VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited November 2011
You are so bad at this it's embarrassing.
How did that person get into my apartment? Did they break and enter? Just to sit there on the floor? That's a strange analogy and has absolutely no bearing on this situation.
This is about use of force. You've yet to provide any sort of rational measure of what that might be, other than "they were breaking the law." True, but pepper spray is only supposed to be used in violent situations. Could you point which protesters were being violent here? If not, you have no argument.
Like I said, arrest them. This would be a non-issue if that's how it went down. Instead we're going to spend 248329 pages listening to you deny that this was police brutality.
You need a citation to know that you can't occupy a handicap spot even if it wasn't being used?
Yes, I need a citation for that, preferably the details of the campus and/or municipal bylaw (i assume it would be a municipal law rather than state; that's how it works up here, anyway) which states how someone impeding public access (there's no such thing as 'handicap access', just public access - or that's how the laws up here are written, anyway - which covers wheelchair ramps and the like) is to be treated.
The laws I'm familiar with are explicit : the person(s) are to be moved.
Where is it printed on a can of pepper-spray that it is meant for physically violent situations? If so, then quite obviously Davis police didn't get the memo.
You are so bad at this it's embarrassing.
Well of course. It is an anology that you disagree with so it is silly. Who cares how they got in. You weren't home, they are there now and refuse to leave. And who says they had to break in. Let them sit their ass in front of your front door, garage, and any other logical, convenient way of getting into your home. I'm sure if they refused to leave, you'd throw your hands up and say to the approaching cop with a baton "No sir. . .they haven't crossed that threshold yet. Lets keep trying to reason with them."
These arguments are all based around the present conditions of the sit-in, and thankfully that's not how laws work. Some may be dumber than others, but to argue legality on the basis of who is presently being irrevocably inconvenienced by your actions is a sad precedent that I really doubt many of you would actually support for yourselves.
"Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
GOOSE! It doesn't matter that they were given days to move. Not complying with police orders is not an act of violence. Until they cross that line, any force is excessive.
So you'd be cool with someone refusing to leave your house so long as they peacefully occupied your living room?
They're not occupying private residences; they're occupying open, public spaces. If you don't know the difference between the two, then this discussion is going to be very difficult for everyone involved.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Where is it printed on a can of pepper-spray that it is meant for physically violent situations? If so, then quite obviously Davis police didn't get the memo.
You are so bad at this it's embarrassing.
Well of course. It is an anology that you disagree with so it is silly. Who cares how they got in. You weren't home, they are there now and refuse to leave. And who says they had to break in. Let them sit their ass in front of your front door, garage, and any other logical, convenient way of getting into your home. I'm sure if they refused to leave, you'd throw your hands up and say to the approaching cop with a baton "No sir. . .they haven't crossed that threshold yet. Lets keep trying to reason with them."
These arguments are all based around the present conditions of the sit-in, and thankfully that's not how laws work. Some may be dumber than others, but to argue legality on the basis of who is presently being irrevocably inconvenienced by your actions is a sad precedent that I really doubt many of you would actually support for yourselves.
No, they're not. These discussions are based around the police guidelines that exist around the use of pepper spray. Non violent protest is not an acceptable use. Period.
Your analogy is silly, not because I disagree with it, but because you're trying to argue that a single person refusing to leave my apartment is similar to a group of students protesting on the campus they attend. It's not.
So not sure what next step local law enforcement should have taken, short of picking them up and dragging them off.
When did violence become the gentler option compared to dragging?
You really think there wouldn't have been a YouTube video up of someone spinning cops forcibly removing students as "Cops violently drag paying students off UCD campus"? Short of backing down and letting people non-violently protest (regardless of impact on average citizen) it seems most police response is viewed in an incredibly negative light. Damned if they do, damned if they don't spray.
As someone who in just the last thread had to argue with people about police actions, tough fucking shit. That there are always going to be people crying pig even if they do exactly what they're supposed to does not give them license to do their job poorly.
They're not occupying private residences; they're occupying open, public spaces. If you don't know the difference between the two, then this discussion is going to be very difficult for everyone involved.
Thats NOT the argument being made. The rationale put forth was that despite them breaking the law, their actions weren't "hurting" anyone, so their continued presence was justified. It had nothing to do with public/private property arguments. The "home" analogy was simply one that most people should have some visceral appreciation of.
A man walks through a mall!=A man walks through your living room.
Agreed. Why would they be?
No, they're not. These discussions are based around the police guidelines that exist around the use of pepper spray. Non violent protest is not an acceptable use. Period.
Again show me the internal memos or directions that govern the use of pepper-spray; not the court of public opinions combined assessment of when this use is warranted. Davis police seem to think that non-compliance had escalated to a level that pepper-spray (or some other non-physical motivator) was appropriate. Whether you agree or not is fine, and seemingly thats what the (I'm sure whitewashed) review will bear out.
GOOSE! It doesn't matter that they were given days to move. Not complying with police orders is not an act of violence. Until they cross that line, any force is excessive.
So you'd be cool with someone refusing to leave your house so long as they peacefully occupied your living room?
Not sure if this is a logical sequence dude
But it would be unreasonable to use excessive force, always. You can't kill the guy or maim him or anything, but I'm talking from an Aussie point of view here.
Again show me the internal memos or directions that govern the use of pepper-spray; not the court of public opinions combined assessment of when this use is warranted. Davis police seem to think that non-compliance had escalated to a level that pepper-spray (or some other non-physical motivator) was appropriate. Whether you agree or not is fine, and seemingly thats what the (I'm sure whitewashed) review will bear out.
