HuffPo: UC Davis Police Pepper-Spray Seated Students In Occupy Dispute (VIDEO) (UPDATES)

[sacase]

Always disappointing but never surprising these days to see "liberty" and "freedom" loving conservatives and "libertarians" suddenly support authoritarian police violence against protesters. It always comes out from the Right whenever "enemies of the state," aka liberals and leftists, are demonstrating.

---------- Post added November-23rd-2011 at 04:50 PM ----------



If you actually looked, there are videos of the incident on Youtube from before the pepper-spraying. Quick, though, better believe one side -- the Fox/police side! Because there MUST be a context to why a police officer is pepper-spraying seated, non-violent protesters, right?

Or maybe we just realize that there are consequences for your actions when you break the friggin law. You act like these people were just minding their own business and sitting around the camp fire talking and eat smores, when the dastardly police office snuck up on them and covertly sprayed them in the face with pepper spray.

[twa]

Yep

"liberty" and "freedom" loving conservatives and "libertarians" generally respect the rule of law(even ones we want changed) and are bright enough to move before that point.

We are also cheap enough to be adverse to wasting tax dollars on stunts like this.

[elkabong82]

Or maybe we just realize that there are consequences for your actions when you break the friggin law..

But you apparently don't realize that punishment should be just. The students were rounded up and sitting on the ground. What threat did they pose at that point which warranted the cop showing the crowd the pepper spray canister and then proceeding to spray down people who were, again, rounded up and seated on the ground? The punishment should fit the crime, in this case it doesn't, and anyone not blinded by bias can see that the cop sprayed them to send a message, not to protect himself, and not to deliver a fair punishment equal to the crime.

Something tells me that the only way a person would actually support a small group of students being pepper sprayed while seated on the ground, no longer posing any sort of threat, would be if they disagreed with the protesters. But just because you disagree with a cause doesn't actually mean that unjust punishment is warranted. Next you'll tell me that African-Americans deserved to be have dogs attack them and be sprayed down with firehoses after they were rounded up by police and standing against a wall simply because they refused to move along. And no, that's not a direct comparison of causes, it's a direct comparison of people being punished excessively by the law after they had already been subdued.

[twa]

They were not rounded up,they formed a circle,linked arms and sat.....a far cry from subdued

I would agree if they were under police control or obeying directives from them it would be excessive

[sacase]

But you apparently don't realize that punishment should be just. The students were rounded up and sitting on the ground. What threat did they pose at that point which warranted the cop showing the crowd the pepper spray canister and then proceeding to spray down people who were, again, rounded up and seated on the ground? The punishment should fit the crime, in this case it doesn't, and anyone not blinded by bias can see that the cop sprayed them to send a message, not to protect himself, and not to deliver a fair punishment equal to the crime.

Something tells me that the only way a person would actually support a small group of students being pepper sprayed while seated on the ground, no longer posing any sort of threat, would be if they disagreed with the protesters. But just because you disagree with a cause doesn't actually mean that unjust punishment is warranted. Next you'll tell me that African-Americans deserved to be have dogs attack them and be sprayed down with firehoses after they were rounded up by police and standing against a wall simply because they refused to move along. And no, that's not a direct comparison of causes, it's a direct comparison of people being punished excessively by the law after they had already been subdued.

Ok, let's discuss the facts, not what you make up to make the situation fit your misplaced sympathy. The students CHOSE the location they were at, they were not rounded up. They were trespassing and blocking a side walk (breaking two laws), the police came and asked them to move 12ft over. The students refused a lawful police order (breaking another law). They were warned of the consequence, the students chose to stay. The police administered pepper spray to break them up. Pepper spray is not punishment, their punishment will be administered when they appear in court.

[Baculus]

Or maybe we just realize that there are consequences for your actions when you break the friggin law. You act like these people were just minding their own business and sitting around the camp fire talking and eat smores, when the dastardly police office snuck up on them and covertly sprayed them in the face with pepper spray.

I can produce a list a mile long which shows the various laws broken by conservatives, so don't even try to feed me this line of B.S., as if I were born yesterday. Conservatives, specifically, Republicans, have proven themselves to be some of the worst law violators around, except they don't brother with "small fry" stuff as protesting-- they break laws which increase their power and wealth. Not surprisingly, though, you either don't care or don't know about any of this.

By the way, I am sure the protesters realized there may have been some consequences for their actions, which is why some of them have been willing to be arrested for their protests. But that doesn't mean the police response was a display of equitable "consequences," or even a legal one, for that matter. Assaulting American citizens should be a last resort, though, of course, you probably don't consider these people to be "real Americans," hence, anything goes.

