The saga continues but the true question is who authorised the use of Pepper-Spray?

Pepper spray: US campus police suspended
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15809742

Whatever. You are missing the point. The question is not weather the protests make sense or not. The question is not if their cause is justified or not. In any modern country have people the right to protest - no matter how stupid they are. Even neo-nazis, gay haters, communists, Muslim extremists or anybody else should have the right to peacefully protest as much as they want about whatever they want.

We would hardly discuss the pepper spray if these kids were caught looting a mall. The point is that they are peaceful and unlike the violent protests we have seen in London maybe don't justify any forceful police intervention. "They were sitting in the way and didn't move although a cop asked them to" is not enough to use any force you want. And I think the reason why the videos went viral is that most people - even if they don't agree to the occupy movement - believe that something is wrong in the picture.

And just for the record on "they won't change anything anyway" - all it takes is sometimes an event like this one. A year ago did the Southern German police beat down protesters who demonstrated against something as banal as a new train station in Stuttgart. After pictures of pepper sprayed retired folks and an arrogant reaction by the authorities did the change happen - this was the one major topic that decided the next election and the politicians who thought they don't need to listen to the street are out of their office. To me it looks like the same, only on a larger scale.

I can't even begin to describe how immature, reactionary, depressing & devoid of the slightest hint of intelligence, your comments are.



By the way, what is it like to be permanently in possession of the wrong end of the stick?


Ok, come on - are you just trolling now or are you genuinely this thick?

Increadibly naive. The police were in a no-win situation. You think images of bringing up a water cannon would have looked any better?

Nope. Didn't think so. I would argue it would have been worse as the imagery would be far more powerful.

Oh, so because a non-American comments on it "he doesn't understand...". If only America would apply its logic to its foreign policy, eh? Bit of a double-standard there going on, don't you think?

Well, if it is illegal, the officers will be charged, won't they? But then again, because it probably wasn't they probably won't. I'd even wager that this being the US the officer saught authorisation before moving ahead with his actions.

One of the things that really gets me about "free society" is that there is a belief that you can do what you want, when you want. The key point that everyone misses is accountability.

Let me explain: if a police officer tells you to do something, you have to do it. You have no immediate recourse to protest unless you have a specific authoristation to do something. That aside, a police officer is charged with keeping the law. If s/he feels you are in danger or causing a danger, they have the right to remove you. Yes that is a judgement call, but that's what they are trained for. For all you know there's a bomb in a car and they need to clear the area... the point is they don't have to explain themselves at the time.

They are, however, accountable. So if they get it wrong you can complain after. That is what the checks are there for.

But for some reason everyone thinks "I have rights" and uses this term to mean they can do what they want, when they want.

Get over it. You can't.

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

Pepper spray was clearly the correct way to go.

They had been asked to disperse a number of times, and even warned if they didn't they would get sprayed. Live by the sword and all that, they even got a fair warning.

Having been hit with it, I can confirm pepper spray stings like a b*stard for about 30 mins, then all is fine again - i'd rather get pepper sprayed than water cannoned though, as that jet of water is bone-breakingly powerful and really should only be deployed to abate rioting where there is serious danger of the offending group causing harm to others.

All in all, don't really have any problem with the police tactics, quite restrained i'd say.

Same goes for you.
Are you really that close minded that only your opinion is the right one? or let me guess : you call yourself open minded as long as it is not the opinion of a conservative or god forbid a republican....

Learn how to argue in a grown up manner instead of hurling insults.

Ok, just for the record as I am probably missing a point: From what I understood did some students decide to camp on some patch of land in the middle of the campus as some sort of tribute to the occupy wall street movement. They had about 20 tents, did not attack anyone, did not really do anything to other students, teachers or staff, right?

I'd say it's a bit of a stupid idea, but hey - that's the type of stupid idea people in their early 20s are up to and dare I say I have "heard of" worse ideas...

Yes, the land belongs to the university and US universities seem to have own police forces - something rather weird for me. So they legally can arrest the students and charge them. They can probably also legally pepper spray them. They can even beat them with their sticks (as they did at another UC branch). It's probably all legal. But is that really the point? I don't think the question should be weather or not the cop can lose his job for spraying the pepper spray....