LTL weapons are meant to be used in the event that it would be more dangerous to not use them. That is the point. To use it because they don't feel like doing their job is an abuse of those weapons, I don't give two shits what any internal memo says. That memo would be wrong on a fundamental level, similar to if it said they were free to just start shooting people if they felt they were going to be badmouthed anyway.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited November 2011
Here you go:
Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
(See Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices. )
Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).
From the NYPD manual:
The spray is designed for use as less-than-lethal force, adequate for incapacitating dangerous or violently resisting suspects.
I have a deeper question here, and a totally serious one.
ED, you are a conservative, if I remember my posters correct, right? Conservatism theoretically includes an innate skepticism of government and particularly government power, right? Why not here?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So not sure what next step local law enforcement should have taken, short of picking them up and dragging them off.
When did violence become the gentler option compared to dragging?
You really think there wouldn't have been a YouTube video up of someone spinning cops forcibly removing students as "Cops violently drag paying students off UCD campus"? Short of backing down and letting people non-violently protest (regardless of impact on average citizen) it seems most police response is viewed in an incredibly negative light. Damned if they do, damned if they don't spray.
And you think they come off looking better having 3 250-lb cops pepper spray a 90-lb college freshman before dragging her off to be arrested than if the 3 250-lb cops just dragged her off? And you think people can't go limp and passively resist being arrested after having been pepper sprayed? And you think the cops came off looking better having been driven off the quad by the angry mob of students? And you think that the decision as to whether police should use force should be dependent on the optics of the situation? And you think they actually accomplished their goal of clearing the quad for whatever handicapped access you've wildly conjectured might be required through that empty grass field that the students obviously would have accommodated anyways? And you think the university is better off now with a publicly revolting faculty and student body?
This was a lose-LOSE-LOSE course of action for the police. You're completely shitball insane if you think otherwise. It was invading Russia in the winter in terms of the level of monumental stupidity.
At what point does somebody's posts get so stupid that we can report them?
They're not occupying private residences; they're occupying open, public spaces. If you don't know the difference between the two, then this discussion is going to be very difficult for everyone involved.
Thats NOT the argument being made. The rationale put forth was that despite them breaking the law, their actions weren't "hurting" anyone, so their continued presence was justified. It had nothing to do with public/private property arguments.
It actually does. The amount of "harm" (if indeed there is any to be had) they cause is directly related to the space they occupy. This particular argument is, at its core, a debate about valid uses of public space. This is not an ethical vacuum devoid of placement.
They're not occupying private residences; they're occupying open, public spaces. If you don't know the difference between the two, then this discussion is going to be very difficult for everyone involved.
Thats NOT the argument being made. The rationale put forth was that despite them breaking the law, their actions weren't "hurting" anyone, so their continued presence was justified. It had nothing to do with public/private property arguments.
It actually does. The amount of "harm" (if indeed there is any to be had) they cause is directly related to the space they occupy. This particular argument is, at its core, a debate about valid uses of public space. This is not an ethical vacuum devoid of placement.
It's also important in how the police should be reacting to their presence. If there's no harm being done nor threat of it they don't get to do harm. Not even if the protesters they moved were going to say super mean things about them later anyway.
I really hate to say this but you're approaching the argument from entirely the wrong angle. It isn't going to work trying to hammer home the use of force as inappropriate because you're not trying to understand why he thinks it was justified.
This is a law and order perspective, in this case the context is less relevant because there has been a "breach of order" or "breach of the peace" committed by protestors who are refusing to comply with written bylaws. It's seem as a sort of agreement they will follow these commands just like military or police follow the orders of their commanding officer. While some breaches are more heinous than others what matters to someone in this perspective is rectifying the situation immediately.
The police show up, orders are to make the protestors leave. The protestors hunker down, what are the cops going to do? They don't have the leeway to go back to their superiors and say (sorry, just too many of them) without them possibly getting some kind of punishment for not carrying out orders.
It's not necessarily a universal thing but when you look at it from what's most likely the police perspective, which I think ED! is arguing from. Police have two choices, use ever increasing violence to remove protestors, or come back as "Pansy assed failures that couldn't just move some hippie kids!" Even if they fail, by trying to use violence they at least gain a small bit of legitimacy within their power structure for having done something.
The police cannot help meet the protestors' demands for ending inequality, or tuition fees, or whatever else they were there for. The chancellor might? But he obviously does not want to, and would rather the police just clear "The rabble" from his sight. So this is why the clash happens, it reveals how very little the people in power care for the people with legitimate concerns and how they would rather use any means necessary to continue the status quo.
The police in this case become the unfortunate tool of choice. But they're economically pressed to the wall as well and given every incentive to do stuff like this because the system exists to basically reward them for being as violent and forceful as necessary so long as it doesn't "harm department image" which is why I think you see these current situations causing a lot of confusion.
I think the OPD's letter to Mayor Quan for instance is rather telling. The cops are taught in various ways to follow orders and achieve objectives by whatever means necessary, nothing is more important than following orders or getting "Shit done," nothing. So when they can't get violent without damaging the department's image then it creates a conflict of identity.
They can't disperse the protestors because they can't actually address their concerns, but they have to do something. Really I'm not excusing what the cops did either, but rather pointing out the context that it was the result of a very sad entrenched establishment and systems of behavioral incentivization that have created these events.
I have a deeper question here, and a totally serious one.
ED, you are a conservative, if I remember my posters correct, right? Conservatism theoretically includes an innate skepticism of government and particularly government power, right? Why not here?
