gut;983121 wrote:And detaining someone is false imprisonment and/or kidnapping. Different rules apply to cops. Pepper spray is not considered assault if it is justifiable use of force.

And IMO it was not justifiable. I'm sure it was "orders from above", but heads will roll because of this. In the wake of the OWS protests as a whole and the incident last week, the actions by these cops were simply put.....retarded.

I've seen hostile students get cuffed and stuffed on numerous occasions in much worse situations than that one.

Glory Days;982898 wrote:of course it is a protected right. but "you" are the not the deciding factor or judge in whether or not everyone was acting properly or inproperly. you cant just say "this is my right" and of course, be right just because you say so(like all of these hippies think they are). doesnt work that way. like i said, if your rights are infringed upon, take legal action in court, not on the streets.

The police are not the deciding factor or judge either.

majorspark;983137 wrote:I would not have used pepper spray at that point. But in order to zip tie them and haul them off it would have had to take a considerable amount of physical force. Pry their locked arms apart, wrestle them to the ground, force their arms behind their backs, and zip them. That scene would have been ugly as well.

OMG! The police might have to do something!

The people in this case were not violent, were not shouting, were not even standing. Also, the officer was able to walk behind them before assaulting them and even touch them and nothing violent happened. They could easily have zip tied or handcuffed these people and arrested them if they were breaking a law or court order. Instead they decided to be the judge and jury and dole out the punitive measures themselves. We cannot have the police enacting punishments. That is unacceptable and leads to a place where we do not wish to go.

That cop and precinct is going to burn in the media, in the public, and in the court's eyes (I use burn proverbially, no one should actually burn anyone or anything because of this. Fucking insane that I think I even need to add that disclaimer here) and they should. That sort of thing is not at all what we put our money, faith, and trust into the police system for.

I Wear Pants;983178 wrote: The people in this case were not violent, were not shouting, were not even standing.

Maybe, but if they were locking arms the officers would have to get quite physical to zip tie them. That could just as easily turn ugly in a very bad way for the cops, nor would it necessarily play on film as being any more "humane". Ultimately you have to review the policy then evaluate the merits of the policy and decide if the officers acted according to the policy.

If they were locking arms, then they are resisting arrest. So then the question becomes what the appropriate response is for officers that now need to use physical force to disperse in one way or another.

One would think this protest is about police brutality, because that seems to be the only thing they are trying to provoke and the only thing getting coverage. Really what is the purpose of locking arms or refusing to disperse other than to provoke a reaction from the cops? What, they're hoping people will sympathize and support their cause over perceived (which, as mentioned, is rather easy to manipulate) mistreatment from the cops?!?

Glory Days;982919 wrote:cops are following policy though. public opinion may not agree. the students were actively resisting by locking arms together and pulling away from the police when they attempt to pull them away from the sidewalk. (also this is the shortened version of the video.)

Just as the cops in the early 60's were following policy when they attacked civil rights protesters with water hoses and attack dogs.

Just as the cops in the late 60's were following policy when they beat demonstrators in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic Convention.

It took a while, but we've apparently come full circle on how demonstrations are handled.

I Wear Pants;983178 wrote:OMG! The police might have to do something!

Thats why I said I would not have used pepper spray at that point.

I Wear Pants;983178 wrote:The people in this case were not violent, were not shouting, were not even standing. Also, the officer was able to walk behind them before assaulting them and even touch them and nothing violent happened. They could easily have zip tied or handcuffed these people and arrested them if they were breaking a law or court order. Instead they decided to be the judge and jury and dole out the punitive measures themselves. We cannot have the police enacting punishments. That is unacceptable and leads to a place where we do not wish to go.

They should have been told they were under arrest, why they were being arrested, and asked them to place their hands behing their backs. If they did not do so voluntarily then use physical means to get them to comply. That is the reason they have their arms locked, so it takes more physical force by the cops to force for them to comply. If things got out hand in this process then break out the pepper spray.

They actually had their arms locked because I think they were making a human chain around the tents or something if I remember from the articles correctly.

I find it hard to believe the officers, who from the pictures I saw looked to be about on equal terms as far as numbers go and who are trained to arrest people, would have had much trouble.

But yes, that would have been a much more preferable, and also a legal, course of action for the police. No reason to use pepper spray like it's a magic "I have a problem" spray. Shit isn't WD-40.

I Wear Pants;983252 wrote:They actually had their arms locked because I think they were making a human chain around the tents or something if I remember from the articles correctly.

Again, if they're locking arms and refusing to cooperate, I would have to see the actual policy and supporting evidence for the policy. It's not hard for me to imagine in such a scenario that use of physical force could result in more serious injuries (sprains, twists even breaks) than from pepper spray. The video isn't going to tell me that - we have no idea what transpired for 10-20 minutes or so before. Personally I think this video looks uglier if cops are physically trying to pull apart people locking arms.

The protestors appear to be increasingly trying to put the cops in bad situations, and to serve what purpose? Weren't you criticizing the other video a few days or so back when the cop put his billy club into a guy's gut? What about the one with the old lady getting pushed down when cops took the physical route? Cops can't win here with you - people are resisting arrest and refusing to cooperate and it doesn't seem any action from the police will satisfy you.

These people are getting exactly what they're asking for. Sure cops overstep bounds or fail to follow procedure (and should beheld accountable), but the majority of these cases the protestors are forcing the cops to escalate. 99 times out of 100 if you follow the cops orders you're not going to get maced or a club to the head.

