# Thats alot of pepper spray.



## ballen0351

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45368260/

A UC-Davis professor called for the chancellor to step down, saying she was to blame for police pepper-spraying students during an Occupy protest on campus.
"You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt," Nathan Brown, an assistant professor in the Department of English, wrote in an open letter to Katehi.
He said she was accountable for "the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest."
Brown was referring to an incident Friday in which UC Davis police arrested 10 protesters and pepper-sprayed about a dozen more while trying to clear an Occupy encampment on campus, according to the Davis Enterprise.
The students who were pepper-sprayed were sitting on the ground, arms linked in solidarity. Brown said several of them had to be treated at the hospital.

Me I would have ran away like a little girl when I saw that big can come out.  I HATE OC spray.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

its orange.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

California Penal Code Section 12403.7 (a) (8)
(g) Any person who uses tear gas or tear gas weapons except in  self-defense is guilty of a public offense and is punishable  by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years or  in a county jail not to exceed one year or by a fine not to exceed one  thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, except  that, if the use is against a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5  (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, engaged in the  performance of his or her official duties and the person committing the  offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace  officer, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for  16 months or two or three years or by a fine of one thousand dollars  ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.


----------



## Sukerkin

All that photo above needs is to have "... and the Land of the Free"  emblazoned across it.

But it's okay, the police are only oppressing people you don't like ...  I'm sure it's not a sign of anything ominous.


----------



## seasoned

It needs to be orange so you can be sure your hitting the target. It cuts down on over spray. 

Also, considering to physical shape the LEO are in, hands on would be out of the question, ergo the "orange" spray...........

Not taking sides, merely an observation on my part..................


----------



## MJS

Give them multiple warnings.  If they fail to listen to the warnings, and are resisting efforts from the PD to physically remove them, then pull out the spray.  Yeah, of course this looks bad, but if you're causing a public disturbance........

Imagine if they pulled out a baton and started beating people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I don't have a problem with it.

The police were in an untenable position.  They were ordered to clear the square; they were enforcing the law.  The students had linked arms and refused to move.  That left police officers with the unenviable task of using some form of persuasion to separate the students and move them or arrest them.  For the police officers, _"leaving them alone"_ was not an option; that's a political or policy discussion, it has nothing to do with the officers.

When making arrests of this nature, injury to officers is almost a given.  In the 1970's, hippies used to link arms like this and 'go limp' when arrested.  Officers would get injured trying to pry them apart from one another, and they'd suffer injuries including hernias trying to carry the protesters away.

Police officers do not have to expose themselves to voluntary injury when there are other non-lethal options available to them.  It is not their job to sacrifice their health and well-being to avoid injuring law-breakers (even peaceful civil-disobedience style law-breakers).

The police chose the least-lethal way to get the protesters to give up and surrender.  They protesters won as well; they avoided potentially more serious injury *AND they got a public relations coup* from a media and a public that do not understand why the evil bad police officers didn't just _'leave those kids alone'_.  If leaving the kids alone had been an option for the police officers, they would have gladly done so.

Bottom line; the police used the least-lethal means of force they had available to perform their jobs.  Sorry it makes people feel bad for the poor kids; they broke the law, they choose to resist (passively), they got what they got.  That's the nature of civil disobedience, by the way.  It actually worked they way it's supposed to work; the protesters had to know that.  It's a political win for them; the police were pawns in their scheme.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> At least 10 demonstrators were arrested Friday at an Occupy demonstration at UC Davis.
> 
> A total of 11 people were treated medically on the campus and two were taken to the hospital.
> 
> ...
> 
> Police say the students were given until 3 p.m. Friday to remove their  28 tents from the campus. When students refused, police arrived at the  given time. Students sat down cross-legged and locked arms when cops  showed up.
> 
> Police say the demonstrators surrounded them, prompting them to use pepper spray.
> 
> Police pepper sprayed the demonstrators and dragged some away.
> 
> Students chanted at the officers, "Shame on you, shame on you!"
> 
> Demonstrators were protesting a recently approved tuition increase at the University of California system.
> 
> http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines...s-at-occupy-uc-davis-20111118,0,1876312.story







Watch the video.  
 The officers attempt to peacefully arrest them. 
 The protesters lock arms and resist. 
 They are ordered to comply. 
 They refuse by continuing to lock arms and pull tight. 
 The officers made several attempts to separate them for arrest. 
 The protesters were resisting arrest. It was passive, however it was still resistance.
 Police options were: Back down or Escalate.

 The protesters passive resistance made a more aggressive stance by the officers necessary. 

 This was the course of action least likely to result in permanent  injury to both sides. The only other option would have been to allow  them to continue to defy lawful orders.

 Having reviewed the entire clip, I see no -excessive-. I see a proper LEO response to non-compliant arrestees. 

 The take downs, and arrests are fine.

The spray was used to get them to release their locks on one another to allow the cops to arrest them.  Other options that could have been used include the use of batons (injury), boots (injury), bean bag rounds (injury), fire hose (injury), dogs (injury), tasers (injury) see the problem? 

Cops here know I hold you guys accountable and have no problem pointing at issues.
I see no issue here with the actions of the officers.


----------



## jks9199

The technical term is "Passive *Resistance*".  Non-compliance with an order to disperse is still resistance.  Pepper spray is generally accepted as a reasonable use of force against passive resistance. 

Don't want to get sprayed -- leave when the cops tell you it's time to go.  You stop being a peaceful, civil protest when you begin to break the law.


----------



## Brian King

Arms linked?  Hook one prong on the left end and one prong on the right end and taze, current goes thru from lead to lead. Green use of force, efficient and good for group dance and bonding. In reality, pepper spray is easier on all parties involved as physical force often leads to escalation and injuries. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Problem with using the taser is patchuli can be flammable, and smells horrible when burned.


----------



## billc

Bob, in your list of alternatives to making them move I would like to point out you forgot "Bulldozer," the most efficient alternative when you need to move a lot of people quickly.


----------



## Josh Oakley

billcihak said:


> Bob, in your list of alternatives to making them move I would like to point out you forgot "Bulldozer," the most efficient alternative when you need to move a lot of people quickly.