Funny answer: 'Cuz they're dirty hippies!
Serious answer: If you really think about it, it's more of the above. A first and foremost belief in hierarchy and social order as being all important. It's not that they don't believe in other things too, but that those are the absolute most important things in their world. If things happen out of order it can be literally downright painful or frightening to them.
So right now they're adopting a maxim of justifying the police because they have a belief entrenched of the police as guardians of peace and social order. It's very hard for anyone to accept they may have been wrong or that they may have to rethink their worldview.
So rather than question the police, which would force a far more radical questioning of self, it becomes easier, and much less painful to denigrate the protestors and excuse the police.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
It's not necessarily a universal thing but when you look at it from what's most likely the police perspective, which I think ED! is arguing from. Police have two choices, use ever increasing violence to remove protestors, or come back as "Pansy assed failures that couldn't just move some hippie kids!"
Those are not their only choices. If they think those are their only choices the training needs to be improved.
So you'd be cool with someone refusing to leave your house so long as they peacefully occupied your living room?
If someone broke into my home and started watching TV, and so I called the police, and the police automatically walked-in on a bunch of teenage trespassers just watching TV and maced them instead of just arresting them, I'd be pretty fucking enraged with the cops. Yeah, I'd be out-of-my-mind upset with the people who violated my privacy and took over my living room, but immediately escalating to lethal force is well below the standards I demand of police forces.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Those are not their only choices. If they think those are their only choices the training needs to be improved.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
You first attempt to move them sans violence. You do not immediately jump to violence on the basis that you might have to use violence if non violence doesn't work.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
I currently live in a place where protesters would literally use metal chains to anchor themselves to trees that they didn't want cut down.
Did the RCMP just show up and start macing them damn hippies?
Nope.
They brought in bolt cutters, cut off the chains, then arrested the protester. Some of them did take to the practice of simply going limp on the ground - they'd just get carted-off on a tarp or whatever. It wasn't a big deal at all.
This shit used to happen all of the time when people were protesting against nuclear testing in Nevada.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I really hate to say this but you're approaching the argument from entirely the wrong angle. It isn't going to work trying to hammer home the use of force as inappropriate because you're not trying to understand why he thinks it was justified.
Again show me the internal memos or directions that govern the use of pepper-spray; not the court of public opinions combined assessment of when this use is warranted.
If he wants to move goalposts, backpeddle, and change his stance so he can ignore this, that's fine. It doesn't mean he won't look like a jackass.
Also I don't give two shits if they're worried what their department would think if they weren't able to actually remove the people. You do the fucking job right or not at all. You don't attack people because the guys back at the office will say unkind things.
You first attempt to move them sans violence. You do not immediately jump to violence on the basis that you might have to use violence if non violence doesn't work.
While I agree they could've handled things a little more professionally, let's be serious here. The protestors are there to protest serious problems, they are not about to disperse if "Asked nicely" and they are there to stay for a prolonged period of time because shit seriously be going wrong with the world.
The Police's job is to carry out orders as effectively as they can. They aren't going to be able to meet the protestor's actual demands to fix shit wrong with the world, so that leaves little other realistic options. Sure they can follow their manuals and follow a very orderly staged escalation of force. But that's just buying time until it reaches this inevitable flashpoint.
They aren't going to get these kids to leave unless they violently break them up, their superiors know this, and if they don't take serious effort to do something you can sure as hell bet they'll get ten kinds of shit for it when they come back having done nothing. Of course, then they're going to get just as much shit because of the bad PR this whole thing caused.
So it's really lose-lose for the police. But they aren't doing their job right, from their own perspective, if they don't try to be effective at carrying out their duties. Sadly, that results in shit like this. But in the end the primary fault lies with the system that produced this messed up situation to begin with.
I currently live in a place where protesters would literally use metal chains to anchor themselves to trees that they didn't want cut down.
Did the RCMP just show up and start macing them damn hippies?
Nope.
They brought in bolt cutters, cut off the chains, then arrested the protester. Some of them did take to the practice of simply going limp on the ground - they'd just get carted-off on a tarp or whatever. It wasn't a big deal at all.
This shit used to happen all of the time when people were protesting against nuclear testing in Nevada.
If people lock themselves to trees using chains yes you can use a bolt cutter to get the chains off and carry them. If you get a mass of humans that locks their bodies together you literally have a mass too big to move unless you break it apart somehow. I mean we can't go using bolt cutters on people's arms after all. ;p
That's why I think it's a bit different, plus also the PD doesn't have the $$ or jailspace to hold them all. That's again the point of mass arrests and protesting in numbers. It becomes impossible to afford the costs of law and order without bankrupting the departments.
They are there to enforce order effectively, and when order clashes with the needs of the many, you get situations like this.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
You really think there wouldn't have been a YouTube video up of someone spinning cops forcibly removing students as "Cops violently drag paying students off UCD campus"? Short of backing down and letting people non-violently protest (regardless of impact on average citizen) it seems most police response is viewed in an incredibly negative light. Damned if they do, damned if they don't spray.
Just in case anyone is curious how this actually goes, when police evicted Occupy Atlanta, the 80+ people that chose to stay in the park against orders were cuffed and carried out limp, the whole thing was shown on the news, and the conversation stayed on the mayor's administrative decisions, rather than the specific police action.
You first attempt to move them sans violence. You do not immediately jump to violence on the basis that you might have to use violence if non violence doesn't work.
While I agree they could've handled things a little more professionally, let's be serious here. The protestors are there to protest serious problems, they are not about to disperse if "Asked nicely" and they are there to stay for a prolonged period of time because shit seriously be going wrong with the world.
