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:56108 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.
The people who work for them are though. And they can say whaever the fuck they want.
Then let them, the people, put their personal money on the line.
Occupy wallstreet isn't a person either. So should they shut the fuck up? Hmm hypocrite?
Individuals in the movement speak for themselves, not OWS as a whole; that's been one of the criticisms of the movement - no leader, and no single message - haven't you been paying attention.
