Police Officers were already there.

Care to provide any evidence of what the protesters did that “provoked” the officer to casually walk along seated people and spray them? Or was the fact that they were protesting something you don’t believe in enough provocation for you?

Run, Forest, Run!

The discussion at that point with another poster wasn't on "assembly", it was on Liberty. Scroll up, kiddo, make a bouncy ball progy if necessary but DOOOOOOOOO try to keep the conversation intact.

No shit, Sherlock!

Can I give this guy the Captain Obvious spandex and cape, Please, Stash, Pulleeeeaze! And in other another post I site their 1st Amendment rights. To which mdean gainfully lost focus on through his hate goggles.

Funny, indeed, how original messages to a movement can be scewed DRASTICALLY from the original intent. Just like to 20+ people who originally Occupied Wall Street's message was co-opted AND scewed, especially by these UC spoiled brats.

Or why YOU, with your lack of fortitude, won't run for public office? That's all it takes, kiddo, fortitude.

I present to you History and Logic. Get your bouncy ball progy and follow along:

In recent history (10 years) of UC how many times do the students protest for one reason, peaceably, or another?!?!? Let's round it down to a thousand. UC students assemble to protest protestors. Regularly. The same campus cops don't care. It's quite routine for the students.

The cop in the video brandished the canister. Held it up high as a final warning. The details will get drowned in the screams of repression and civil rights violations blah blah blah. But I'll bet you, dollar to your dime, that cops report gets buried. The students provoked the spraying. Calling your assembly OWS and sitting on campus doesn't merit pepper spraying. Especially to an officer who's probably YAWNED though a thousand of such idiotic protests from spoiled brats on campus.

If you're going to cross-pollinate the threads, at least get it right.



If that's your idea of citing (or defending) 1st Amendment rights, no thanks.

Other than your obvious contempt for the OWS crowd, care to provide any evidence, video, newpapers, photos, quotes, buried police reports, or anything that showed the officer’s safety was threatened and the use of pepper spray was warranted? Or did the look of students, sitting arm and arm on the ground, just tempted the officer to use the spray? You seem to really enjoy government authorities pepper spraying protesters who were exercising their right to assemble. And I thought you were a fan of liberty and didn’t like a tyrannical government.

I don't know any asking for "free education". I do know the peaceful protesters at UC Berkley had as one of their issues the drastic increase in the cost of tuition.

If public eduation is more expensive, then tuition rates may need to increase. But, like in Washington, many tuition rates are increasing because revenues are dropping. As a solution to decreased revenue ONE source could be increased tuition. Another source can, and should be increasig revenues. But, the teabaggers have coopted legislatures across the nation and/or the polls so no new revenue sources can be developed.

Even when they want to ask the wealthiest Americans whose wealth has drastically increased over the last 30 years while the middle class wealth has drastically declined, they are rebuffed. I can't remember the exact numbers but 4 years ago, the Washington State Legislature slashed billions out of the budget. Two years ago, the slashed billions more. In the last session there were more drastic cuts. Each time revenue sources were fought back.

It's not hard to see why the middle class, or more specifically, those Occupiers, are pissed off and trying to let someone know about it.

But, they want a government big enough to get into the middle of a woman's medical decisions and who another person sleeps with or weds... or what they read or what drugs they choose to take. "Keep government small if it will do anything to me! But, keep it big enough to stop anything I don't like!"

No. I have come to the conclusion your competence to rationally determine the deserving recipient of such a distinguished award is compromised by the spewing of such utter nonsense as this:



I am stunned you would think the students provoked the spraying. I've watched that video a half dozen times. 20 or 30 students were sitting arm in arm on the ground. How does that provoke the use of pepper spray? Do you really think the UC Davis Security Police Manual says, "If any students are sitting on their asses threatening no one but blocking the sidewalk. You should first, shout, "I'm going to pepper spray you!" and then, spray them vigorously with the toxic chemical." Is that really what a 5th led security force would do had the south won the war? Well, they didn't. And that's not the way it works in the United States of America. That's why the Chief is on leave and two officers are on leave and the Chancellor is fighting to keep her job.

I'll take possession of the cape for now by stating,

Steeeeerike TWO!

Try again, twinkle toes. It's convenient how all those cameras/tablets/smart phones/hockey pucks (iPhones) were so conveniently there and how they all magically "started" recording when the spraying started.

You're normally quite reasonable in your thought process, a refreshment from the Stash/mdean/Lumberjacks/imhotep ad nauseam liberal posters on this board. When/If the 30 mins of recording come to view we'll see the provocation. However you and I know that footage will never see the light of production. The student got what they wanted, finally. A reaction to their protests and what I believe after GREAT provocation.

Steeeeeeerike Three.

Rent-a-cops pepper spraying brats on campus for causing a disturbance is not a violation of CIVIL rights. Never will be in my opinion.

Now! When uniformed Law Enforcement - National Guard - Military come in on US citizens assembling peacefully and start scattering crowds like you have in The middle east, we can talk CIVIL rights violation.

P.S. Like how I color coded it ? I figured since you can't code the bouncy bally progy of your dreams you can follow the preeeetty colors.

I'll educate ya then:

Didn't Funky and I already concede to each other that the original intent of a message is and can be nullified by the extremist that join?

My message has always been less Government. My side lost, remember. Your side (If you have one) wants BIG government. "Which some can interpret" as needing a police state. Your side won. Congratulation. Would you like to water the hippies now?