Not very good for group dance or bonding though.


----------



## Josh Oakley

I just don't have any sympathy for these kids. First off, they're complaining about the tuition in CALIFORNIA (my wife went to school in cali... They don't have it hard.) Second, they were trespassingng, and resisting arrest. The cops in this situation handled themselves responsibly and professionally.


----------



## WC_lun

Just something to keep in mind, the students had permission to protest there.  What the chancellor had issue with was the tents.  She said protest were fine as long as there were no tents.  So some of those students were not breaking the rules as they were laid down.

I think the pepper spray might have been a little much, but at least it wasn't something that would be injurious or even fatal.  Also, if you don't want to be pepper sprayed, then you might be in the wrong place.  It is kind of sad given that we are supposed to have the right to peacably assemble and protest here.  From all indications, while perhaps a pain in the butt to the police ordered to clear them out, the protestors offered no violence.  As long as this tactic is continued to be used to clear out protestors, sympathies will continue to build for them.  Seems to be the opposite of what the goal apears to be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

WC_lun said:


> Just something to keep in mind, the students had permission to protest there.  What the chancellor had issue with was the tents.  She said protest were fine as long as there were no tents.  So some of those students were not breaking the rules as they were laid down.
> 
> I think the pepper spray might have been a little much, but at least it wasn't something that would be injurious or even fatal.  Also, if you don't want to be pepper sprayed, then you might be in the wrong place.  It is kind of sad given that we are supposed to have the right to peaceably assemble and protest here.  From all indications, while perhaps a pain in the butt to the police ordered to clear them out, the protesters offered no violence.  As long as this tactic is continued to be used to clear out protesters, sympathies will continue to build for them.  Seems to be the opposite of what the goal appears to be.



Well, I think you have just outlined the protester's tactics.  Such protests work by garnering public sympathy.  Please note that they were blocking a public sidewalk.  No right to public protest supercedes the right of others to peaceably assemble, or to walk down a public sidewalk or street or through a park.  Had they been off to the side...but they were not.  Why?  Because they wished to be arrested.  Fair enough, that's what civil disobedience is all about.  And they had the option to get up and leave when ordered to do so by lawful authority.  They chose not to do so.

But this was all intentional.  Every spray in the face they take garners sympathy for them, *AS THEY INTEND.*

EDIT: My spell-checker fixed your spelling errors.  My bad, I wasn't paying attention and thought they were mine.  I am too lazy to back and put them back in again; I'm not doing it to give you a hard time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

If you look, many of them had already pulled hoods tight.  They were prepared for the spray.  To put it bluntly, they wanted to be sprayed.
Why? So that people would look at them sitting there 'peaceful', and the 'evil cop' viciously spraying them and do exactly what people are doing.
Going off on msg boards crying out 'see the evil cop spraying the peaceful protesters, how wrong!'.

The facts that they were resisting arrest, had refused -lawful- orders to move, and so forth, are ignored by otherwise logical minds, who are making emotional conclusions based on incomplete data.


----------



## Buka

That was a cool photo. The orange spray is pretty.

I was always taught to move when the policeman said move. I'm glad I was taught that way.  As for the protesters, I understand their point, I protested when I was a youngster, too, until the policeman said "move", that is.
But like Mark Twain said, "W_hen you pick up a cat by the tail, you learn a lesson you can learn in no other way."_


----------



## elder999

Of course, our nation was founded on dissent as a base principle.

And I can recall a time-well, I can't quite recall it, though I was apparently there for some of it-a time when nonviolent protesters were sprayed with firehoses, attacked with dogs, beaten and jailed.

I'm sure many watching at the time were just as certain that they deserved it as the rest of you.

I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed. 

You're proving to me that we deserve* everything *that's coming.


----------



## billc

Get real.  These people were protesting for months, unmolested and making a mess of almost everywhere they went.  They have been allowed to have their say, even as they hurt other people, local small businesses for example, and went unmolested for the whole time.  They blocked a public sidewalk, they have blocked streets, and have been politely asked to leave, several times, with warning after warning that they were breaking the law.  their refusal to comply with the law results in their arrest.  If they want the law changed they need to address that issue with their representatives in congress at the state and local level.  Because they are lazy, and don't want to actually work to change the situation through the appropriate channels, they have decided to act like spoiled children.


The past tactics of Democrats preventing American citizens their rights by using fire hoses, police batons and police dogs as well as more lethal methods are in no way comparable to what has been going on with the occupy wall street movement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Of course, our nation was founded on dissent as a base principle.
> 
> And I can recall a time-well, I can't quite recall it, though I was apparently there for some of it-a time when nonviolent protesters were sprayed with firehoses, attacked with dogs, beaten and jailed.
> 
> I'm sure many watching at the time were just as certain that they deserved it as the rest of you.
> 
> I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed.
> 
> You're proving to me that we deserve* everything *that's coming.



You are more aware than most that political protest is primarily political.  That means it relies upon attracting the attention of the media and gaining the sympathy of the media and the public.  Is it possible that these protesters did not expect to be arrested?  Is this outcome not the best they could have possibly expected from this particular situation?  No one got hurt; people have been outraged.  I have read online that the officers involved have all been suspended.  This will be tried in the court of public opinion *AS THE PROTESTERS INTENDED*.  Their arguments are based on emotion; so is their public appeal for sympathy.

I am not saying they are right or wrong; you know my opinion on that subject.  What I am saying is that they are maturing as a movement; they are learning how to manipulate the media to their advantage.  And that is what this is; manipulation.  The right does it, the the left does it.  There is nothing new here.  No outrage, no horrible intentions.  Everyone has played their part, all are tools, including the public.  The only victims are the police officers who will now lose their jobs for doing what they were told to do.

You are far smarter than most; you know how to recognize an appeal to the heart.  I'm surprised that you don't :rofl: this.