Would you care if the police violated their civil rights, or broke CA law, with their actions? I doubt it.

As it is, these people were sitting down, arms linked together in solidarity, and posing little threat to armed police, so your argument is some rather thin gruel. But of course you don't realize this: you're the one who thinks it is okay to pepper-spray unarmed people in the face, which is the reason why "liberty" and "freedom" is certainly not on the agenda of you and your fellow right-wingers. More so, coercion and force is the way of the Right (while screaming about "government tyranny!" over health care reform).

Protesting is a constitutionally guaranteed right, upheld by the Supreme Court, and these men and women were on their college campus exercising their right. But not only that, America's greatest social causes and ills have been addressed by protesting, some of which involved, and required, law breaking. This is especially true of civil rights causes, such as women's suffrage and equal rights for minorities. Of course, though, conservatives from back in the 50s and 60s were using the same defense that you're using for police violence against protesting blacks and their supporters: "Those demonstrators were breaking the law! Damned communists!"

It's sad to see that right-wingers fall back upon the some old tired lines:"

Additionally, "the law" is not a good enough excuse for police violence -- or any violence, for that matter. As Martin Luther King reminded us: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

Just because something is legal does not make it just, nor right.

Conservatives love to talk about the revolutionary war . . . except for the "revolution" part of it, lest other people, namely the political opposition which they despise, get some "uppity" ideas such as actually exercising the aforementioned "liberty" and "freedom." From the sound of your words, though, you would have been a Tory back during the 1760s and 1770s, sneering at the American colonists and revolutionaries who were protesting against British policies. Or did you conveniently forget how this nation was created?


---------- Post added November-23rd-2011 at 06:52 PM ----------

They were not rounded up,they formed a circle,linked arms and sat.....a far cry from subdued

I would agree if they were under police control or obeying directives from them it would be excessive

This response cannot be taken seriously, because it's so oblivious.

So, are you saying that sitting down and linking arms is violent?! And what the police did in response (and what they have done, such as the baton wielding we have seen over and over again) isn't?

Of course, I never expect you to have an "enlightened" point of view -- you support authoritarianism at every chance . . . except when the Democrats try to pass reform laws, than it's "OMG! Tyranny!"

---------- Post added November-23rd-2011 at 06:59 PM ----------

Yep

"liberty" and "freedom" loving conservatives and "libertarians" generally respect the rule of law(even ones we want changed) and are bright enough to move before that point.

We are also cheap enough to be adverse to wasting tax dollars on stunts like this.

I am sure you're a perfectly law-abiding angel, right? Always obeying the speed limit, never jaywalking, and making sure to always submit yourself to the law, eh?

It's strange to watch folks such as yourself veer from "anti-federal government" to "obey the law!" in such a short span. It's as if you have no consistent ideology . . . but gee, I am sure that isn't possible, is it?

Some of us always knew that the use of "liberty" and "freedom" by right-wingers was a hoax and a load of rubbish. Only true libertarians such as Ron Paul realize that the OWS have a point to their protests and that the use of force by the government against its citizens is not acceptable.

You certainly ain't Ron Paul, that's for sure.

By the way, those Tea Partiers you supported cost cities such as Washington D.C. millions of dollars for their demonstrations, so your claim that "we are also cheap enough to be adverse to wasting tax dollars on stunts like this" is patently false. The difference, being, you protest over stuff like mortgage assistance programs (which is why people didn't take the Tea Party seriously).

[DjTj]

Ok, let's discuss the facts, not what you make up to make the situation fit your misplaced sympathy. The students CHOSE the location they were at, they were not rounded up. They were trespassing and blocking a side walk (breaking two laws), the police came and asked them to move 12ft over. The students refused a lawful police order (breaking another law). They were warned of the consequence, the students chose to stay. The police administered pepper spray to break them up. Pepper spray is not punishment, their punishment will be administered when they appear in court.

The Constitutional right at issue is not related to punishment. It is related to Due Process. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." The question is whether the use of pepper spray is reasonable in the course of arresting protesters that are blocking a sidewalk.

The Ninth Circuit has already found that the use of pepper spray violated the Fourth Amendment in an almost identical protest a decade ago where pepper spray was used on seated protesters who had linked their arms in front of a grove of redwood trees. A court in California would likely rule against the police again if the students choose to pursue legal action in this case.