I'm glad you and Funky can find agreement. I, on the other hand, am pointing out what the Teabaggers have actually said and done. That you, apparently an original Tea Party member think they should stand for something else or at one time stood for something else, is admirable. But, the Teabaggers are bought and paid for now by the Koch Brothers & Dick Armey & their ilk.



Yeah, but you sure are persistant little cusses. Aren't you?



What makes you think it possible I don't have a side?



RayGun was wrong when he said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." Government, which is us working collectively together, has done some great things for America. The teabagger controlled GOP mouth the words "smaller government" but use their podiums, commercials, actions, ect. to preach for bigger government. Big enough to get into the middle of a woman's medical decisions. Big enough to determine who another person sleeps with or weds. Big enough to control what is read or watched, what drugs are ingested, etc. And, of course, always big enough to send corporate welfare.




"Some" meaning you.



I think the "big government" pepper spraying of the peaceful protests was abominable. You blamed the protesters and defended the big government enforcer.

The students got what they wanted. A reaction. Shame on the rent-a-cop for not Yawning through this, yet again, boring protest.

Remember Stash, the North won. Your side. Big Government side. Police state side.

Wait, isn't it the TEA-Party protesting big government?

Bring out the pictures of the fringe extreme whacko's of the latter TEA-Party/Republican co-opt, there out there

In order to "educate me" that some out there are asking for a free education, you show a picture of a young man proclaiming he has already borrowed $25,000 for his education and most likely has already spent and/or had spent by family additional funds?

You have failed. No where on his sign does it say, "I shouldn't have to pay a darn thing! Make 5th pay for me." As I stated earlier, part of the Occupy message is, "You wouldn't need to raise tuition so much if you weren't giving away the farm to the wealthiest in America."

Oh, and just so you don't spend too much time looking for another sign: I'm sure if you scour the internet, you can find a sign carried by someone saying, "Education should be free!" or something like that. Point conceded. But, I haven't seen that message and don't think it is the crux of the Occupy movement. But, as you know, if I look long and hard enough (actually not hard at all), I can find a teabagger holding a sign condemning the "niggar" (sic) in the White House. But, you know that asshat's racism isn't the crux of the teabagger movement either, don't you?

Less government, less option for interpretation, no police state

Swing and a miss… Here is about 2 and half minutes of video BEFORE the pepper spraying started (not the 30 minutes prior to but something magically before the spraying). You can see the officer casually talking to one of the students, even walked over the line of seated students, at one point a few officers try to pull some students off and it looks like they are waved off by the officer about to spray.

http://waxy.org/2011/11/viewing_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying_from_multiple_angles/

It’s not really magic but called “editing”.



Swing and a miss… these were UC Davis Police Department Uniformed Police Officers. Not security guards, rent-a-cops, or night club bouncers. Just in case you missed that sentence again, POLICE OFFICER’s from the campus POLICE DEPARTMENT. Let me know if you need more clarity on the fact that they are POLICE OFFICER’s.

In this article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-davis-police-chief-leave-pepper-spray.html

“UC Davis placed Police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave Monday in the wake of controversy over the pepper-spraying of student protesters last week by campus police officers.”

I emphasised that last part so you could see it was Police Officer since you kept missing that part.



Ok, so your standard on violating our civil rights in the United States is based on how they do it in the Middle East? That is an interesting position.

Here's where intelligent people and idiots get their wires crossed.

Idiots think that officers carry guns/handcuffs/tazers/mace/clubs/pepper spray to punish bad people.

Intelligent people understand that they have those things so that they can apprehend those suspected of crimes so that courts can decide how to punish them.

Guns/tazers/mace/pepper spray/handcuffs used for any reason other than detaining suspects is a violation of the most fundamental element of civil society.

If their job is to apprehend suspects, they're cops. If their job to punish people who annoy them, then they're roving bands of well armed thugs.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference shouldn't wear a badge, nor own a voting registration or a keyboard.

Of course I have to reply to this. It is hogwash.

Government should enact laws that reflect the public will. While I am more in favor of states making these choices, it is not totally against my grain to think that a national standard, one purpose of a central government, would make rules that follow from state to state.

I think it is lame to use this same argument over and over when usually complaints against bigger government are aimed at things like growing more and more government jobs which usually pay for themselves in thinking up more and more ways to create more and more public jobs via bureaucracy and paperwork. There are many ways government is definitely too big. The sad thing is that neither party really does anything about it.

You do have a point on corporate welfare. Why does Exxon keep getting breaks when it is making absurd profits?

Steeeerike Three, Your Out!

And what's fucking ridiculous twinkle toes, you failed to read your OWN fucking quote. FFS. Just incase you missed your own writing I emphasized it for you.

Lipstick on a pig is your presentation of CAMPUS POLICE. Here's a clue, you need one, When "Law Enforcement" are called to UC Campus', They tell the campus cops to "stand down".

Next time you see GH College rent-a-cop/security/police coordinating with a swat sting OFF campus, let me know. Then you may have a point and Stash's/Lumberjacks/mdeans democrat big government police state will be out of control.

Government should enact laws which are constitutionally valid, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure not just liberty but the blessings thereof, for real, actual, flesh-and-blood people.

Ideally, "the public will" will be aligned with those principles, but often it is not.

Federal, State and Local governments have shed a half-million jobs since 2009.

"Someone" really IS doing something about it. Your confusion stems from the fact that you expected something good from "doing something about it", when in reality all we get is downside.