The Police's job is to carry out orders as effectively as they can. They aren't going to be able to meet the protestor's actual demands to fix shit wrong with the world, so that leaves little other realistic options. Sure they can follow their manuals and follow a very orderly staged escalation of force. But that's just buying time until it reaches this inevitable flashpoint.
They aren't going to get these kids to leave unless they violently break them up
Bullshit. No attempt was made in the video, people were just attacked with something meant to be used if the situation was more dangerous without its use.
their superiors know this, and if they don't take serious effort to do something you can sure as hell bet they'll get ten kinds of shit for it when they come back having done nothing. Of course, then they're going to get just as much shit because of the bad PR this whole thing caused.
So it's really lose-lose for the police. But they aren't doing their job right, from their own perspective, if they don't try to be effective at carrying out their duties. Sadly, that results in shit like this. But in the end the primary fault lies with the system that produced this messed up situation to begin with.
If that's their perspective their perspective is wrong. No other way about it.
Fallout, don't tell anyone else in this thread to, "be serious," - you've been a source of ridiculous conspiracy monologues and demonstrably inaccurate, "End the Fed!" rhetoric. Hardly a 'serious' approach.
There are plenty of ways to arrest non-violent protesters. Yes, even if they 'lock arms'. You pull them off of the ground, you cuff them, it's over.
Note that, personally, I object to the police actually doing that sort of thing too - but that's the system we have, and any dissident should be aware of it.
You seem to be suggesting that the police go back to their headquarters, take the elevator to the secret underground cavern and receive orders to disperse the meddlers by any means necessary.
The Police's job is to carry out orders as effectively as they can.
Again, as I've pointed out, the effectiveness of their course of action in this situation wasn't just ZERO, it was downright NEGATIVE. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they ANGERED it and ENLARGED it and ENERGIZED it, and then were publicly embarrassed when the protestors drove them off!
What the hell is going on in this thread right now? How can we possibly be having a discussion about whether pepper spraying is more or less effective than simply forcibly breaking the human chain and arresting individuals manually, when it's already been demonstrated that the pepper spraying strategy has an INCREDIBLY BAD OUTCOME?
The Police's job is to carry out orders as effectively as they can.
Again, as I've pointed out, the effectiveness of their course of action in this situation wasn't just ZERO, it was downright NEGATIVE. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they ANGERED it and ENLARGED it and ENERGIZED it, and then were publicly embarrassed when the protestors drove them off!
What the hell is going on in this thread right now? How can we possibly be having a discussion about whether pepper spraying is more or less effective than simply forcibly breaking the human chain and arresting individuals manually, when it's already been demonstrated that the pepper spraying strategy has an INCREDIBLY BAD OUTCOME?
Well, in fairness, there's only one and a half people (ED and kinda-sorta Fallout, except I can hardly ever tell what Fallout is trying to say) trying to support the pro-pepper spray side. I mean, you always have to expect someone to be the contrarian, no matter how clear-cut the issue is.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Bullshit. No attempt was made in the video, people were just attacked with something meant to be used if the situation was more dangerous without its use.
No attempt was made, so you're saying there were other ways to get everyone to leave? what were they? Can you tell me? Just saying no attempt was made does not mean there WAS another way to do it. If you cannot suggest it and make a case for how to immediately get all the protestors out that was available to the police then you are just talking past the point.
Fallout, don't tell anyone else in this thread to, "be serious," - you've been a source of ridiculous conspiracy monologues and demonstrably inaccurate, "End the Fed!" rhetoric. Hardly a 'serious' approach.
Oh boy! Character attacks! I love me some ad hominems! Mmmm...ad M&Ms *drool*
But really, this makes me laugh because I question the existence of the Fed, and people either shout me down, tell me I'm stupid, evil, a randroid, whatever, and yet then disappear when it comes time to actually address my points.
No! It would take too long! No! You're too stupid and lazy! No! Only economists can ever understand this and they don't want to tell you! No! You got this one detail wrong so everything you say is therefore wrong! No! You keep asking questions when we don't want to talk about this, shut up!
Sounds more like someone else practicing Randian ideology to me.
There are plenty of ways to arrest non-violent protesters. Yes, even if they 'lock arms'. You pull them off of the ground, you cuff them, it's over.
Is there a way to do that after there are a large enough group of people? Maybe I'm not aware of something here. Difference being I admit I don't know everything and am merely trying to make sense of it all with what I have. If you know of an effective strategy to remove that many people who have locked their bodies into what I would consider an immovable mass. If there was a way to pry those kids away then I'd like to know exactly what it is.
Given that pepper spray AND batons proved ineffective, that tends to insinuate that a lesser use of force would've been even more ineffective.
Note that, personally, I object to the police actually doing that sort of thing too - but that's the system we have, and any dissident should be aware of it.
You seem to be suggesting that the police go back to their headquarters, take the elevator to the secret underground cavern and receive orders to disperse the meddlers by any means necessary.
That's not the dynamic.
I'm not saying that at all, but good job at projecting that onto me! You are really getting creative. I get this whole Simpsons vibe like when they showed the Republican Party Headquarters as an evil castle. But no, rather police culture and systems of behavioral incentivization within various police forces put immense social pressure on them to get things done and do it "right" or, rather the most effective way they know how.
Us vs Them, cultures of machismo and stratified social hierarchy can sort of combine to create an invisible pressure to execute orders to the utmost efficiency. Cops care about "crime statistics" because that's kind of how their performance is rated. Cops address "crime" and they don't deal with its root causes. So if society upends and inequality results in crime? They don't go and protest inequality, they work overtime busting criminals.