----------



## billc

Yes, this is just like protests from the old days...

http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/18/man-throws-aluminum-water-bottle-at-uc-berkeley-students-face/



> A man threw an aluminum water bottle at a UC Berkeley student Thursday evening on campus, causing minor injuries to the victim&#8217;s face.
> At about 5:09 p.m., the female student was approached by a man at &#8220;the northeast exterior of the Haas Pavilion,&#8221; according to a UCPD crime alert. The man asked the student if she was going to the protest on Sproul Plaza, and when the victim answered &#8220;no,&#8221; the suspect yelled at her.
> &#8220;People like you are the reason that California is in debt,&#8221; he said, according to the crime alert.
> The suspect then threw a full aluminum water bottle at the victim&#8217;s face. The victim then called UCPD and refused medical treatment for the bruise on her cheek. UCPD officers responded to the scene and checked the area, but could not locate the suspect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Everything old is new again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LE...q=mace protesters&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Sukerkin

*Elder* made the post I would have done - well said good sir.  

For it does indeed boil down to the fact that you are not being even the tiniest bit outraged that the law enforcement agencies of your country will be used to suppress dissent, no matter how peaceful.  

They blocked the pavement - ooh how evil and anarchistic of them.  They didn't move when the police officers ordered them to - well that is kind of the point of civil disobedient protest.

I can't really say it is the officers fault, they were doing what they were asked and, as yet, what was being asked of them was not going to end up with herding people onto cattle trucks.  But there does come a point, well defined by a certain set of famous trials, that following orders is not a sufficient excuse.  Now that point is so far over the horizon yet that it is almost comical to have to make it but creeping erosion of attitudes is what leads to such ends if you are not vigilant as individuals.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> *Elder* made the post I would have done - well said good sir.
> 
> For it does indeed boil down to the fact that you are not being even the tiniest bit outraged that the law enforcement agencies of your country will be used to suppress dissent, no matter how peaceful.
> 
> They blocked the pavement - ooh how evil and anarchistic of them.  They didn't move when the police officers ordered them to - well that is kind of the point of civil disobedient protest.
> 
> I can't really say it is the officers fault, they were doing what they were asked and, as yet, what was being asked of them was not going to end up with herding people onto cattle trucks.  But there does come a point, well defined by a certain set of famous trials, that following orders is not a sufficient excuse.  Now that point is so far over the horizon yet that it is almost comical to have to make it but creeping erosion of attitudes is what leads to such ends if you are not vigilant as individuals.



If the police had simply ignored them, they'd have found something more objectionable to do.  The point was to get arrested, and hopefully assaulted in the process.  I have difficulty understanding why people do not follow the logical sequence of events here.  Protesters do not get media coverage if they sit quietly on the lawn, not blocking anything, and don't get hassled by The Man.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> If you look, many of them had already pulled hoods tight.  They were prepared for the spray.  To put it bluntly, they wanted to be sprayed.
> Why? So that people would look at them sitting there 'peaceful', and the 'evil cop' viciously spraying them and do exactly what people are doing.
> Going off on msg boards crying out 'see the evil cop spraying the peaceful protesters, how wrong!'.
> 
> The facts that they were resisting arrest, had refused -lawful- orders to move, and so forth, are ignored by otherwise logical minds, who are making emotional conclusions based on incomplete data.



It's November and they were camping, so they wore hoodies.

Only a fool would take pepperspray and not try to shield as much a possible. (or LEOs in training...)

I must be one of the few hippies here.

No I don't blame the police. 

But as Suke suggested, 'following orders' only protects you to a certain extent. 
We have reached a point in society were playing by the rules will not get you heard. The jingle of money is drowning out the voice of the little man. 

We have had that in the past. Around here in the 1960s, in Europe the 80s were an interlude of massive protests.
You either listen or you encounter bigger problems.

I don't feel sorry for the protesters.
It's part of the path they have chosen.
They could have done like us and stayed home, behind our keyboards.

it is a powerful image people huddling on the ground being sprayed with a powerful chemical by the arm of authorities.
I am suspecting we will look back at this very photo down the roads and wonder where it all went wrong.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Sukerkin

I follow the SoE, Bill.  I agree with you, protest that inconveniences or embarrasses no-one and makes no noise beyond it's immediate vicinity is purposeless.  But that is not the point that those not lining up to shake the hand of the Man are making. 

I know you see it because I know you are both intelligent and well-read.

If these protesters were smashing windows, stealing anything not nailed down and setting fire to the University buildings then I'm with you ... roll up the APC's and open fire (I tend to go for extreme solutions when people shred the social contract ).  

But they weren't.  It doesn't even matter if they set out to provoke just such an incident - it was mind-bogglingly stupid of the authorities to react so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> ...it was mind-bogglingly stupid of the authorities to react so.



It is poor tactics to respond to the plan of the enemy, I agree.  But it's hardly the break-down of all authority, end-of-civilization moan and gasp that I'm reading around the 'net at the moment.  It's no watershed moment.  It's not EDIT: KENT State.  It's boring and mundane.  Protesters work the media and the police to their advantage.  Outrage and film at 11.  Sorry, not buying it.  The outraged can go be outraged somewhere else, I'm not interested.


----------



## Sukerkin

:nods:  I do agree that the media can be used to make a simple 'incident' seem worse by far than it is - but perceptions do matter, often much more than the reality.  Which is why it is worryingly symptomatic that many of my friends here at MT don't see that this pebble on the snowy slope can lead to much worse things, especially those who served in a law enforcement capacity and so have relevant experience.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sukerkin said:


> :nods:  I do agree that the media can be used to make a simple 'incident' seem worse by far than it is - but perceptions do matter, often much more than the reality.  Which is why it is worryingly symptomatic that many of my friends here at MT don't see that this pebble on the snowy slope can lead to much worse things, especially those who served in a law enforcement capacity and so have relevant experience.



Yes, law enforcement should read Sun Tzu.  Until a few weeks ago, most of the protesters were brain-dead zombies practicing public stupidity and exhibiting their lack of hygiene.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/20/1038367/-Sun_Tzu:-The-Art-of-Occupy

SIDE NOTE: I had a long phone conversation with a dear friend today who is one of the bridge-and-tunnel workers in Manhattan and has to pass them on foot every day going and coming from work.  He confirms to me what others are saying; the protesters do not ALL smell, which makes the ones who stink to high heaven particularly objectionable, since they apparently can bathe and choose not to.  He also noted with irony the man in dressed as Batman with huge 'gauge' piercings through various parts of his face and a facial tattoo complaining that he can't find a job.  Well, Sparky, there might be a reason for that.  People don't like to hire circus freaks unless they work for the circus, grok?  END OF SIDE NOTE.