In this case it was the UC Davis law enforcement officers (aka Police Officers of the UC Davis Police Department) who did the pepper spraying. I guess if you don’t understand that the UC Davis Police Officers are Law Enforcement officers, then it’s easier for you to disregard actual facts.

The California Commission on Peace Office Standards and Training shows UC Davis Police Department (the Campus police department you keep thinking is a bunch of security guards) having 45 SWORN officers as of July 2011. The POLICE OFFICERS in the video are UC DAVIS POLICE OFFICERS, not some off-campus local PD, but the actual University of California (that’s where the UC part comes from) Davis POLICE DEPARTMENT.

http://www.post.ca.gov/Data/Sites/1/post_docs/hiring/le-employment-stats.pdf

Just in case you need a little more info on the UC Davis Police Officers who did the spraying:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-new...team-on-campus/
“Lt. John Pike sprayed from close range about a dozen seated protesters with pepper spray… Pike and another officer, whom UCD has declined to identify, have been placed on administrative leave”

So in following the bouncy ball, you see it was UC Davis Police Department Police Officers on the scene who sprayed the seated protesters and now those two Police Officers are on administrative leave.

Strike four in the peewee league. Nice try kid. You should at least get a ribbon for trying.

What we just witnessed was a brief moment of Lucidity from our beloved Lumberjack. And now he'll slip back into the madness of his dementia and for a time be lost to us all. Be safe in your mind Lumberjack, we'll be here when your lucid for that briefest moment, next time.

A moment of silence, please.

Is this downside: a half million jobs being lost? Jobs that just drained our pockets? Why make the effort when we can just keep printing more money?

The answer is that eventually we get high inflation and maybe even hyperinflation where everyone loses everything?

The lines of reality are too far askew from you. You make a point and then argue against it.

You're right, They AREN'T Local off-campus PD. As you just quoted stated above.

That's the fucking point. They have no jurisdiction outside the campus. They aren't, for all intent and purpose, Sworn to protect the LAW. They protect the POLIES of UC Davis.

Giving UC Davis Police (Policy Enforcement) Officers rankings doesn't make a difference.

Is there a UC Davis policy against watering hippies? You look for it.

So now kiddo your benched for the season: Pwnage

And just for the extra burn:

Man alive! That won't even buy me a mocha latte from starbucks! Oh BTW. Money talk with Lumberjack is pointless he won't understand the big words like Hyper Inflation / Fractional Reserve / Fiat Currency, their meanings or correspondences.

I tried. It was an epic fail, with him. E-P-I-C.

The police were given orders to clear the protesters. The protesters were warned by the police, clearly and politely I might add, that they would be pepper-sprayed if they did not disperse. The protesters clearly understood and their attitude was one of "bring it on". Welcome to the real world: choices and consequences. I would bet there will be a court case down the line to decide in this instance whether it was reasonable force or excessive.

No amount of evidence contrary to 5th's original, uninformed opinion will change anything. It's too late for that. They are entrenched. Everyone paying attention knows they were sworn officers, not mall cops. Doesn't matter. Just like the video evidence you provided showing the 2:26 leading up to the spraying, that showed zero acts of provocation. The bar was (arbitrarily) set at 30 minutes of footage. Somewhere the real problem was in the first 17:34, and then the frenzied protesters settled down peacefully, as frenzied protesters so often do. /s

Really, it wouldn't matter if it were city cops, Feds, or parking security. The reaction to the peaceful demonstration was an abuse of authority- period. The fact that it was trained, equipped, sworn officers only makes it worse. 5th is looking for loopholes to make their abhorrent behavior acceptable where any reasonable person would instantly recognize it is indefensible.

Obviously, that means we want big government. This will give them something to talk about (slowly, using small words) at the next Tea Party meeting as they keep the stereotype alive and well.

There's no arguing any of that. Are you trying to get Stash's cape?

What's your opinion- was the force reasonable or excessive?

The fact that mdean and Madicarus are using police interchangeably is extraordinary. It's as stupid as mdean printing out his gay porn email and trying to fry it up because you know, Spam fucking tastes good fried. Even the City of Davis POLICE issued a statement. Wait this has to be a loop hole according to mdavis City of Davis Police Statement

The UCDPD is it's own entity. You go to UC Davis and you are under their jurisdiction. They ask you to disperse, do so.

The Sworn Police Officers of the UC Davis Police Department have the same basic certification as every other sworn law enforcement officer in the state of California (LAPD, San Diego County Sheriff, Sacramento PD, Contra Costa Sheriff Department, etc…). Their jurisdiction as Police Officers is the UC Davis Campus (all 5,300 acres of it).

Try this out, next time you’re in California and driving on the highway, speed past a cop/deputy you see on the road from another jurisdiction and see if the whole “you have no jurisdiction outside of your jurisdiction, therefore you are not an officer sworn to protect the law outside of your jurisdiction”. Or even try that east of Elma if you happen to see an Aberdeen PD car and let me know how that works out.



No debate there, just like the GH County Sheriff Whelan has no authority over Elma PD, or Chief Meyer (of Hoquiam) has no authority over Aberdeen PD.



Ahh, that burn was my sides from laughing. I forgot to remind myself of the “when arguing with teapartiers, you first have to remember the following to think like one”….” think of a man, and take away reason and accountability”. Thanks Jack.

I think this financial game has been played by every politician to fail, meaning our whole government has indulged in a Ponzi scheme. I am guessing that their reasoning is that we are too big to fail.