I think universities all over the planet have been the "playground" for young adults to discuss rights, freedom and yes - to actively try out some of those democratic rights like protesting or campaigning. I'd expect from an university to actually be happy if they have a student body that is not exclusively trying to become a corporate drone as quickly as possible but sometimes look a bit beyond the own major.

Just as I would expect a campus police to have a bit more patience with party goers on a weekend night than an inner city police department would I expect them to not use full force against the students. Honestly, the "protest" on the video is somewhere between "very calm" and pathetic. The reports on the police being encircled and needed to fight a way out is quite obviously complete rubbish as no student dared to get remotely close to them, let alone in any way physical. A water cannon would have been an absolute overkill (and besides that do they rarely shoot water - there is mace mixed in it....).

So what should the cops have done? Well, carry the protesters away - one by one - and arrest them. (That's for example exactly what they do when there are peaceful roadblocks against nuclear waste transporter in Northern Germany). There was no danger, so no need to use any weapon.

they where asked to move, they didn't, got sprayed, and moved, job done, whats the issue?? no one was hurt

on a side note, why are the police holding paint ball guns??

That's what I keep telling my wife! I pepper-spray her face every time she doesn't do as I say. I give her fair warning and all too. She says it's abuse, but just tell her that it saves me from giving her a proper beating that might break her nose or leave bruises.

If I had a level of argument to engage with that was beyond that of a 9th grade high school debate team, I might be able to.

What, never made it passed 9th grade? It would explain your manner of arguing.....

Seems there is many more on this site that lean towards my way of thinking (against the protest) than yours though. Ill let you figure out what that means on who is "thick and immature"(your words).....

In any case I think the argument is over with both sides having stated their thoughts and believes anyways....

I did my undergrad at Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement started. Normally, I support any kind protest if done peacefully and by the people who support the protest. Unfortunately, my experience with protests in CA and the Bay Area, is that many of the protesters have no ties to the "movement" but just want to cause trouble. Which creates a lose-lose situation.

Very unfortunate, as I think the OWS protests around the country are long overdue to put the rich on notice. It boggles my mind to think that the extremely wealthy do not seem to be aware that once the lower and middle classes cease to believe that they can attain the "American Dream"... than they are dead.

Want to start living in walled cities and become like Mexico City?

fduvall

On the other hand , the rich will (most likely) always be rich and at the current rate there will be enough rich people to go around. I dont get your point about the American dream ceasing ...care to elaborate? If anything in my opinion the American dream will grow again as small business are back on the rise, people are buying local again and the whole thing against corporate greed etc.


EDIT: just to be clear, I am asking for your elaborated opinion here, not stating you are wrong or anything like that. It seems some members like to go on the personal attack route when someone does not agree with them......

They're not cops 24/7. They have a life outside of law enforcement. I believe that they had plans to go paint balling after, but this 'occupy the sidewalk' nonsense was going on too long. Quickly and nonchalantely they dealt with them, ready for the company paintball tournament soon to follow.

This situation reminds me of a classic kid-crisis scenario: kid1 picks at kid2 until kid2 finally hauls off and smacks kid1- who immediately runs to mama claiming injustice .

The students had been asked by the school not to protest where and how they were doing it, the school tried to offer options for them to voice their opinion and assemble in another place/manner, but the protesters didn't want to.

The cops shouldn't have sprayed- but they as well asked the kids to move more than once and met refusal, then warned of the spray, then sprayed. Cue running to mama. Except here, the chancellor of the school- who did not condone the cops actions and wanted to help the kids protest, just differently- is now being demanded to resign by the little brats.

The 1st amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, but not whenever and wherever one wants. In this situation, they were on private property, and were being offered alternatives but wanted to be hardheaded. Bitching about money woes and I would bet that 95% or more of those kids have a smart phone, a killer bicycle and more than likely a nicer car than my mom drives. Police state . Trotting that out is disrespectful to the millions who have lived and those who still do live in a real police state.

What is the American dream? Own your own home and work for yourself? The thing that seems to be different now, compared to 30, 40 years ago is that you could be solidly middle class, send your kids to a decent college, own a nice home, have a car or two. Now it seems you're either rich or poor....the people in the middle are struggling and disappearing. Have people been greedy? Yeah, I guess that happens too.