Now some of the protesters are apparently exhibiting some new-found media savvy.  We shall see how things go from here.

But the police are trying to coordinate.  A fact not lost on the protesters and their pals.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/11/18/cop-group-coordinating-occupy-crackdowns

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole of getting wrapped around the axle about OWS again; so I'll stop here.  Suffice to say that as much as my life could be better, it could also be considerably worse.  I see public insurrection as a threat to my way of life, and if my way of life is threatened, I will do what I feel is appropriate to defend it.  I will not lose sleep over some protesters being pepper sprayed.  This is not Tienanmen Square, not by a long shot.  I want this nonsense quashed, and I'm not squeamish about how it's done.  Last time I said that, I lost friends.  So mote it be; I have cast out no friends, but I've been cast out over this.  But I am the intolerant one, eh?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So.

They were ordered to move.

They refused.

They were ordered to clear the sidewalk.

They refused.

They were ordered to stop -trespassing- and remove their tents.

They refused.

What is the appropriate law enforcement response when someone refuses to obey ---lawful--- orders?

You are outraged. You are upset.  Fine.

Present an alternate solution.

"Not this" is NOT an acceptable answer.  You must have an actual answer.
"ask again" is also not an acceptable answer.
"ignore them" is also not an acceptable answer.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> So.
> 
> They were ordered to move.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> They were ordered to clear the sidewalk.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> They were ordered to stop -trespassing- and remove their tents.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> What is the appropriate law enforcement response when someone refuses to obey ---lawful--- orders?
> 
> You are outraged. You are upset.  Fine.
> 
> Present an alternate solution.
> 
> "Not this" is NOT an acceptable answer.  You must have an actual answer.
> "ask again" is also not an acceptable answer.
> "ignore them" is also not an acceptable answer.



You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Because: if we do what we have always done and expect the outcome to be different...that's insanity.

People ignore homeless people all the time, to the point they step over them when they get in the way.

We are great in ignoring people.
and it's not like you can't  walk across the grass to avoid them....


----------



## Sukerkin

Bob, just one question.  If these people were protesting about something you actually cared about and agreed with, would you still think the same?

If you can honestly answer "Yes, it is okay to use the law enforcement arm of the government to quash politically motivated, (mostly) non-violent discontent", then I don't know that that is in-line with the 'American Way'; isn't it supposed to be part of your cultural history that protest and dissent is something of a right?

Of course, I'm not American, don't live there and never want to live there, so it is hard for me to be on sure and certain ground when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts of what it means to be 'American'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Suk.... I would feel the same regardless.

Let me put it this way.  You know my position on same-sex marriage. I support that right. But the law at the Federal level doesn't recognize it. I see it as not the Federal's business outside of a Constitutional amendment. So, despite my support for the cause, I can't see it being a federal issue until they change the core law of the land.  

I had to go back and look up why they were protesting. The -reason- was never a consideration in my comments and position.

Let me contrast this with the recent protest by Occupy Buffalo of a local foreclosure lawyer.
No arrests. No problems with police. No one was beaten. No one was pepper sprayed.
They didn't make it an issue.  They peacefully protested, made their point, then went back to camping in the middle of down town Buffalo.

I don't agree with the OB folks. I think they're wasting their time.
But I can't complain about their behavior. As far as I can tell, they are keeping to the 'peaceful protest' that is guaranteed in the US.
The groups getting maced, aren't.


----------



## jks9199

The right of free and peaceful assembly isn't absolute.  It can be restricted by place or time, by requiring permits, and, within certain bounds, even by topic or group.  It most certainly doesn't extend to occupying private property without the consent of the property owner; recall that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is almost exclusively about the relationship of the People and the Government.  You can freely assemble, with appropriate permits, in front of my house, in the public street.  Step on my lawn, and your trespassing -- and I can stop you.  I can cause you to be arrested.  Even if my sole reason is that I disagree with you.

The students here, whatever they had been told previously, were told by the police on behalf of the dean to leave.  They not only didn't do so -- but took steps to make it harder to remove them.  They can't do that.  And when they did -- the police used reasonable force to make them comply.

Folks -- here's a tip.  You generally get asked to do something once by a cop.  Then you get told.  Finally, if you haven't done it -- you are made to do it.  EVERYONE is happier if it never reaches that last step.


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> Of course, our nation was founded on dissent as a base principle.
> 
> And I can recall a time-well, I can't quite recall it, though I was apparently there for some of it-a time when nonviolent protesters were sprayed with firehoses, attacked with dogs, beaten and jailed.
> 
> I'm sure many watching at the time were just as certain that they deserved it as the rest of you.
> 
> I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed.
> 
> You're proving to me that we deserve* everything *that's coming.



Sorry...  You're comparing apples and oranges.  The situation here was simple.  People refused a lawful order.  Reasonable force was employed to make them comply.

They absolutely have every right to protest.  But they have to obey the law.  If they don't, they have to accept the consequences.  In the 60s, those protesting realized and accepted that they might be arrested.  That those arrests may not be gentle.  They felt their cause justified the risk.

Elder, I'll be first on the line to protect someone demonstrating -- if they don't break the law.  I'm tired.  It's been a really long several days for me -- and I haven't had to deal with protesters.  Just the ordinary idiocy.  The Occupy groups around here did a protest on Friday; they marched to the Key Bridge, one of the major transportation links into DC from Virginia.  They didn't block the road.  They made their point.  I'll absolutely defend their right to do this -- this way.  Had they instead blocked the bridge, snarling traffic throughout the DC/MD/VA area even worse then it ordinarily is -- they'd get arrested.  Their right to protest doesn't trump someone else's right to go home after working all day.

Let me share a dirty not-so-secret about protest arrests today.  Many of them are staged.  They decide who's going to be arrested, when, and where, and the press shows up.  The arrestees get their perp walk, and often are released quickly afterwards.