In the short term I expect the dollar to fall against China's currency which means no more super cheap junk but jobs might come home. China can surely see that if they want their money back that they loaned us they are going to have to take products because newly printed dollars will be worth much less.

In the long term, big government created the credit bubble with their policies and we have still not paid the price for it. All those printed dollars are out there and inflation is somewhere on the horizon.

The thing that makes me feel the most helpless is that to come out on the other side of this thing in the best shape possible is to be doing the following today:

Improve infrastructure.
Educate our children better than our competitors.
Taxing more as well as trimming fat.

Short term the first two sound like just more money being wasted but there is end to this. There always is. I am afraid we are blowing what could be a good position by being cheap on the wrong things.

And the Kent State students were warned that they'd be shot.

There was never any pretense of arresting them, it was purely an exercise in dispensation of justice.

You warn people that they'll be arrested. You don't warn them that they'll be tazed/shot/maced. If they resist arrest, then the pepper spray may be appropriate.

We're suffering because people don't have money to buy our stuff. THAT is what is draining our pockets. Hyperinflation isn't a legitimate risk. You can't have a wage-price spiral with declining wages. Interest rates are essentially zero.

The actual risk is deflation. Every job lost hurts us all.

Reasonable.
They were under orders to clear the protesters.
They met physical resistance when trying to physically remove them. Instead of escalating the physical resistance with physical force, they politely warned the protesters that they would be pepper-sprayed if they did not disperse.
The protestors said "bring it on".
Police gave the protesters time to change their minds, and when they didn't, the police calmly sprayed them with pepper-spray. Seems much more reasonable to me than escalating the situation with physical force and batons. Remember, the police were under orders to clear out the protesters. If my child were there and they had been pepper-sprayed, I would have said "you were warned...your choice...your consequence".

Flight into Security: A New Approach and Measure of the Authoritarian Personality.

A basic pattern of human response to stressful and uncertain situations which provoke anxiety and insecurity is to seek security and shelter. Those who provide support become by a process of psychological attribution authorities. Therefore the mechanism of seeking support and shelter under strained conditions might be called an “authoritarian reaction.” Socialization involves a negotiation with this basic reaction of flight in situations of uncertainty. As individuals develop, they learn to overcome the authoritarian reaction by formulating their own strategies to cope with reality. The authoritarian personality emerges out of an inability to generate such individual coping strategies. Authoritarian personalities defer to the dictates and control of others who offer them the certainty and comfort they cannot provide for themselves. Extensions of this basic authoritarian response are the rejection of the new and the unfamiliar, rigid adherence to norms and value systems, an anxious and inflexible response to new situations, suppressed hostility, and passive aggression. A new measure based on items on one's own behavior, feelings, motivation, and the individual's concept of the self was developed and tested in several empirical studies. It obtained a good reliability and proved to be valid by correlating to measures of right-wing extremism, negative attitudes toward immigrants and women.

UCD "Police Officer" decides to take a campus vehicle to the local City of Davis Dunkin doughnut shop. Madicarus speeds by in her pink mary kay cadi on a way to a very important lip stick line launching and is late. oh goodness gracious her tardiness!

Can the UCD "Police Officer" pull lil miss Madicarus and ticket her infraction of speeding in the City streets of Davis California?

Kick "Jack" in "his" junk. Try to use your so called "reason and accountability" sometime in the future M'Kay.

No matter how much you try to spin it. UCDPD is not a "Law Enforcement" agency on the same level as the Agencies you sited. And it reads as much from the Davis Police Department.

Jeez, it's like your the black night in Monty Python Holy Grail. FFS. No Arms, no legs, threatening to bite my kneecaps off.

Thanks.

I understand consequences. I also know that compliance rarely ever brings about needed change. Some civil disobedience is justified. I'm sure Rosa Parks was told to move.

I think you make an unfair assumption that if they hadn't used pepper spray they would have had to use batons. There is no indication that the kids were at all physically confrontational. Neither pepper spray nor baton should have been Plan A. Just cuff them and haul them off. You know, like they had to do anyway. This was just preemptive strike shock and awe.

However, you answered forthright and provided your reasoning. I appreciate it.

I doubt it. But, an off-duty (or on-duty) Elma Police Officer can't give a ticket to someone in Hoquiam on Karr Avenue for speeding, either. Wake us when you arrive at your point.

This is definitely worthy of it's own thread. Most of your comments I totally agree with. There is entertaining discussion that could happen with this topic but it would be better off done in it's own thread.

You know the point. You just are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda. Same with Madicarus. Same with mdean, but his choice it out of hatred.

Somehow it seems like you're standing there with your ears plugged going "LALALALALAL". Shit, where did I get that from?

As would most of us to our children. We understand about consequences for our actions. The protesters riding the busses in the 60's down to New Orleans knew there could, and most likely would, be consequences. They were willing to accept those consequences. Knowing the consequences and excusing the, at least inappropriate and at worst illegal consequences inflicted upon them are two different things.

If any of those protesters at UC Davis had said, "We had no idea the officer had pepper-spray and was going to spray us," they would lack veracity. But, knowing it's coming doesn't make the officer spraying right. Just like the protesters knowing the fire hoses were going to start smashing them against buildings didn't make Bull Connor right.