It's just how society kind of is set up. But just look at any one of the many whistle blowers who talks about how all sorts of quotas and other enforcement mechanisms are in use in various police agencies. It's all born of this system where they have to "Stop crime" but are only able to treat the crime itself and not the cause.
Combine that with how insular their culture is, how hierarchical and such, then it becomes very easy to have a police force detached from the community at large with all sorts of behavioral conditions which will compel them to want to "enforce order at all costs."
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Those are not their only choices. If they think those are their only choices the training needs to be improved.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
Why, exactly?
I actually agree with Fallout on this one aspect. They're blocking a pathway for the sake of protest and, while I really and honestly do support them in that, they're technically in the wrong which forces the hand of law enforcement.
No attempt was made, so you're saying there were other ways to get everyone to leave? what were they? Can you tell me? Just saying no attempt was made does not mean there WAS another way to do it. If you cannot suggest it and make a case for how to immediately get all the protestors out that was available to the police then you are just talking past the point.
You grab them and pull, push, etc in an effort to get the out of there, full stop. I don't care if they're super duper sure it's not going to work. You don't get to skip steps in escalation because you don't think it's worth the bother. Several people already pointed out other situations where it worked perfectly fine.
No arguments there! But I feel like it's necessary to consider all things to try and get a better understanding of the situation.
Oh well there you go, everyone, he's just trying to explain that the police here are either poorly trained or idiots, something people were clearly not taking in to consideration.
Given that pepper spray AND batons proved ineffective, that tends to insinuate that a lesser use of force would've been even more ineffective.
And you are wrong. The pepper spray energized the both the protesters and the crowd around them. You do not move people by justifying their belief that you're a corrupt individual with no care for the rules. And as for the numbers, if the cops don't have enough people at the time they come back with more, not cut corners on proper procedure.
Those are not their only choices. If they think those are their only choices the training needs to be improved.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
Why, exactly?
I actually agree with Fallout on this one aspect. They're blocking a pathway for the sake of protest and, while I really and honestly do support them in that, they're technically in the wrong which forces the hand of law enforcement.
Of course, this means doing so like not a moron.
Well, that's not what Hacksaw asked. Speeding and jaywalking are illegal, yet those don't "force the hand of law enforcement". There was a choice made here to enforce the law and to enforce it in a stupid manner. They may be separate (but related) choices; they were choices nevertheless. The university could have refrained from calling in the cops, and the cops could then have refrained from acting; although the latter would be fairly dubious in legality, but I'm rather certain it wouldn't have been the first time in US history that police officers chose not to pursue a particular crime.
Again, as I've pointed out, the effectiveness of their course of action in this situation wasn't just ZERO, it was downright NEGATIVE. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they ANGERED it and ENLARGED it and ENERGIZED it, and then were publicly embarrassed when the protestors drove them off!
What the hell is going on in this thread right now? How can we possibly be having a discussion about whether pepper spraying is more or less effective than simply forcibly breaking the human chain and arresting individuals manually, when it's already been demonstrated that the pepper spraying strategy has an INCREDIBLY BAD OUTCOME?
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. The entire incident was terrible but I'm trying to explain what I'm pretty sure is the perspective of the police. Namely that they are put in a situation where they have to claim they're being effective at what they do. I'm actually saying that the entire flashpoint we saw, where even their violence stopped working, is the inevitable result of when righteousness clashes with a violently oppressive status quo.
It's just that the Cops are kind of put in between a rock and a hard place because of this. I'm sure there are also a number of evil twisted shits that get off on this. But at the end of the day most of this stuff happening is because we systemically created an environment where it would flourish and this was the response.
Put another way, if you beat a dog horribly to turn it into a mean junkyard dog that would attack anything it sees? You don't let that same dog guard your newborn.
Ever had an unbearable boss that wanted you to magic something up from the Ether despite it being physically impossible? Imagine if your job instilled militaristic obedience to that same boss? Now imagine that you could have a very comfortable, very easy economic future, but only if you do what that Boss says. Or he can make your life a living hell if you don't "Play ball?"
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Those are not their only choices. If they think those are their only choices the training needs to be improved.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
Why, exactly?
I actually agree with Fallout on this one aspect. They're blocking a pathway for the sake of protest and, while I really and honestly do support them in that, they're technically in the wrong which forces the hand of law enforcement.
Of course, this means doing so like not a moron.
Well, that's not what Hacksaw asked. Speeding and jaywalking are illegal, yet those don't "force the hand of law enforcement". There was a choice made here to enforce the law and to enforce them in a stupid manner. They may be separate (but related) choices; they were choices nevertheless. The university could have refrained from calling in the cops, and the cops could then have refrained from acting, although the latter would be fairly dubious in legality, but I'm rather certain it wouldn't have been the first time in US history that police officers chose not to pursue a particular crime.
Oh I agree nearly entirely, but honestly I'm against the kind of behavior you're suggesting at the end of the paragraph. I'm all for civil disobedience for individuals protesting, but not with police who've been called in to do their job. That's the sort of thing I'd rather see cops doing less.
Bullshit. No attempt was made in the video, people were just attacked with something meant to be used if the situation was more dangerous without its use.
No attempt was made, so you're saying there were other ways to get everyone to leave? what were they? Can you tell me? Just saying no attempt was made does not mean there WAS another way to do it. If you cannot suggest it and make a case for how to immediately get all the protestors out that was available to the police then you are just talking past the point.