By the way -- I haven't said that OC was the only way, or even the best way, to deal with this group.  Merely that it was a reasonable use of force.  I don't know enough about the situation.  Did they need to be hustled out -- or would waiting have been better?  Don't know, I wasn't there, and the press accounts are incomplete.  But the students WERE in the wrong; they were refusing to move when told by lawful authority.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

jks9199 said:


> Folks -- here's a tip.  You generally get asked to do something once by a cop.  Then you get told.  Finally, if you haven't done it -- you are made to do it.  EVERYONE is happier if it never reaches that last step.



We used to call it _"Ask 'em, tell 'em, take 'em."_  I guess nothing has changed.  Nor should it.


----------



## granfire

Nah, guys, you can't hide behind lawful order.
Sadly history is rife with example how 'lawful order' was turned on it's head.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> Nah, guys, you can't hide behind lawful order.
> Sadly history is rife with example how 'lawful order' was turned on it's head.



I don't know how to say it more clearly.  I'm not 'hiding' behind anything.  I have no problem with this.  I've said from the beginning, turn on the fire hoses, mace the crap out of 'em.  I do NOT care.  They wanted this result and they got it.  Pure media manipulation and the gullible sympathetic public are all too eager to play 'bad cop' songs.  Well, the cops are not the bad guys, the protesters are.  They should be glad they did not get tased or their heads busted with nightsticks; end of story.  I apologize for nothing; they got what they wanted and had coming to them.  Too bad, so sad.


----------



## granfire

not saying you should pity them.

As I said, it's the path they chose. 

However 'they did not follow lawful order', well, we had that happen in the past. 

There is lawful
ethical
and moral

and non of the three do necessarily intersect. 

This is not the 'bad cop' song.

this is more about abusing the muscle cops symbolize to avoid dealing with the issue. 

The University bigwig was withing his/her right to call the cops
the cops did nothing illegal

But:
is it really morally justified to spray people crouching on the ground?

Were will this lead to?

After all, the 'movement' has grown from the people's need to be heard. And frankly It is about time.
Now, by taking forceful measures to deal with peaceful protest, where will this lead to?

The past has taught us that nothing good will come from it.
And as images from the past are teaching us now, nothing has really changed.

So, by lawfully spraying and arresting peaceful protestors, what events yet to be seen have been set into motion.

this is not a 'they are right and they are wrong' deal.

this is a case of 'where will that lead us?'

and you have to admit: it is really impressive to find that many people who will forego civil comforts to make a point. It has not happened in this scale in this country in 40 or 50 years! 

We are talking about a generation where you can't 5 people within 11 millions to complete a dungeon....(nerd reference)
the occupy movement is pretty impressive.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> but:
> Is it really morally justified to spray people crouching on the ground?



yes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Remember some time back I posted a clip of a LEO take down? It involved the cop kneeling on the neck area? Look that discussion up for some intel on take downs.   I do a few seminars that are mostly LEOs. I've grilled em. I ask the 'clueless civi' questions. I get a lot of feedback. I've annoyed a number of LEOs on here with my posts. I know it. I've heard it. So, you have to realize, if I see a bad-cop issue, I'm not afraid to push it.
I don't see this as anything wrong on the part of the cops.
In this case.

Tony Balony was different.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuumThis model is adapted from a United States government publication on use of force.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum#cite_note-4[/SUP]  It lists multiple tactics that police has used, in order from least to  most severe, but is only a partial model, as it does not give  corresponding degrees of subject resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> Verbal command
> Handcuff suspect
> Use wrist/arm lock
> Use takedown
> Block/punch/kick
> Strike suspect
> Wrestle suspect
> Pepper spray
> Use baton
> Use firearm
> It can also be broken down into the standard police use of force continuum:
> 
> 1. Physical Presence
> 2. Soft Hands
> 3. Mace or Pepper Spray
> (A K-9 unit would fall here)
> 4. Hard Hands
> 5. Police Baton, Taser, etc.
> 6. Threat of Deadly Force
> 7. Deadly Force



The officers gave verbal commands. They were ignored.
In order to handcuff the protesters, their hands needed to be accessible. As they were locked, they were not. Control over the suspects hands needed to be obtained.
Locks were not an option due to placement.
Takedowns were equally not an option due to suspect placement, and risk of injury to all involved.
Suspects were not struck, punched nor kicked to avoid injury.
Wrestling was done after moving to pepper spray to encourage protesters to release their holds in order to safely cuff them.
Baton use was limited to prying hands apart in order to handcuff.
At all levels resistance continued.
Once physical resistance begins, non-violence ends.
Hard strikes, taser, deadly force were avoided.


I repeat, what options did they have to obtain compliance and removal?


----------



## WC_lun

This isn't an issue of whether the pepper spray was an adequete use of force or not.  In my opinion, it had to be expected.  My point is this movement is not going away.  Every time those in authority use the police to try and silence it, OWS will become stronger.  There are only two ways for this movement to be silenced, ignore them until they realize nothing will change and thier voices will not be heard, or address the issues that have merit.  Yes, some of thier issues have merit that even most of the right can agree with, like too much money in politics.  Until one of those two outcomes happen, I am afraid that things will continue to escelate.  As mentioned, this is not even close to a Kent State, but Kent State was not the beginning of that movement, nor was it a stand alone event happening in a vaccumn.  

If the pepper spray does not dissuade the protestors from returning, then what?  What level of violence are you comfortable with in dispursing protestors you do not agree with?  I personally am okay with the MEASURED use of pepper spray and physical removal of people practicing civil disobedience.  I am not comfortable with the use of billy clubs and rubber bullets. It is my sincere hope that Americans do not start viewing these people as anything other than Americans practicing thier rights.  If that happens, violence on the level that none of us want will occur.  I hope that none of us would be comfortable with fire hoses, beatings, or bullets.  Thinking that would not happen ignores the lessons history has taught us.

As far as the spell check, no worries   I try, but spelling has never been a strong suite of mine.  Hopefully it isn't so bad that the message is lost.


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> yes.



ok, let me rephrase that:

As martial artist (yes, digging deep) is it ethical to attack an opponent who is not actively engaging you?

maybe this gets closer to the point.