With all do respect, I either do not understand your point or you misunderstand the UC Davis Police Department. Somehow because they are "UC Davis" you're calling them "rent-a-cops". The UC Davis Police Department is a real police department and hires real police officers who go through the academy and all real and normal police training. They even have a mutual aid agreement with surrounding cities. This means officers from other communities can come on campus and help the UC Department if asked, and the UC Police Officers can go to the surrounding cities and help them. I think you consider them "mall cop" equivilents and that is a flawed consideration. They are cops. Their employer happens to be UC Davis. Just like an officer in Aberdeen is a real cop and employed by the City of Aberdeen.

Now, I repeat. I really do not understand your point.

The consequences of the officer's actions are: he's on administrative leave, people are picketing the chancellor's office and now many hundreds of protesters have converged on the spot that the officer "cleared".

I didn't say anything about them being physically "confrontational"...physically resistant to removal.



She was. She was actually sitting in the designated "black section" and refused to move when the "white section" was full and more "whites" got on the bus. She also did not resist arrest in any way.

From the Davis Police Department Website:

Police services on the University of California, Davis, campus are provided by the UC Davis Police Department.

It doesn't say, "Unless they need real police, in which case, we'll come."

Physical resistance only requires restraint. It does not require an offensive strike. The was no need to inflict harm on protesters when there was no threat of harm to the police.

Was there a need for the protesters to stay where they were against police orders to disperse and move to another location on campus? The police asked them nicely to comply. They chose not to.



So what's the problem? Looks like protesters won.

You would do better to study Martin Luther King Jr. than the suppositions of a German psychobabbler. King preached the importance of willingness to suffer in non-violent resistance.

King would have been celebrating the UC Davis incident.

From the UC Davis Police Dept. Policy and Procedure Manual:

*Individuals must identify themselves to and comply with directions of campus officials; if they engage in civil disobedience and refuse to comply with directions to leave an area for safety or other reasons, or because a building is closed, they may be arrested/subject to discipline.

*Individuals have wide latitude for expressing their views, but certain conduct is unlawful or violates university policy. Those who engage in activities such as making threats of violence toward specific individuals, disturbing the peace, obstructing or disrupting campus functions or behavior that threatens health and safety may be prosecuted and/or disciplined.

I submit non-threatening, non-compliance is subject to arrest, discipline and/or prosecution. How we arrest people in America is the discussion. Few legitimate law enforcement agencies would agree the proper method for arresting non-threatening, non-compliant, individuals or groups should be, A. Ask them to stop and leave, B. Warn them they will be pepper-sprayed, then C. Spray the bejeezus out of them with toxic chemicals, and then D. peel them apart and arrest them.

It just doesn't/shouldn't happen. I'm amazed ikayak and 5th are still defending it.

Yes they can. From the California Penal Code their authority extends to “any place in the state” and if it’s outside of their regular area, they could have prior arrangements with the City of Davis.

830.1. (a)any police officer, employed in that capacity and appointed by the chief of police …is a peace officer. The authority of these peace officers extends to any place in the state, as follows:

(1) As to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed within the political subdivision that employs the peace officer or in which the peace officer serves.

(2) Where the peace officer has the prior consent of the chief of police or chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated municipal public safety agency, or person authorized by him or her to give consent, if the place is within a city, or of the sheriff, or person authorized by him or her to give consent, if the place is within a county.



Oh, is that because you said so? The state that certifies them has a different opinion as they defined them as Peace Officers the same as police officers and deputies from any other law enforcement agency. Check out this little part too:

830.2. The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state:

(b) A member of the University of California Police Department appointed pursuant to Section 92600 of the Education Code, provided that the primary duty of the peace officer shall be the enforcement of the law within the area specified in Section 92600 of the Education Code.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=830-832.17

Let me know if you have any trouble understanding or comprehending any of this or just feel free to say “nuh-uh” if it will hurt to come up with a cogent rebuttal.

It is a crap shoot. Some economists are predicting inflation because of money printing by the USA. Others worry about prices dropping. My bet is on inflation.

Either way, we cannot borrow our way out of it and that is what manufacturing jobs that bring nothing to our infrastructure except paychecks covered by China is what we are doing.

If you want jobs choose to rebuild America. We would actually get something out that kind of job creation. Toll roads or higher gas taxes could slow down fuel consumption as well as fix infrastructure and create jobs.

Political will is all it takes to get us back to work.

What is so hard to understand about this:

1. Police given orders to clear protesters.
2. Police ask protesters to disperse.
3. Protesters remain sitting w/arms linked, refusing to follow police orders. (Let me point out that the police were not asking them to do anything immoral or illegal, or even end their protest...just to get up and relocate.)
4. Police warn them that if they do not disperse and relocate that they will be pepper-sprayed.
5. Protesters say that's ok.
6. Police follow through on their warning.

The protesters made their choice. If you defy police in our society you risk getting injured. Break the rules, whether protester or police, and you're probably going to face consequences. They went to UC Davis for an education, they're getting one. Speaking as someone who participated in many Vietnam war protests as a kid, live and learn. Either you stand by your convictions and are willing to suffer for the cause, or you just need to go home to your nice warm bed and watch the tube.

If you're wrong and Krugman and Robert Reich are right, then borrowing is the ONLY way out of it.

Deflation is a result far worse than debt. We can't repay the debt we owe if deflation eats its value. We'll probably be able to repay our debt (or at least grow our economy so that the debt is trivial). At today's rates, borrowing is really not a problem. The US can borrow money for 10 years at less than 2%.

Look at the history of the debt, there is certainly precedent.


The WWII debt was eliminated not through austerity but by growing our economy.