Citations and arrests. This has been pointed out repeatedly during the conversation.
Posts
How did that person get into my apartment? Did they break and enter? Just to sit there on the floor? That's a strange analogy and has absolutely no bearing on this situation.
This is about use of force. You've yet to provide any sort of rational measure of what that might be, other than "they were breaking the law." True, but pepper spray is only supposed to be used in violent situations. Could you point which protesters were being violent here? If not, you have no argument.
Like I said, arrest them. This would be a non-issue if that's how it went down. Instead we're going to spend 248329 pages listening to you deny that this was police brutality.
Yes, I need a citation for that, preferably the details of the campus and/or municipal bylaw (i assume it would be a municipal law rather than state; that's how it works up here, anyway) which states how someone impeding public access (there's no such thing as 'handicap access', just public access - or that's how the laws up here are written, anyway - which covers wheelchair ramps and the like) is to be treated.
The laws I'm familiar with are explicit : the person(s) are to be moved.
Well of course. It is an anology that you disagree with so it is silly. Who cares how they got in. You weren't home, they are there now and refuse to leave. And who says they had to break in. Let them sit their ass in front of your front door, garage, and any other logical, convenient way of getting into your home. I'm sure if they refused to leave, you'd throw your hands up and say to the approaching cop with a baton "No sir. . .they haven't crossed that threshold yet. Lets keep trying to reason with them."
These arguments are all based around the present conditions of the sit-in, and thankfully that's not how laws work. Some may be dumber than others, but to argue legality on the basis of who is presently being irrevocably inconvenienced by your actions is a sad precedent that I really doubt many of you would actually support for yourselves.
They're not occupying private residences; they're occupying open, public spaces. If you don't know the difference between the two, then this discussion is going to be very difficult for everyone involved.
No, they're not. These discussions are based around the police guidelines that exist around the use of pepper spray. Non violent protest is not an acceptable use. Period.
Your analogy is silly, not because I disagree with it, but because you're trying to argue that a single person refusing to leave my apartment is similar to a group of students protesting on the campus they attend. It's not.
So, try again.
As someone who in just the last thread had to argue with people about police actions, tough fucking shit. That there are always going to be people crying pig even if they do exactly what they're supposed to does not give them license to do their job poorly.
Thats NOT the argument being made. The rationale put forth was that despite them breaking the law, their actions weren't "hurting" anyone, so their continued presence was justified. It had nothing to do with public/private property arguments. The "home" analogy was simply one that most people should have some visceral appreciation of.
Agreed. Why would they be?
Again show me the internal memos or directions that govern the use of pepper-spray; not the court of public opinions combined assessment of when this use is warranted. Davis police seem to think that non-compliance had escalated to a level that pepper-spray (or some other non-physical motivator) was appropriate. Whether you agree or not is fine, and seemingly thats what the (I'm sure whitewashed) review will bear out.
Not sure if this is a logical sequence dude
But it would be unreasonable to use excessive force, always. You can't kill the guy or maim him or anything, but I'm talking from an Aussie point of view here.
LTL weapons are meant to be used in the event that it would be more dangerous to not use them. That is the point. To use it because they don't feel like doing their job is an abuse of those weapons, I don't give two shits what any internal memo says. That memo would be wrong on a fundamental level, similar to if it said they were free to just start shooting people if they felt they were going to be badmouthed anyway.
From the NYPD manual:
http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm
http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf
You were saying?
ED, you are a conservative, if I remember my posters correct, right? Conservatism theoretically includes an innate skepticism of government and particularly government power, right? Why not here?
And you think they come off looking better having 3 250-lb cops pepper spray a 90-lb college freshman before dragging her off to be arrested than if the 3 250-lb cops just dragged her off? And you think people can't go limp and passively resist being arrested after having been pepper sprayed? And you think the cops came off looking better having been driven off the quad by the angry mob of students? And you think that the decision as to whether police should use force should be dependent on the optics of the situation? And you think they actually accomplished their goal of clearing the quad for whatever handicapped access you've wildly conjectured might be required through that empty grass field that the students obviously would have accommodated anyways? And you think the university is better off now with a publicly revolting faculty and student body?
This was a lose-LOSE-LOSE course of action for the police. You're completely shitball insane if you think otherwise. It was invading Russia in the winter in terms of the level of monumental stupidity.
At what point does somebody's posts get so stupid that we can report them?
WELL if it's adequate for incapacitating violently resisting suspects then BOY HOWDY it must work gangbusters on people just sitting around.
why
It actually does. The amount of "harm" (if indeed there is any to be had) they cause is directly related to the space they occupy. This particular argument is, at its core, a debate about valid uses of public space. This is not an ethical vacuum devoid of placement.
It's also important in how the police should be reacting to their presence. If there's no harm being done nor threat of it they don't get to do harm. Not even if the protesters they moved were going to say super mean things about them later anyway.
I really hate to say this but you're approaching the argument from entirely the wrong angle. It isn't going to work trying to hammer home the use of force as inappropriate because you're not trying to understand why he thinks it was justified.
This is a law and order perspective, in this case the context is less relevant because there has been a "breach of order" or "breach of the peace" committed by protestors who are refusing to comply with written bylaws. It's seem as a sort of agreement they will follow these commands just like military or police follow the orders of their commanding officer. While some breaches are more heinous than others what matters to someone in this perspective is rectifying the situation immediately.
The police show up, orders are to make the protestors leave. The protestors hunker down, what are the cops going to do? They don't have the leeway to go back to their superiors and say (sorry, just too many of them) without them possibly getting some kind of punishment for not carrying out orders.