(it is actually amazing how far the country has come in just a shade of over 200 years...yes, I am poking fun, since civil disobedience is at the heart of the nations foundation)


----------



## shesulsa

*is drumming her fingers waiting for a Tienanmen Square-like incident to wake everyone's *** up as to what's going on right now*

[yt]6inWKFKv9UA[/yt]


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> ok, let me rephrase that:
> 
> As martial artist (yes, digging deep) is it ethical to attack an opponent who is not actively engaging you?



Absolutely.  Waiting to get hit before defending yourself is foolish, risky, and unnecessary even in the laws of self-defense. 

But more to the point.  A police officer is not required, as most of us are, to only use violence in self-defense.  They can also use it in enforcement of the law.  Example; I arrest a DUI driver.  They stand there, frozen, refusing to put their hands behind their back, refusing to submit to a pat-down search, but otherwise offering no physical attack.  They are passively resisting me arresting them.  Am I then supposed to walk away from them and choose not to arrest them, since they are not attacking me?  No, they get arrested anyway.  If I have to apply a wristlock with pain compliance to get them in handcuffs, or taser them, or kick the back of their knees to drop them onto their knees, I am going to do that.  This is not police brutality, this is the police doing their job.  They are required to arrest suspected DUI drivers, even when (surprise) those drivers do not want to be arrested, and even when those drivers do not offer active resistance but still refuse to be handcuffed.  This is no different.  The police ordered them to disperse, they failed to do so.  At which point the police applied force in the form of non-lethal pepper spray to remove them.  End of story.



> maybe this gets closer to the point.
> 
> (it is actually amazing how far the country has come in just a shade of over 200 years...yes, I am poking fun, since civil disobedience is at the heart of the nations foundation)


----------



## crushing

shesulsa said:


> *is drumming her fingers waiting for a Tienanmen Square-like incident to wake everyone's *** up as to what's going on right now*



Not everyone will wake up and the people that do wake up will be marginalized.  Recall the responses to the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents.


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> Absolutely.  Waiting to get hit before defending yourself is foolish, risky, and unnecessary even in the laws of self-defense.
> 
> But more to the point.  A police officer is not required, as most of us are, to only use violence in self-defense.  They can also use it in enforcement of the law.  Example; I arrest a DUI driver.  They stand there, frozen, refusing to put their hands behind their back, refusing to submit to a pat-down search, but otherwise offering no physical attack.  They are passively resisting me arresting them.  Am I then supposed to walk away from them and choose not to arrest them, since they are not attacking me?  No, they get arrested anyway.  If I have to apply a wristlock with pain compliance to get them in handcuffs, or taser them, or kick the back of their knees to drop them onto their knees, I am going to do that.  This is not police brutality, this is the police doing their job.  They are required to arrest suspected DUI drivers, even when (surprise) those drivers do not want to be arrested, and even when those drivers do not offer active resistance but still refuse to be handcuffed.  This is no different.  The police ordered them to disperse, they failed to do so.  At which point the police applied force in the form of non-lethal pepper spray to remove them.  End of story.



you fail to get the point.
Also, a person not engaging you...how is there a threat of being struck?

I am not arguing the police action itself. So far the 'following orders' covers them neatly. (also a DUI case is poor substitution for a protestor sitting on the pavement: driving a ton of steel down the road while only marginally capable _is_ a danger. Some lump on the sidewalk can be bypassed)

The issues are growing and the approach to them has to evolve with them.
or we might very well end up with a Tienanmen Square situation....or Kent....

So far all things are quiet, but let the frustration rise a bit more....
And it's not like it's rocket science either. So far almost all major expressions of civil discord have been met at some point with violence and escalated from there. I can only name one that stayed peaceful through out until it's resolution: East Germany's protests that ultimately ended in the fall of the Berlin Wall.


----------



## CanuckMA

In these days of instant dissimination of uncontrolled information, the police must always be cognisant of optics. I watched the entire video, and the actions do not appear to be excessive. 

BUT, the majority of the world will not watch a 8 minute video, all they will see is a still photo of a cop pepper spraying people who are sitting down.


----------



## jks9199

granfire said:


> ok, let me rephrase that:
> 
> As martial artist (yes, digging deep) is it ethical to attack an opponent who is not actively engaging you?
> 
> maybe this gets closer to the point.
> 
> (it is actually amazing how far the country has come in just a shade of over 200 years...yes, I am poking fun, since civil disobedience is at the heart of the nations foundation)


Not at all the same comparison -- but yes, it is, if they are preparing to attack you.

There's no ethical issue here.  These protesters were given a chance to exercise their rights.  When their time was up, they refused to comply.  They moved from protesting to law breaking.

But... if, over time, enough people get arrested rather than stop their protest, that sends a message.  In the 60s -- that led to changes in the laws.  If the Occupy Wherever protesters can get their act together to focus their energy -- they can create changes, too.  But that change will come with a price...


----------



## jks9199

One note...  The difference between the cops here and the Chinese military in Tiananmen Square is simple.  We have limits on the force we can use.  If, instead of pepper spray, the cops here had rolled out with a steam roller, and turned the protesters into new pavement -- the cops would be going to jail.  Police are held to using REASONABLE force to enforce the law.


----------



## granfire

jks9199 said:


> Not at all the same comparison -- but yes, it is, if they are preparing to attack you.
> 
> There's no ethical issue here.  These protesters were given a chance to exercise their rights.  When their time was up, they refused to comply.  They moved from protesting to law breaking.
> 
> But... if, over time, enough people get arrested rather than stop their protest, that sends a message.  In the 60s -- that led to changes in the laws.  If the Occupy Wherever protesters can get their act together to focus their energy -- they can create changes, too.  But that change will come with a price...



yes, the price to pay.

Like I said. I don't think the police acted wrong, nor do I pity the protesters.

The administration of the University? now we can argue that.

(but since we also lost a lot of our civil liberties in the 8 years of the previous administration, I think we are at a toss up more or less)


----------



## RandomPhantom700

elder999 said:


> I'm a little ashamed to know some of you right now, frankly-just really, really disappointed.
> 
> You're proving to me that we deserve* everything *that's coming.