I am equally perplexed by your satisfaction with the process. It is my contention much should have occurred between the the jump from #2 to #4 and ultimately #6. A police officer should not pull a gun and tell a J-Walker, "If you take another step, I'll blow you away, Punk!" and, then, because after all he did warn the transgressor, pull the trigger.

I think pepper spray, batons, tazers and guns should be in a list of options for our law enforcement officials. But, they should come in a proper order and proportionate to the situation. The response of the UC Davis Police Department was excessive for the situation.

Where do you get "satisfaction"?
It is what it is.

The ops plan for that police department includes the use of pepper spray. An investigation will determine whether or not the use was reasonable or excessive in this situation.

This is straight from the MLK playbook...
except for all the whining.

There is only a need if the protesters hope to actually accomplish something. The purpose of a protest is not to be convenient. It's called rebellion. Our country was sought, founded and defended by rebels. Many important social changes are the result of rebellion. In the mind of the protesters, yes, there was a reason they didn't move. You already know that, whether you agree with the reason or not.

Now, please address the assault on a non-violent group. What is the justification for causing harm where there was no threat of harm to police? I already know you believe the cops were right to disperse the crowd, but do you really believe the students forced their hand and pepper spray was their only option to control the situation?



Yes, he was a remarkable man. However, his willingness to endure abuse for his cause does not excuse the abuse.

That will be decided by independent investigators and probably a court of law, won't it?

Previous court decisions concerning the use of pepper spray are mixed.



Has this been ruled abuse...or is that just opinion at this point?

Why not just arrest them? The pepper spray seems to be a new trial way to disperse protesters. But, if the protester are not putting up a fight, why not just pick them up and take them to jail?

The US Supreme Court has one case, Graham v. Connor, that outlines how to review these issues:

“The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight”

“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals used that guideline in determining if using pepper spray on non-violent protesters was reasonable in a 2002 case (Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt) and ruled:

“it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors”.

They also stated:

“regional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against nonviolent protestors is excessive”

If law enforcement agencies have been changing their policies in the last 9 years to say it is ok to use pepper spray against non-violent protesters, then that “reasonable officer on the scene” would probably say it’s ok. Of course I’m sure we could all start listing cases where officers were accused of excessive force and the department’s investigation determined the force was “reasonable” and people still dispute those findings.

From your posts.

Satisfaction? Acceptance? Acquiescence? Complacency? I think our public servants used excessive force to get compliance against a situation that posed no threat to anyone. Inconvenience, possibly. But, we don't allow our law enforcement officers to shoot someone because someone is inconvenienced. We don't allow our law enforcement officers to strike someone with their baton because someone is inconvenienced; or use a tazer; or the choke hold; or, in my opinion, pepper spray.

You seem to think complaining about, argueing about, or disgust with the actions of the UC Davis Police Department against non-violent protesters is unjustified. I think accepting the actions is outrageous.

If you don't mind, could you share your link to the Operations Manual for the UC Davis Police Force? I scoured the Police Department and the University's web sites and couldn't find it.

It's in the published ca.gov California Crowd Management and Civil Disobedience Guidelines.



I think a bunch of kids thought it would be cool to disrupt campus in protest of tuition hikes, broke the law, and suffered non-lethal consequences which they didn't like. It's not up to me whether or not the use of pepper spray on them after warning was "outrageous". I see it as reasonable. (And they were given immediate medical treatment.) You don't. My opinion, your opinion, plus $1.98 will get you a cup of coffee at Duffy's.

Thank you.

I found this interesting and enjoyed looking through it. However, I'm still looking for the UC Davis Police Department's policy.

In the Preface of the CROWD MANAGEMENT AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE GUIDELINES you referenced, it states:

Penal Code Section 13514.5 requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish guidelines and training for law enforcement’s response to crowd management and civil disobedience.

These guidelines contain information for law enforcement agencies to consider when addressing the broad range of issues related to crowd management and civil disobedience. The guidelines do not constitute a policy, nor are they intended to establish a standard for any agency. The Commission is sensitive to the needs for agencies to have individualized policies that reflect concern for local issues. The Commission intends these guidelines to be a resource for law enforcement executives that will provide maximum discretion and flexibility in the development of individual agency policies.

Not so much for you as you've already read it, but for anyone else on the board looking for an interesting read, here is the Chemical Agent "guideline" referenced:

Guideline #10: Use of Nonlethal Chemical Agents

Agencies should develop policies and procedures for the deployment of nonlethal chemical agents during incidents of civil disobedience. The application of nonlethal chemical agents must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Discussion:

Nonlethal chemical agents, properly deployed by trained law enforcement personnel, are designed to cause temporary discomfort. The application of nonlethal chemical agents, including oleoresin capsicum (OC), has proven effective in a wide variety of civil disobedience situations. Use of nonlethal chemical agents during civil disobedience may be reasonable depending on the totality of the circumstances. Each agency should consider when, where, and how nonlethal chemical agents may be deployed.

It is important that every agency have properly trained personnel for the deployment of nonlethal chemical agents. Nonlethal chemical agents, protective masks, maintenance, storage, and security are the responsibility of the agency.