Looks uglier != is uglier.

There are plenty of videos of police seemingly slamming people on the ground that seem brutal but are not actually so or at least are not illegally so. I'd rather police do what is right and legal rather than what would look good on camera. But maybe that's just me.

majorspark;983234 wrote:That is the reason they have their arms locked, so it takes more physical force by the cops to force for them to comply. If things got out hand in this process then break out the pepper spray.

Precisely, and that's why the policy in such a situation (large group locking arms) is critical. Nor is criticizing that policy choice easy - policies do sometimes need to be improved, but generally have evolved and continue to do so. I'm not saying it's the correct choice, but it's not unreasonable to think the use of pepper spray in this situation (as opposed to exerting physical force to break locked arms) isn't the safest course of action for both police and protestor.

My god, "99 out of 100 if you follow the cops orders". There's something wrong with that.

Peaceful protesters in no way force the police to escalate anything. That is on the cops. Now when there is violence and vandalism the cops are justified and even sometimes have a duty to exercise certain amounts of force. But not against people sitting on the ground in a non threatening manner. Ever.

I Wear Pants;983324 wrote:Looks uglier != is uglier.

There are plenty of videos of police seemingly slamming people on the ground that seem brutal but are not actually so or at least are not illegally so. I'd rather police do what is right and legal rather than what would look good on camera. But maybe that's just me.

But wait a second...aren't you criticizing the use of pepper spray here because of how ugly it looks? "Looks" shouldn't matter in the policy decision here - the #1 concern is safety of your officers first, and then the detainee second (perhaps actually 3rd behind the innocent onlookers who could potentially get swept up in a riot if the cops lose control of the situation).

I Wear Pants;983331 wrote:My god, "99 out of 100 if you follow the cops orders". There's something wrong with that.

Peaceful protesters in no way force the police to escalate anything. That is on the cops. Now when there is violence and vandalism the cops are justified and even sometimes have a duty to exercise certain amounts of force. But not against people sitting on the ground in a non threatening manner. Ever.

Something wrong with "99 times out of 100"? Cops are human, they make mistakes and you have some bad apples just like anywhere else. Point is, 100 times out of 100 you share some responsibility in what happens whether the cop was justified or not. I've never been shot at, clubbed or maced by a cop and it's not because I'm just luckier than these idiots.

If you refuse orders to disperse or resist arrest, then you ARE escalating things and share responsibility for the consequences to follow. I do not place a limit or minimum threshold on how many times a cop has to "ask nicely".

And this is not civil disobedience. What law are they protesting? What's their issue with the cops? These are people getting their rocks off over confronting the police and becoming youtube stars for a day.

No not the number. Something wrong with the "just do what you're told" line of thinking.

The escalation from "asking nicely" goes to arresting people, not assaulting them.

gut;983334 wrote:But wait a second...aren't you criticizing the use of pepper spray here because of how ugly it looks? "Looks" shouldn't matter in the policy decision here - the #1 concern is safety of your officers first, and then the detainee second (perhaps actually 3rd behind the innocent onlookers who could potentially get swept up in a riot if the cops lose control of the situation).

No, I'm criticizing it because it's illegal.

The #1 concern of me is for citizens.

Y'all are getting very analytical on this video of UC Davis. You watch the video and there is a disgusting feeling in your stomach. BOOM. That's all you need to feel when you see it. 20-40 years from now, People will HOPEFULLY look at this video and say "sheesh, these people didn't know what freedom really was, like WE do today"

Kinda like the Cold War era, when people were randomly called communists and tried, and like the Muslims now and the Patriot Act.

We need to take the Bill of Rights and just shred the mother fuckers

gut;983217 wrote: One would think this protest is about police brutality, because that seems to be the only thing they are trying to provoke and the only thing getting coverage. Really what is the purpose of locking arms or refusing to disperse other than to provoke a reaction from the cops? What, they're hoping people will sympathize and support their cause over perceived (which, as mentioned, is rather easy to manipulate) mistreatment from the cops?!?

Agree 100%

sleeper;983365 wrote:Agree 100%

seriously?

Seems to be the only thing the media is showing. They've talked very little about what the protests are about. Rather focused on crazy people, dirty people, police brutality, protesters deserving/not deserving it, etc.

rydawg5;983370 wrote:seriously?

These protests are simply becoming, be annoying as possible and get the cops to overreact so we can put it on YouTube and play the victim. If this is the way to change the system, its got to be the slowest most ineffective way to change it in world history.

sleeper;983374 wrote:These protests are simply becoming, be annoying as possible and get the cops to overreact so we can put it on YouTube and play the victim. If this is the way to change the system, its got to be the slowest most ineffective way to change it in world history.

you're annoying on here, so should a cop break down your door and pepper spay you for annoying the public? "ohio chatter"

It's your OPINION that they are annoying. Yes, I think they are annoying too, but there goal was too speak out about rising tuition and I'm okay with the freedom to do that. Even if they were violating the terms of how to protest, they were just sitting there while a man assaulted them. It's sickening.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/11/a_minimum_wage_job_no_longer_c.html

http://econ4.org/statement-on-ows

The problem is, I'm a fuckin Republican. I don't give a shit about Occupy anything. But this is fucking sickening.