Pretty much this. 

Let me ask everyone a question. And for the moment, forget about the content of what they're protesting. Could be tuition rates, could be political corruption, could be the color of the walls of their dorm rooms. Just forget about the content or subject of their protests and just focus on the fact that they're protesting.

They linked hands on public property. No violence; no disruption to passerbys, no fists connecting with noses. They sat in solidarity at a public location on a school campus. According to most of you on this thread, that's enough to justify pepper-spraying them. Or apparently bulldozing them, because pepper spray doesn't have enough gore for billicihak. 

This illustrates something for me very clearly: none of you actually give two craps about the First Amendment. ANY form of protest is apparently justification for cops to use force. Note: these students weren't the OWS crowd; they weren't stinking the place up, they weren't obstructing traffic, they were just protesting. 

Elder says he's a little ashamed. Personally, I'm disgusted.


----------



## jks9199

An enlightening take on this HERE


> In the end, the police cleared the sidewalk and the protesters got their  moment of glory for standing up to the cops. They also got something to  put out there to justify themselves.
> 
> This is not Kent State. This is a pre-scripted play.



Look at this video: 
[video=youtube_share;wyVAuBeEYN0]http://youtu.be/wyVAuBeEYN0[/video]

It's long - 15 minutes.  I admit; I skipped through it, since a lot of it is simply the crowd chanting with cops standing around.  Does it change the context a little?


----------



## granfire

jks9199 said:


> An enlightening take on this HERE



of course you have to protest where you will be seen...
otherwise you might as well march around your livingroom....

it's a 'DUH' moment right there. 

(and omg they covered their faces. Shows you that the young people of today have some brains left: After all, you gotta be really stupid to not cover when you know what's coming!) 

Enlightening blog?
well, it makes a bit more sense than what billi usually drags forth.

but sadly, it too is focused on the event with tunnel vision.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

That just confirms my previous comments that they had been given more than 1 chance to comply.


Your right to protest ends at my right to move.
In -this- case, no 1'st Amendment rights were violated.

People are sobbing "kent state" and "china". 
These aren't all quite, polite, peaceful protesters.

Cops are being hit with water balloons full of chemicals.
They are being cut by the same weapons hijackers used to cause 9/11. (there, a little emotional tug back)
Rocks are being thrown.
Molotov cocktails readied.
Protesters are carrying a range of weapons from knives, to bats, to AK47's.
They are bullying and assaulting merchants.

That is not peaceful protest. That is a riot 1 step short of going off.

What would you have the police do?

Stay home?  Join them?

Power to the people my ***.  When you break the law, when you become violent, when you deface property, issue threats, assault, rape, and so forth, you have moved past what the US Constitution allows, into the area of insurrection, which the US Constitution allows to be put down at sword point. 

If some protester is run over by a tank, it will be because the sorry son of a ***** stood there and let it happen.
Like this





Not like this


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> That just confirms my previous comments that they had been given more than 1 chance to comply.
> 
> 
> Your right to protest ends at my right to move.
> In -this- case, no 1'st Amendment rights were violated.


I suppose they got to do their thing.



> People are sobbing "kent state" and "china".
> These aren't all quite, polite, peaceful protesters.


Nope, not Kent State - yet.
No, in a crowd not everybody is peaceful and polite. On either side.



> Cops are being hit with water balloons full of chemicals.
> They are being cut by the same weapons hijackers used to cause 9/11. (there, a little emotional tug back)
> Rocks are being thrown.
> Molotov cocktails readied.
> Protesters are carrying a range of weapons from knives, to bats, to AK47's.
> They are bullying and assaulting merchants.


On the Campus of UC Davis?
Really?



> That is not peaceful protest. That is a riot 1 step short of going off.


action and reaction.
Frustration is a powerful fuel for anger and thus aggression.
Riots are often also fueled by it.



> What would you have the police do?



As stated, they did what they were called upon to do. 
However, did they need to be called? Who was bothered by the protests on the UC Davis campus? merchants? 



> Stay home?  Join them?


silly non-argument



> Power to the people my ***.  When you break the law, when you become violent, when you deface property, issue threats, assault, rape, and so forth, you have moved past what the US Constitution allows, into the area of insurrection, which the US Constitution allows to be put down at sword point.



Was any of this actually happening on that Campus?
What happens in NYC does not have any bearing on the action on the other side of the continent. 
I think it should read _if you become violent and break the law_. 

So far we have a bunch of people sitting on the sidewalk with linked arms.
No molotov cocktails, no weapons, no assaults no rapes, no?
No intend to engage in assaults.
yes, linking arms..it's threatening, because united people are stronger than a single person.

take this as a trickle down effect:
could this have been handled differently from the top down?

Again, don't pity the protesters. 
But don't make excuses for the administration of the college either. 

(and yeah, the cops are everybody's favorite whipping boy. They don't make policy they just get to swallow the rocks thrown at them...at least the guy in Ca didn't have that satisfied smirk on his face like the dude from the historical photo)


----------



## Bob Hubbard

again, the idiots pepper sprayed were actively resisting arrest. 
The cops actions were warranted, and acceptable in this case.

My reply was aimed at the movement as a whole.

But ok.



How about this.
For the next week, -all- cops will go home. If it involves these peaceful protesters (you know, the ones peacefully throwing cash registers, smashing windows and threatening hot dog vendors), the cops will stand down and allow them to do their thing.  They can sit in the middle of I90 at the peak of rush hour and do their thing, with no cops hassling them at all.

I give it an hour before some civilian takes a coal shovel to someones head.
Non-violently of course.

I feel for the cops, who are doing their jobs, only to have mayors and governors and pompous councilmen cut their balls out from under them and throw them under bus anfter bus after bus.
I feel for the cops who are trying to keep the streets safe for 100% of us, not the 2% claiming to be 99% who think a protest is an excuse for a drum circle and free stolen food.

So, let them protest. Let them express their 'rights', with the chemical throwing, pooping, raping, destruction of property, traffic blocks and all that other peaceful stuff.

You boys in blue, go get a coffee.