* A Sampling of Nonlethal Chemical Agent Deployment Issues:

�� Law Violations
�� Non-compliance, civil disobedience situations
�� Peace officer safety
�� Personnel available
�� Methods of delivery available
�� Weather conditions
�� Wind direction
�� Physical location/terrain considerations
�� Cross contamination problems
�� Mobility of protestors (suspects)
�� Effect on law enforcement horses
�� Types of agents available
�� Protective devices for involved personnel
�� Decontamination
�� The potential exposure to children, elderly, and disabled members of the crowd

* A Sampling of Nonlethal Chemical Agent Policy Considerations:

�� Law Violations
�� Non-compliance, civil disobedience situations
�� Peace officer safety
�� Personnel available
�� Methods of delivery available
�� Weather conditions
�� Wind direction
�� Physical location/terrain considerations
�� Cross contamination problems
�� Mobility of protestors (suspects)
�� Effect on law enforcement horses
�� Types of agents available
�� Protective devices for involved personnel
�� Decontamination
�� The potential exposure to children, elderly, and disabled members of the crowd
�� Training
�� Reporting
�� Types of agents
�� Delivery methods to be utilized (application, spray, expulsion, pyrotechnics, etc.
�� Amount of agents to be purchased
�� Identify person(s) who can authorize the use of nonlethal chemical agents, and under what circumstances
�� Decontamination/observation
�� Storage of nonlethal chemical agents
�� Replacement and/or rotation of expired agents
�� Use on animals
�� Mutual aid for procurement (chemical collaborative)
�� Non-compliance, civil disobedience situations
�� Purchase, storage, and distribution of protective masks

* These samplings are not in order of priority.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

money quote:

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the protestors, we conclude that Philip and Lewis are not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

This is the only other source (other than a statement by the Union attorney not representing the officer) I have found...which is pretty broad and appears to be open to interpretation. I'm sure the officer/s will claim they used the pepper spray to minimize risk of injury. Down the road, a court will give final determination.



Universitywide Police Policies and Procedures
Effective Date: January 7, 2011

CHEMICAL AGENTS--TEAR GAS AND OLEORESIN CAPSICUM

812. Only authorized personnel may possess and maintain department issued oleoresin capsicum spray. Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers,
offenders, or other persons. They should be used only in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.

812.1 Chemical Agents--Issuance. Chemical agents shall be issued only to department personnel who are qualified in their use as required by Section 12403 of the California Penal Code.

812.2 Chemical Agents--Authorization to Carry On Duty. Chemical agents issued by the department and approved by statute shall be carried by on-duty personnel only when authorized by the Chief of Police.

812.3 Chemical Agents to be Certified for Use. All chemical agents used by the department shall be certified as acceptable by the State Department of Justice as required by Section 12403 of the California Penal Code.

link

Did you actually read the court case, or just the decision?
Situational apples/oranges.

Independent investigators and a court of law will decide what you believe? Bummer.



He wasn't there. He's dead. I was referring to the abuse he suffered. A victim's willingness does not excuse the abuser.

According to the Chancellor, the police followed protocol. I have already posted that imo, the police used reasonable and not excessive force. Bummer you cannot comprehend and retain the plainly written word.




If it is indeed determined to be abuse.

This hits the nail on its authority-dependent head.

I guess you can't comprehend and retain either.

The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilized society.

That's all political speak and you know it. It's the same reason the city cops are distancing themselves from the incident by pointing out it was cops employed by the campus.

Yes, they followed protocol. They followed the protocol for using pepper spray to contain a situation. Meaning, in a situation that calls for the use of pepper spray, they followed protocol. But, their statement does not indeed say pepper spray was called for or justified. They're playing CYA games.

I already know you're fine with the overall outcome. I'm sorry you had trouble discerning the finer points of the specific question. I thought it was clear enough. Let me try again. God knows why...

Do you (not anyone else-- just you) really believe the students forced their hand and pepper spray was their only option to control the situation? IOW- was the situation beyond simply cuffing the kids and carting them off? Do you believe the police had to cause harm to control that situation?

Lucky for the nonviolent student protesters who were pepper sprayed that your opinion wont matter in any investigation.

The Police Policies and Administrative Procedures for UC Police Officers under Use of Force says:

“Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should be used only in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”

Link

What’s interesting is the Office of the Chancellor of the California State University (which is different from the University of California) has an Executive Order that defines pepper spray:

“It [Pepper Spray] is a defensive weapon intended to gain control of an unarmed attacker, or to overcome resistance likely to result in injury to either a suspect, a victim, or the officer.”

Link

Both agencies define pepper spray as a “weapon”, which begs the question, can the police "reasonably"use weapons against nonviolent protesters? Any officer would have to articulate their justification for the use of force and when you see the officer casually walking over the seated students without getting harmed or threatened in any way just moments before he sprays them, it would be tough to bring up the “officer safety” excuse when there is no active resistance. It looks like the answer from the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case is, in case you missed it:

“it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors”.

Did you read the entire case, or just the "money line"?
The officers pried open the protesters' eyes and dabbed them with pepper spray on a Q-tip, then refused to give them immediate medical treatment. One of the guidelines for use of pepper spray is to have immediate medical treatment available for the pepper-sprayed protester.

Yes the case was read and are you aware that the court didn’t narrowly declare that use of force with oleoresin capsicum is only excessive if applied to the eyes with a q-tip and medical treatment is delayed. It was pretty clear that they said “it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors”.

Notice how the court didn’t say how the pepper spray was applied, only that it was used against nonviolent protesters and considered “excessive”.

Did they force their hand? They were non-compliant to reasonable police instruction...i.e. they were breaking the law...and apparently agreeable to being pepper-sprayed before the fact.

Was pepper spray their only option in controlling the situation? Only? No. An option? Apparently.