[Baculus]

Ok, let's discuss the facts, not what you make up to make the situation fit your misplaced sympathy. The students CHOSE the location they were at, they were not rounded up. They were trespassing and blocking a side walk (breaking two laws), the police came and asked them to move 12ft over. The students refused a lawful police order (breaking another law). They were warned of the consequence, the students chose to stay. The police administered pepper spray to break them up. Pepper spray is not punishment, their punishment will be administered when they appear in court.

Why do you think the officers were suspended? Because their actions were excessive. It's that simple. No one with any sort of concept such as "proportional response" would believe that the pepper-spraying was okay. It's obvious that your opinion is based upon your political views of these people.

Only cowards attack defenseless people.

It's OBVIOUS, when the officer held the pepper-spray was shown, held aloft for all to see, that the pepper-spray was meant to be punishment. But not only that, but AFTER the pepper-spraying took play, the officers forced the protesters to reveal their faces (some of them were shielding their eyes and mouth) and forced MORE pepper-spray into their face.

[sacase]

I can produce a list a mile long which shows the various laws broken by conservatives, so don't even try to feed me this line of B.S., as if I were born yesterday. Conservatives, specifically, Republicans, have proven themselves to be some of the worst law violators around, except they don't brother with "small fry" stuff as protesting-- they break laws which increase their power and wealth. Not surprisingly, though, you either don't care or don't know about any of this.

We are talking about this one incident, not all the laws that BOTH conservatives and Liberals break. So try to stay on topic.

By the way, I am sure the protesters realized there may have been some consequences for their actions, which is why some of them have been willing to be arrested for their protests. But that doesn't that the police response was a display of equitable "consequences," or even a legal one, for that matter. Assaulting American citizens should be a last resort, though, of course, you probably don't consider these people to be "real Americans," hence, anything goes.

They were not assulted. Hell 47% of police departments in the US approve the use of pepper spray in non-violent resistance.

Would you care if the police violated their civil rights, or broke CA law, with their actions? I doubt it.

If their civil rights were broken or if the police broke the law then they should face the consequences. However, many laws have exceptions for police performing their official duties.

[quote]
As it is, these people were sitting down, arms linked together in solidarity, and posing little threat to armed police, so your argument is some rather thin gruel. But of course you don't realize this: you're the one who thinks it is okay to pepper-spray unarmed people in the face, which is the reason why "liberty" and "freedom" is certainly not on the agenda of you and your fellow right-wingers. More so, coercion and force is the way of the Right (while screaming about "government tyranny!" over health care reform).
[quote]

Their arms we linked in resistance to a lawful police order. I have no issues pepper spraying people who are resisting arrest.

Protesting is a constitutionally guaranteed right, upheld by the Supreme Court, and these men and women were on their college campus exercising their right. But not only that, America's greatest social causes and ills have been addressed by protesting, some of which involved, and required, law breaking. This is especially true of civil rights causes, such as women's suffrage and equal rights for minorities. Of course, though, conservatives from back in the 50s and 60s were using the same defense that you're using for police violence against protesting blacks and their supporters: "Those demonstrators were breaking the law! Damned communists!"

So in your theory, you can break any law as long as you are protesting right? Get over yourself and your weak argument. Hell, let's allow murder if it occured during a protest. (I am trying to be like you with over the top scenarios)

It's sad to see that right-wingers fall back upon the some old tired lines:"

Additionally, "the law" is not a good enough excuse for police violence -- or any violence, for that matter. As Martin Luther King reminded us: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

Just because something is legal does not make it just, nor right.

So now police officers enforcing the law are equal to hiter, really? Not even worth commenting on.

Conservatives love to talk about the revolutionary war . . . except for the "revolution" part of it, lest other people, namely the political opposition which they despise, get some "uppity" ideas such as actually exercising the aforementioned "liberty" and "freedom." From the sound of your words, though, you would have been a Tory back during the 1760s and 1770s, sneering at the American colonists and revolutionaries who were protesting against British policies. Or did you conveniently forget how this nation was created?

revolutionary war and protesters who care complaining about everything and want more free stuff. Big difference. I am sure you can see that. We are talking apples to transformers difference.

This response cannot be taken seriously, because it's so oblivious.

So, are you saying that sitting down and linking arms is violent?! And what the police did in response (and what they have done, such as the baton wielding we have seen over and over again) isn't?

Of course, I never expect you to have an "enlightened" point of view -- you support authoritarianism at every chance . . . except when the Democrats try to pass reform laws, than it's "OMG! Tyranny!"