It's not necessarily a universal thing but when you look at it from what's most likely the police perspective, which I think ED! is arguing from. Police have two choices, use ever increasing violence to remove protestors, or come back as "Pansy assed failures that couldn't just move some hippie kids!" Even if they fail, by trying to use violence they at least gain a small bit of legitimacy within their power structure for having done something.
The police cannot help meet the protestors' demands for ending inequality, or tuition fees, or whatever else they were there for. The chancellor might? But he obviously does not want to, and would rather the police just clear "The rabble" from his sight. So this is why the clash happens, it reveals how very little the people in power care for the people with legitimate concerns and how they would rather use any means necessary to continue the status quo.
The police in this case become the unfortunate tool of choice. But they're economically pressed to the wall as well and given every incentive to do stuff like this because the system exists to basically reward them for being as violent and forceful as necessary so long as it doesn't "harm department image" which is why I think you see these current situations causing a lot of confusion.
I think the OPD's letter to Mayor Quan for instance is rather telling. The cops are taught in various ways to follow orders and achieve objectives by whatever means necessary, nothing is more important than following orders or getting "Shit done," nothing. So when they can't get violent without damaging the department's image then it creates a conflict of identity.
They can't disperse the protestors because they can't actually address their concerns, but they have to do something. Really I'm not excusing what the cops did either, but rather pointing out the context that it was the result of a very sad entrenched establishment and systems of behavioral incentivization that have created these events.
Funny answer: 'Cuz they're dirty hippies!
Serious answer: If you really think about it, it's more of the above. A first and foremost belief in hierarchy and social order as being all important. It's not that they don't believe in other things too, but that those are the absolute most important things in their world. If things happen out of order it can be literally downright painful or frightening to them.
So right now they're adopting a maxim of justifying the police because they have a belief entrenched of the police as guardians of peace and social order. It's very hard for anyone to accept they may have been wrong or that they may have to rethink their worldview.
So rather than question the police, which would force a far more radical questioning of self, it becomes easier, and much less painful to denigrate the protestors and excuse the police.
If someone broke into my home and started watching TV, and so I called the police, and the police automatically walked-in on a bunch of teenage trespassers just watching TV and maced them instead of just arresting them, I'd be pretty fucking enraged with the cops. Yeah, I'd be out-of-my-mind upset with the people who violated my privacy and took over my living room, but immediately escalating to lethal force is well below the standards I demand of police forces.
State-issued weapons aren't for recreational use.
If all of the protestors were to sit down and lock arms/legs, how would you remove them? Not attempting to remove them is not an option.
You first attempt to move them sans violence. You do not immediately jump to violence on the basis that you might have to use violence if non violence doesn't work.
I currently live in a place where protesters would literally use metal chains to anchor themselves to trees that they didn't want cut down.
Did the RCMP just show up and start macing them damn hippies?
Nope.
They brought in bolt cutters, cut off the chains, then arrested the protester. Some of them did take to the practice of simply going limp on the ground - they'd just get carted-off on a tarp or whatever. It wasn't a big deal at all.
This shit used to happen all of the time when people were protesting against nuclear testing in Nevada.
He did say this:
If he wants to move goalposts, backpeddle, and change his stance so he can ignore this, that's fine. It doesn't mean he won't look like a jackass.
While I agree they could've handled things a little more professionally, let's be serious here. The protestors are there to protest serious problems, they are not about to disperse if "Asked nicely" and they are there to stay for a prolonged period of time because shit seriously be going wrong with the world.
The Police's job is to carry out orders as effectively as they can. They aren't going to be able to meet the protestor's actual demands to fix shit wrong with the world, so that leaves little other realistic options. Sure they can follow their manuals and follow a very orderly staged escalation of force. But that's just buying time until it reaches this inevitable flashpoint.
They aren't going to get these kids to leave unless they violently break them up, their superiors know this, and if they don't take serious effort to do something you can sure as hell bet they'll get ten kinds of shit for it when they come back having done nothing. Of course, then they're going to get just as much shit because of the bad PR this whole thing caused.
So it's really lose-lose for the police. But they aren't doing their job right, from their own perspective, if they don't try to be effective at carrying out their duties. Sadly, that results in shit like this. But in the end the primary fault lies with the system that produced this messed up situation to begin with.
edit:
If people lock themselves to trees using chains yes you can use a bolt cutter to get the chains off and carry them. If you get a mass of humans that locks their bodies together you literally have a mass too big to move unless you break it apart somehow. I mean we can't go using bolt cutters on people's arms after all. ;p
That's why I think it's a bit different, plus also the PD doesn't have the $$ or jailspace to hold them all. That's again the point of mass arrests and protesting in numbers. It becomes impossible to afford the costs of law and order without bankrupting the departments.
They are there to enforce order effectively, and when order clashes with the needs of the many, you get situations like this.
Just in case anyone is curious how this actually goes, when police evicted Occupy Atlanta, the 80+ people that chose to stay in the park against orders were cuffed and carried out limp, the whole thing was shown on the news, and the conversation stayed on the mayor's administrative decisions, rather than the specific police action.
If that's their perspective their perspective is wrong. No other way about it.
-.-
Fallout, don't tell anyone else in this thread to, "be serious," - you've been a source of ridiculous conspiracy monologues and demonstrably inaccurate, "End the Fed!" rhetoric. Hardly a 'serious' approach.
There are plenty of ways to arrest non-violent protesters. Yes, even if they 'lock arms'. You pull them off of the ground, you cuff them, it's over.