It's not as simple as just "simply cuffing the kids and carting them off". You cannot cuff physically resistant, non-compliant linked arms without unlinking them by using some type of force. The officers chose a non-lethal chemical route instead of placing their hands on the protesters in pain inducing body techniques to get them to unlink arms.



Was the point to control or to carry out an order to remove? It certainly appears that the protesters had every intention of remaining non-compliant even after police warnings. If the order was to clear the protesters it appears as though use of force to remove them was necessary to obey orders. The use of force implies a risk of harm.

You have lawyers and law enforcement arguing this on both sides. Strict, easily understood, and non-competing guidelines in the use of the force continuum are necessary to avoid these situations. Also...there must be clear clarification of what constitutes active resistance and what does not. That being said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make a lawful arrest carries with it the right to use some degree of physical force or threat of force to effect it.

Oh please. The pepper spray was used in an excessively forceful manner, eyes forced open, and applied directly to the eyes with a Q-tip. That's completely against the guidelines. Plus, the sprayed protesters were not given immediate medical care. Again, against guidelines. Even I would have ruled excessive force in that case. But what were the plaintiffs awarded? IIRC, it was $1 each plus court costs.

Agree.



OK, so you believe the police had to cause harm. I disagree.

If an order had been given to clear the protesters, they would have been derelict in their duty not to clear the protesters. Police officers may use physical force to remove protesters. Logically, that implies a risk of injury (harm) to the protesters and/or to the police officers. It's not a video game, mdean.

The court stated:

“conclude that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that using pepper spray against the protestors was excessive”

“The facts reflect that: (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors”

“In addition, regional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against nonviolent protestors is excessive.”

“the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.”

But you seem to add an additonal and very narrow component that the court didn’t:



I’m going to side with the court on this one. Pepper spray on nonviolent protesters was excessive regardless of how it was applied. But I’m sure there are some officers out there who would love to follow your guidelines. “when I pepper sprayed the nonviolent skateboarders from the sidewalk after they refused to leave, it wasn’t in an excessively forceful manner”, “oh good point officer Iky”.

Thank you for the link.

From the Manual:

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

901. When it becomes necessary to take police action, officers shall give consideration to the rights of all persons, including alleged law violators, and to the manner in which they exercise their powers as peace officers. Without compromising their primary mission, which is the protection of life and property, officers may use such reasonable force as is necessary to affect an arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

C. There was no resistance other than non-compliance,
B. There was no attempt to excape, which leaves,
A. Necessary to affect a arrest.

I think Lt. John Pike knew he didn't need to pepper spray to "affect an arrest". But, he thought if says he thought it was necessary, some like ikayak, would knee jerk to "that sounds reasonable."

I simply disagree. And, one by one, it seems the public, elected officials, other departments, and even the University itself agree.

lol...it's not like I'm way out in left...er...right field alone.

From another university town concerning the use of pepper spray:

Nowhere will you find me suggesting the police should not have followed orders to disperse the protesters. Nor will you find I've said they shouldn't be allowed to use force when necessary.

Every encounter a cop has comes with the risk of escalation and potential harm. But, they don't approach every situation with guns drawn just because of what might happen.

I get that you don't care about how the cops handled this one. The end justified the means for you. Fine. However, I feel it is the duty of society to hold our law enforcement officers accountable to see that rights aren't trampled in the process of upholding the law. When excessive force is used, it needs to be addressed. You may consider it "whining" but it is in everyone's best interest to make sure excessive force is not allowed.

When citizens cross the lines of the law, they pay consequences. When officers cross the line of force, there needs to be consequences. Checks and balances are good for society. Public outcry is needed at times. If everyone shared your apathy we'd still have whites-only drinking fountains.

Throughout history there have been many things that are wrong that have had multiple supporters.

You apparently don't get squat. Where did I say that I "don't care about how the cops handled this one"? Ot that "the end justified the means"? I didn't. I said that I believe that the use of pepper spray was a reasonable alternative to "hands on" removal of non-compliant and resistant lawbreakers.

That's MY opinion based on the facts as I understand them, not having done a complete and detailed investigation...just as you have your opinion without having done a complete and detailed investigation.

If you are interpreting my acceptance of independent enforcement authorities and courts conducting an official investigation and making the final determinations as to whether the police followed orders and whether they used reasonable or excessive force in this instance as "apathy"...you'd be wrong...again.

However, when the officers follow procedure, amicably warn protesters of the consequences, give the protesters appropriate time to respond to their commands and warnings, and the protesters, having agreed to suffer the consequences, do suffer a low level of non-lethal force, I am not going to get very outraged. I wouldn't be outraged if my child had been a protester. This is the real world, not a video game.



I believe that I posted something similar a few posts back. However, there has yet to be an official determination whether or not the officers in this instance crossed the line. If they did, I trust they will be disciplined. You and others seem to want to hang them without trial.



Your hyperbole becomes more and more ridiculous.
It's getting more and more difficult to take you seriously.

That's your root error. You actually took Mikey seriously. No one takes Mike seriously. You may have to ditch code and start from:

///<summary>
///Logical Debate
///</summary>
///<remarks>
///I will never take Mikey seriously.
///</remarks>

I initially give people the benefit of the doubt.
He has just about expired his benefit.

And throughout history there have been many instances of people being outraged and overly dramatic concerning situations of relatively insignificant consequence.

See? We can both post generalities!

So, you've decided to make a run at the Capt. Obvious cape?

There are times, such as when speaking to two year olds, and often on this board, when stating the obvious is both necessary and appropriate.

It does my heart good to see you two kids getting along.