UC Davis Police Indiscriminately Deploy Pepper Spray Against OWS Protesters

[takoma]

The fact that people get killed by guns is, I understand, insufficient reason to set aside the not entirely clear meaning of the Second Amendment. Surely the slight inconvenience of walking around a group of people is no reason to set aside the absolutely clear meaning of the First.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok, how do you want the police to move protesters out of the way? Do you want them to physically pick them up and throw them in a police car? I honestly am curious. You cannot allow people to block public spaces illegally - so you need some non-lethal way to move them. What is the preferred method?

They were blocking a walking path in the middle of a park. The police could have just ignored them. The police were not trying to make the path passible. Rather, the University administration wanted to prevent a camp from being set up in the park.

Have you even watched the video, though? I can't believe that you are actually condoning that sort of use of pepper spray. The police were eventually chased out of the park. Even if you think the use of pepper spray was justified -- and you really have to be pretty sadistic to think so -- you have to admit that it was self-defeating.

agreed it certainly wasnt effective in this instance, thanks to the reaction from the protesters. Great example of non-violent effective civil disobedience.

But I am asking there are times when police rightfully need to clear protesters out of a public space, and what is the best method to do so? pepper spray works and is non-lethal.

A. There are other ways besides pepper spray. B. How on earth do you justify it in this situation?

[Anonymous]

So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok, how do you want the police to move protesters out of the way? Do you want them to physically pick them up and throw them in a police car? I honestly am curious. You cannot allow people to block public spaces illegally - so you need some non-lethal way to move them. What is the preferred method?

They were blocking a walking path in the middle of a park. The police could have just ignored them. The police were not trying to make the path passible. Rather, the University administration wanted to prevent a camp from being set up in the park.

Have you even watched the video, though? I can't believe that you are actually condoning that sort of use of pepper spray. The police were eventually chased out of the park. Even if you think the use of pepper spray was justified -- and you really have to be pretty sadistic to think so -- you have to admit that it was self-defeating.

agreed it certainly wasnt effective in this instance, thanks to the reaction from the protesters. Great example of non-violent effective civil disobedience.

But I am asking there are times when police rightfully need to clear protesters out of a public space, and what is the best method to do so? pepper spray works and is non-lethal.

It's a time-honored tradition to arrest people. If they don't get up on their own, they have to be carried. Really, this is not news. This approach has been used for years. I committed civil disobedience in the 70s and chose to walk to the bus but others in my group had to be carried. We were only doing what people had already been doing for decades.

Yes, carried. In chaotic, out of control situations, they can use water hoses and bean bag bullets.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

That is a rather unusual choice of situation given the number of actual times such protests have been held. It is hardly hypothetical. Can you recall any amount of force -- let alone massive amounts of pepper spray -- being used? Also, most people understand the difference between a sidewalk in a park and one going to a building enterance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

Blocking the entrance to a building is not the same as sitting on the sidewalk of a college cammpus, not blocking anything. On top of that I can't recall an instance of peppers spray used at an abortion clinic.

[Anonymous]

i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Most of them probably would not have budged even if warned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Most of them probably would not have budged even if warned.

they were warned, repeatedly. they knew this was coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

MLK (is he still a doctor? I thought BU took the ph.d. away because of cheating?) was a great man, but at the time he was breaking the law. clearly the attention he and his movement received from the arrests and the fire hoses helped his cause, as the attention these kids received from the pepper spraying is helping their cause. so I think it works both ways. (1) ok to use non-lethal force to remove protesters. and (2) ok for the protesters to benefit from the resulting outcry.

[Anonymous]

Why not let them occupy to their hearts' content? And ignore them completely. They will go away eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

MLK (is he still a doctor? I thought BU took the ph.d. away because of cheating?) was a great man, but at the time he was breaking the law. clearly the attention he and his movement received from the arrests and the fire hoses helped his cause, as the attention these kids received from the pepper spraying is helping their cause. so I think it works both ways. (1) ok to use non-lethal force to remove protesters. and (2) ok for the protesters to benefit from the resulting outcry.

No he still holds his PhD. But good job muckraking an American hero on Thanksgiving. Says a lot about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm perfectly ok with police using non-lethal methods to disperse crowds who are breaking the law, provided you give them plenty of advance warning. in fact, I just don't "get" the uproar. if protesters were blocking a street and causing me to be late for work or late for picking up my child, I'd hope the police would move them out of the way.

Dr King broke the law, the cops turned fire hoses and dogs on them. And now history judges the police for their actions. I guess we know what side of history you would have landed on.

MLK (is he still a doctor? I thought BU took the ph.d. away because of cheating?) was a great man, but at the time he was breaking the law. clearly the attention he and his movement received from the arrests and the fire hoses helped his cause, as the attention these kids received from the pepper spraying is helping their cause. so I think it works both ways. (1) ok to use non-lethal force to remove protesters. and (2) ok for the protesters to benefit from the resulting outcry.

By your logic we should be grateful for King's assassination. Huge PR benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if pro-lifers block the sidewalk "in peace" to an abortion clinic, the police should just ignore them? Just playing devils advocate here.

YES because they arent dirty hippy trash scum