I didn't see any batons flying.

you want to know what I support, I support less government involvement in day to day affairs of people, but I expect people to follow the rule of law. I don't know where you get the idea that you can only use pepper spray in response to a violent offender. Quit making stuff up, that is why you are getting yourself worked up.

---------- Post added November-23rd-2011 at 03:25 PM ----------

Why do you think the officers were suspended? Because their actions were excessive. It's that simple. No one with any sort of concept such as "proportional response" would believe that the pepper-spraying was okay. It's obvious that your opinion is based upon your political views of these people.

Only cowards attack defenseless people.

It's OBVIOUS, when the officer held the pepper-spray was shown, held aloft for all to see, that the pepper-spray was meant to be punishment. But not only that, but AFTER the pepper-spraying took play, the officers forced the protesters to reveal their faces (some of them were shielding their eyes and mouth) and forced MORE pepper-spray into their face.

They were suspended by the University because of all the alumni hippy's. They followed their procedure. The university suspended them because of politics, let's be real about it.

[Predicto]

They were suspended by the University because of all the alumni hippy's. They followed their procedure. The university suspended them because of politics, let's be real about it.

I have seen a lot of nonsense in this thread, but this particular comment takes the cake. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it is nothing but your own politics that led you to this conclusion without any evidence.

[sacase]

I have seen a lot of nonsense in this thread, but this particular comment takes the cake. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it is nothing but your own politics that led you to this conclusion without any evidence.

You are right, the hippy part of my comment is my own opinion. But let's be real about why they were placed on administrative leave. Its not because they did anything that violated policy.

[RVAbrendan]

**** policy. What the cop did was cowardly and an abuse of his power.

[Dan T.]

They were not assulted. Hell 47% of police departments in the US approve the use of pepper spray in non-violent resistance.

Source? Pepper spray in most departments is reserved for use in incapacitating dangerous or violently resisting persons.

See the very first paragraph of:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188069.pdf

They were suspended by the University because of all the alumni hippy's. They followed their procedure. The university suspended them because of politics, let's be real about it.

[Predicto]

You are right, the hippy part of my comment is my own opinion. But let's be real about why they were placed on administrative leave. Its not because they did anything that violated policy.

At the very minimum, they were placed on administrative leave so that the Uni could review whether or not they violated policy. Standard procedure in such circumstances, actually.

My opinion on why you are making all of these strong statements in this thread remains unchanged. You like seeing hippies suffer and you automatically justify pretty much anything law enforcement does.

[DjTj]

You are right, the hippy part of my comment is my own opinion. But let's be real about why they were placed on administrative leave. Its not because they did anything that violated policy.

There is at least some confusion on policy.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," Katehi said in an interview with The Bee in her office inside the administration building, which remains locked down to the public.

"We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it. And then we told them we also do not want to have another Berkeley."

In her most expansive comments since Friday's attempt to remove the tents spiraled into the pepper-spraying of students, Katehi said she still does not know who decided to use pepper spray and was stunned when she first saw video clips of it Friday night.

"It looked horrible, horrific, I would say … , " Katehi said. "I can tell you that I woke up Saturday really early in the morning, like 3 a.m., and I felt like it was a disaster on our hands."

She also said she never would have approved the use of full-scale riot gear by officers sent in to remove the students and that Police Chief Annette Spicuzza was part of an emergency conference call before the incident.

"We told her that it has to be peaceful, that anything else would not be acceptable," Katehi said one day after Spicuzza was placed on administrative leave along with two officers who used the pepper spray.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/23/407...#ixzz1eYm8Wff6

This comment about pepper spray is not going to be good for Lt. Pike in his disciplinary hearings and/or in court:

Lt. John Pike, identified by the UC Davis student newspaper as the officer at the center of the pepper-spray incident, was credited by the university for subduing a UC Davis Medical Center patient in 2006 as she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical, according to a UC Davis news release issued in June 2007.

Pike was in a hallway when he saw the patient try to assault one of two officers who were trying to prevent her from leaving the hospital against the advice of doctors and her mother, according to the release. He "went flying" to assist the officers and "landed a body block, powering his left shoulder into the patient" just as she was about to stab one of the officers, the release said.

Pike was 5-foot-10 and weighed 245 pounds. "I hit her hard," Pike said, according to the release, which said he weighed 245 pounds. He decided against using pepper spray, a baton or a sidearm because he did not want to injure his partners, the release said. One of officers credited Pike with helping to save his life.

"You've got all these tools on your belt," Pike said, "but sometimes they're not the best tools."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...y-honored.html