Note that, personally, I object to the police actually doing that sort of thing too - but that's the system we have, and any dissident should be aware of it.
You seem to be suggesting that the police go back to their headquarters, take the elevator to the secret underground cavern and receive orders to disperse the meddlers by any means necessary.
That's not the dynamic.
Again, as I've pointed out, the effectiveness of their course of action in this situation wasn't just ZERO, it was downright NEGATIVE. Rather than dispersing the crowd, they ANGERED it and ENLARGED it and ENERGIZED it, and then were publicly embarrassed when the protestors drove them off!
What the hell is going on in this thread right now? How can we possibly be having a discussion about whether pepper spraying is more or less effective than simply forcibly breaking the human chain and arresting individuals manually, when it's already been demonstrated that the pepper spraying strategy has an INCREDIBLY BAD OUTCOME?
Well, in fairness, there's only one and a half people (ED and kinda-sorta Fallout, except I can hardly ever tell what Fallout is trying to say) trying to support the pro-pepper spray side. I mean, you always have to expect someone to be the contrarian, no matter how clear-cut the issue is.
Why, exactly?
Not someone arguing based on how the cops will get their feelings hurt.
No attempt was made, so you're saying there were other ways to get everyone to leave? what were they? Can you tell me? Just saying no attempt was made does not mean there WAS another way to do it. If you cannot suggest it and make a case for how to immediately get all the protestors out that was available to the police then you are just talking past the point.
No arguments there!
Oh boy! Character attacks! I love me some ad hominems! Mmmm...ad M&Ms *drool*
But really, this makes me laugh because I question the existence of the Fed, and people either shout me down, tell me I'm stupid, evil, a randroid, whatever, and yet then disappear when it comes time to actually address my points.
Sounds more like someone else practicing Randian ideology to me.
Is there a way to do that after there are a large enough group of people? Maybe I'm not aware of something here. Difference being I admit I don't know everything and am merely trying to make sense of it all with what I have. If you know of an effective strategy to remove that many people who have locked their bodies into what I would consider an immovable mass. If there was a way to pry those kids away then I'd like to know exactly what it is.
Given that pepper spray AND batons proved ineffective, that tends to insinuate that a lesser use of force would've been even more ineffective.
I'm not saying that at all, but good job at projecting that onto me! You are really getting creative.
Us vs Them, cultures of machismo and stratified social hierarchy can sort of combine to create an invisible pressure to execute orders to the utmost efficiency. Cops care about "crime statistics" because that's kind of how their performance is rated. Cops address "crime" and they don't deal with its root causes. So if society upends and inequality results in crime? They don't go and protest inequality, they work overtime busting criminals.
It's just how society kind of is set up. But just look at any one of the many whistle blowers who talks about how all sorts of quotas and other enforcement mechanisms are in use in various police agencies. It's all born of this system where they have to "Stop crime" but are only able to treat the crime itself and not the cause.
Combine that with how insular their culture is, how hierarchical and such, then it becomes very easy to have a police force detached from the community at large with all sorts of behavioral conditions which will compel them to want to "enforce order at all costs."
I actually agree with Fallout on this one aspect. They're blocking a pathway for the sake of protest and, while I really and honestly do support them in that, they're technically in the wrong which forces the hand of law enforcement.
Of course, this means doing so like not a moron.
Oh well there you go, everyone, he's just trying to explain that the police here are either poorly trained or idiots, something people were clearly not taking in to consideration.
And you are wrong. The pepper spray energized the both the protesters and the crowd around them. You do not move people by justifying their belief that you're a corrupt individual with no care for the rules. And as for the numbers, if the cops don't have enough people at the time they come back with more, not cut corners on proper procedure.
Well, that's not what Hacksaw asked. Speeding and jaywalking are illegal, yet those don't "force the hand of law enforcement". There was a choice made here to enforce the law and to enforce it in a stupid manner. They may be separate (but related) choices; they were choices nevertheless. The university could have refrained from calling in the cops, and the cops could then have refrained from acting; although the latter would be fairly dubious in legality, but I'm rather certain it wouldn't have been the first time in US history that police officers chose not to pursue a particular crime.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. The entire incident was terrible but I'm trying to explain what I'm pretty sure is the perspective of the police. Namely that they are put in a situation where they have to claim they're being effective at what they do. I'm actually saying that the entire flashpoint we saw, where even their violence stopped working, is the inevitable result of when righteousness clashes with a violently oppressive status quo.
It's just that the Cops are kind of put in between a rock and a hard place because of this. I'm sure there are also a number of evil twisted shits that get off on this. But at the end of the day most of this stuff happening is because we systemically created an environment where it would flourish and this was the response.
Put another way, if you beat a dog horribly to turn it into a mean junkyard dog that would attack anything it sees? You don't let that same dog guard your newborn.
Ever had an unbearable boss that wanted you to magic something up from the Ether despite it being physically impossible? Imagine if your job instilled militaristic obedience to that same boss? Now imagine that you could have a very comfortable, very easy economic future, but only if you do what that Boss says. Or he can make your life a living hell if you don't "Play ball?"
Oh I agree nearly entirely, but honestly I'm against the kind of behavior you're suggesting at the end of the paragraph. I'm all for civil disobedience for individuals protesting, but not with police who've been called in to do their job. That's the sort of thing I'd rather see cops doing less.
Citations and arrests. This has been pointed out repeatedly during the conversation.
But Aneur there were so many people blocking the path.
So many.
Like, upwards of a dozen or so. And the police are clearly either poorly trained or dumb or corrupt or something.