Title: UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident, Four Perspectives Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Nov 23, 2011 Author:waxpancake Post Date:2011-11-23 01:15:52 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:54126 Comments:79
How dare anyone sit on the sidewalk in America. Where do people get to thinking that they have the right to assemble like that? What? Its in the Constitution? Never mind. whataburger300 35 minutes ago
Sidewalk huh? I guess that explains the police cruiser that drove through after removing the 'protesters'. And whats up with the guy saying 'thats fine' after being informed the police would be using pepper spray to remove them?
That is a walking path. The pigs were standing in the road too. Where are the cars?
They are blocking the road far less then after a sporting event or concert. Should I expect to get pepper sprayed after attending the next AC/DC concert?
That is a walking path. The pigs were standing in the road too. Where are the cars?
You'll see the police car about ten yards back starting at the 8 second mark.
UC Davis campus police were given an order to take down an encampment and in the process they were obstructed by a number of protesters. The police did a great job balancing the need to maintain order with the 'students' right to protest. Its only because of a biased media, and a pusillanimous school chancelor that this story has any legs.
The kids sat down in the road to block the police from doing their job, they were told what the consequences would be if they didn't move, they were even given time to prepare themselves, before they were sprayed. Pepper spray causes temporary discomfort and is quite effective at breaking down passive resistance to lawful orders. This might as well have been a text book example of how to apply minimal force to remove obstructors.
-btw I am amused by all the media reports that the police were 'caught' doing this, considering how every one there was recording the event.
The kids sat down in the road to block the police from doing their job, they were told what the consequences would be if they didn't move, they were even given time to prepare themselves, before they were sprayed. Pepper spray causes temporary discomfort and is quite effective at breaking down passive resistance to lawful orders. This might as well have been a text book example of how to apply minimal force to remove obstructors.
The constitution trumps any and all laws to the contrary. They were peacefully protesting. On a walkway paid for with tax dollars.
If you watch the video the police do not go after anyone that isn't blocking their egress. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to obstruct anyone..something these punks learned the hard way.
If you watch the video the police do not go after anyone that isn't blocking their egress. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to obstruct anyone..something these punks learned the hard way.
Not true. They sprayed several people sitting in the grass.
These were peaceful protesters not harming anyone. Look at all the open area. They weren't blocking anything.
Not true. They sprayed several people sitting in the grass.
Those people sitting on the grass who were sprayed had locked arms with the people sitting in the road. They were sprayed so the officers could safely remove the obstructive protesters from the road and allow their patrol car to leave.
Any objective observer can see the police were not spraying people indiscriminately, in fact in a number of instances they let sprayed protesters alone once they were no longer in their way.
Furthermore, by announcing well ahead of time that they were going to employ pepper spray, to the point of even getting a go ahead from one of the protest leaders, anyone who suffered the inhalation of spray did so of their own volition.
Stone, you do realize the purpose of the 'sit down' was to prevent the police from leaving don't you?
The goal of the Occupy Davis protest was to spark a confrontation with police.
Corporations can and do spend big money on lobbyists to get the ear of politicians. They also have money to buy media space to promote their agenda with the peeps, and money to fund think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Family Research Council - etc. to refine their message. We call that free speech.
The peeps have their bodies which they've been willing to put on the line in the form of demonstrations for the purpose of getting the ear of politicians, the media, and regular folks. This is also free speech.
Corporations can and do spend big money on lobbyists to get the ear of politicians. They also have money to buy media space to promote their agenda with the peeps, and money to fund think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Family Research Council - etc. to refine their message. We call that free speech.
The peeps have their bodies which they've been willing to put on the line in the form of demonstrations for the purpose of getting the ear of politicians, the media, and regular folks. This is also free speech.
In it's new contemporary form, 'Free speech' only has value if it is followed with a bribe or a reciprocal action of some sort for the purpose of doing business. It has become just another traded commodity, like most of our other 'rights' guaranteed by the constitution.
You mean that system of corporate bribery masking as individual rights that was created out of whole cloth, a few years ago?
No. I am talking about the first amendment. Where congress is prohibited from making any law the restricts free speech. A constitutionalist you are not. Keep spinning all you like. Real Americans know what free speech is.
No. I am talking about the first amendment. Where congress is prohibited from making any law the restricts free speech. A constitutionalist you are not. Keep spinning all you like. Real Americans know what free speech is.
Free speech rights are for human beings. A corporation is a entity brought into being by contract, not birth.
Although corporations were not mentioned once in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson famously noted that representative government’s purpose was “to curb the excesses of the monied interests.” Had the Founders realized how powerful corporations would become, likely they would have created checks on their power.
Post-Revolution America developed largely along the ideals of Jefferson’s yeoman farmer, with American industrialism lagging behind its European counterparts. Corporations remained small institutions, chartered at the state level for specific purposes, such as banking or seafaring. Corporations could only exist for a limited time, could not make any political contributions, and could not own stock in other companies. Their owners were responsible for criminal acts committed by the corporation and the doctrine of limited liability (shielding investors from responsibility for harm and loss caused by the corporation) did not yet exist. Often corporate charters went to the wealthy or well-connected. But these small corporations did move America into the industrial era, encouraging entrepeneurism on a grander scale. Governments kept a close watch on how these corporations were being run, regularly revoking charters if corporations were not serving the public interest. For example, in 1832, President Andrew Jackson refused to extend the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania revoked 10 banks’ charters.
Clearly the founding fathers had no intention of conferring personhood on corporations.
Free speech rights are for human beings. A corporation is a entity brought into being by contract, not birth.
Show me where free speech is limited. Corporations can't speak. They don't have a mouth. Any person with a mouth can speak any time they fucking want to. If speaking for a group. A corporation. For themselves. Or whatever other reason.
Show me restritions on "corporations" having a right to hire people to speak for them.
The law clearly says congress can make NO FUCKING LAW. Do you have problems understanding the English language? Don't answer it was rhetorical. You either can't understand the English language or you lie about the meaning of words. There are NO OTHER CHOICES!
The law clearly says congress can make NO FUCKING LAW. Do you have problems understanding the English language?
You do know that the Constitution does give Congress the power to make laws - right?
In the founding father's day, corporations were not permitted to make political contributions. period!
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -Thomas Jefferson