I think we exaggerate the importance of small businesses- I read something recently arguing that loss of jobs in large businesses is really a greater problem - I was actually quite surprised to see it. But anyway, It's hard for small businesses to be competitive - they don't enjoy the economies of scale that large businesses have with respect to capital, plant and health benefits. My sister is a small business owner in the US and it's a struggle. As the costs to do business increase, it is more difficult to run a small business...you have to figure out how to attract and keep talent, but not pay too much.

As far as the rich are concerned, of course taxing them will not solve everything, but the issue is that proportionally, the tax burden on the rich is far less than it was 30 years ago, and far less proportionally when compared to middle income folks, and with increased military funding, need for infrastructure and demographic changes, increasing taxes on the rich does make sense to me anyway. And I do think that in the US, people with money have too much political influence.

And then there is corporate behavior. I don't think anyone is worth 20, 30, 40 million dollars a year for leading a company to loss. I don't think financial institutions deserve to be bailed out at taxpayer expense for irresponsible gambling.

But this is all my opinion, anyway.

Agreed on all 4 points BUT I also know several smaller business owners specially in the boat industry, and hospitality industry. Their business have been going up substantially. People are now buying bio and local and pest free food from mostly Local farmers markets etc...so it is on the rise. The economy will settle itself sooner than later.

In my opinion this whole thing is a reality check of how much you really need instead of want. I have no sympathy for people living above their means. Same for college students Have you seen the prices of this Uni? http://facts.ucdavis.edu/current_fees_tuition.lasso

Attack the school instead and get them to lower the price or go to a cheap community college. And look at ALL the nice new cameras taking the pics mmmm


Oh and I hate corporations But we need them as much as they need us. Doesnt mean I will ever work for one again....

It was my understanding that UC's are public properties.

nope,

On my campus you werent allowed to smoke for example. They had their own police etc etc

I guess it just means they get funding from the gov.

Yes and no... They can't protest on private property, obstruct legitimate functions, nor break any laws in place while protesting. If somebody decided they didn't like me (or you) and decided to set up on my (or your) lawn and protest, I could call the police and ask them to have the protesters removed, because they are trespassing on my property. If the protesters refused, they could be subject to forcible removal (including the use of pepper spray or stronger methods) and arrest, irregardless of whether they are protesting peacefully or not.

Further, if the protesters block Main Street or, say, the entrance to a hospital, the police can require them to move to allow traffic (in the case of Main Street) to flow or ambulances and medical staff (in the case of the hospital) to go about their business.

Third, if there were noise ordinances in place, and protesters were peaceably (but loudly) protesting, they could be asked to protest more quietly, and if they don't comply, the police are obligated to respond.

Also, in the US (since this is where it happened), the First Amendment to the Constitution only states that 'Congress shall make no law,' not that anyone actually has a right to protest, and further, does not prevent individual states, counties, and municipalities from enacting laws regulating or even preventing peaceable assemblies. Every state and city has different laws regarding what is and is not a legal assembly.

From the original video, one cannot tell what has happened prior to the beginning of the video, which IMO, is crucial to determining whether the police did or did not act inappropriately. I will, however, make some basic assumptions:

1. The police don't ordinarily dispatch officers, en-masse, in riot gear to deal with peaceful, responsible, protesters- it is simply too expensive, and it takes police officers away from other legitimate police functions. There obviously was some reason officers were so equipped in this situation.

2. Most police officers don't make it a habit of arbitrarily pepper gassing people, and there was no high-tension, high-stakes, event going on here (like a high-speed chase or shootout, for example) that could lead to adrenaline-fueled mistakes. The officer in the video waited, slowly approached the sitting students, and started with an initial light application of pepper spray (the device he was using is capable of dispersing a much larger volume, if the officer had chosen). These are not the actions of a sadistic, evil person, or even of someone who was following orders to which he had an objection.

3. Simply because an action by the police is unpopular (people shouting 'Shame on you' in the video) does not make it immoral or illegal. The police obviously believed they were acting on firm legal grounds.

Based on these assumptions, I will opine that the protesters were somewhere where they should not have been (private property or obstructing a legitimate function), were asked to leave (repeatedly, probably) or move, refused to do so, and were forced off the spot (rightly IMO) by the police.