----------



## shesulsa

jks9199 said:


> Not at all the same comparison -- but yes, it is, if they are preparing to attack you.
> 
> There's no ethical issue here.  These protesters were given a chance to exercise their rights.  When their time was up, they refused to comply.  They moved from protesting to law breaking.



So ... our constitutional rights have an expiration date?  Perhaps a good catalyst might be for citizens to be informed of this formally.



jks9199 said:


> An enlightening take on this HERE
> 
> 
> Look at this video:
> [video=youtube_share;wyVAuBeEYN0]http://youtu.be/wyVAuBeEYN0[/video]
> 
> It's long - 15 minutes.  I admit; I skipped through it, since a lot of it is simply the crowd chanting with cops standing around.  Does it change the context a little?



I am currently watching the entire thing. I just paused it at 6:48 where a police car is driving on the sidewalk of the campus directly towards the group of seated students.  So no, so far it hasn't changed my perspective much. I'll let you know if watching every second of the video does, however.


----------



## shesulsa

Okay. So ... I guess I'm supposed to vote against people who perpetuate the status quo and vote for people who have repeatedly demonstrated fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and who actively seek to protect the people.

I do.

I am to support small business with my patronage and refuse to shop at certain stores whose corporate policies I disagree with, boycott events and venues who perpetuate ideals counterproductive to the survival of the American economy.

I do.

I am to cooperate with all laws and efforts by law enforcement officials to maintain public safety and right-of-way.

I do.

Many do. Not much changes. The words "civil disobedience" mean nothing without the second word. I look forward to the day the cops sit down with the citizens ... but then they would not be doing their job.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

There are cops in the movement. They get **** on from both sides.

For them, make it an espresso because Folgers just aint doing it.


----------



## clfsean

shesulsa said:


> So ... our constitutional rights have an expiration date?  Perhaps a good catalyst might be for citizens to be informed of this formally.



No there's no time limit on them... but when a LEO asks you to do something & you say no, tells you to do something & you say no, then orders you to do something, at that point you are breaking a lawful order of a law enforcement officer & therefore in breech of the law & subject to arrest according to your state's statutes. 

Protesting is one thing & it's a great thing that we have the ability to do free of fear. Civil disobedience is another benefit as well. 

However, when/if a law enforcement officer requests/tells/orders you to disburse from that gathering, acting on orders from a higher ranking official which has probably included advice on the legality of the action and you continue to refuse, you have done that to yourself. Not the other way around.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I see a difference here in that there was nothing stopping those idiots from complying.
They could have got up and left, then come back later.
They could have gone to the wire and got up at any time before being sprayed and walked away.

They choose to get sprayed.
No sympathy from me.

There is a difference between a lawful and unlawful order.
They refused a lawful one.
No sympathy.

Choices you make, have consequences.
Theirs included burning eyes.
An arrest record that will follow them the rest of their lives.
Possible long term side effects.


People go on and on about their rights to protest.
What about other students rights to a safe campus? To travel between classes safely? To not have to walk around a sit in and risk slipping in mud or gravel? 
Whose rights trump whose?


----------



## granfire

Oh, come on, Bob!
Don't think to billi levels and calling the protestors by derogatory names! 

Choices have consequences.

Very true.

We have made choices in the past and eating the consequences right now.

This is actually NOT about the lawful order.

This is about the failure to communicate. 

You claim criminal intend requiring force, but I don't think any of those instances actually happened. Not in that case, in that location.

This is NOT about the poor demonstrators. They made the choice to take a stand (or seat) and took their punishment.

think big picture!

You are sort of applauding people not taking TSA orders without question, though by all means, it's lawful. 

no omelet without broken eggs.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

clfsean said:


> No there's no time limit on them... but when a LEO asks you to do something & you say no, tells you to do something & you say no, then orders you to do something, at that point you are breaking a lawful order of a law enforcement officer & therefore in breech of the law & subject to arrest according to your state's statutes.
> 
> Protesting is one thing & it's a great thing that we have the ability to do free of fear. Civil disobedience is another benefit as well.
> 
> However, when/if a law enforcement officer requests/tells/orders you to disburse from that gathering, acting on orders from a higher ranking official which has probably included advice on the legality of the action and you continue to refuse, you have done that to yourself. Not the other way around.



So in other words, protest until the cop says he really really means it, then just shut up and go home?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Everyone who has ever been arrested has said _"You're violating my rights,"_  and _"You can't do this to me!"_

If the police are in fact violating the rights of the protesters, then there are means to challenge that in court and get a ruling.  The police do not sit down and say _"You know what?  I think maybe this would be a violation of old stinky's Constitutional rights here.  Let's not arrest him."_  That does not happen.  It will not happen.  The fact that most of you don't seem to understand that just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the law and police procedure.  You're the kind of people who ask cops why they didn't shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand instead of shooting them in the chest.  

It is the job of the police to enforce the law.  Citizens are responsible for obeying the commands given them by the police; failure to obey means getting arrested.  If the initial order was illegal, then that's what court is for.  Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds.  You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now.  You make me so angry I could spit.  I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done.  Have a great day.


----------



## clfsean

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So in other words, protest until the cop says he really really means it, then just shut up and go home?



No it means protest. Do legally, do it loud, do it like you mean it. 

But don't get upset when you're not doing it legally & are told to disburse, refuse to & then are handled the way any normal criminal is handled, because oh yes at that time you are a criminal, don't whine & try to hide behind the Bill of Rights. 

You can't break the law & expect another law to protect you. If you do, then you should be politics!


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everyone who has ever been arrested has said _"You're violating my rights,"_  and _"You can't do this to me!"_
> 
> If the police are in fact violating the rights of the protesters, then there are means to challenge that in court and get a ruling.  The police do not sit down and say _"You know what?  I think maybe this would be a violation of old stinky's Constitutional rights here.  Let's not arrest him."_  That does not happen.  It will not happen.  The fact that most of you don't seem to understand that just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the law and police procedure.  You're the kind of people who ask cops why they didn't shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand instead of shooting them in the chest.



don't be ridiculous!



> It is the job of the police to enforce the law. * Citizens are responsible for obeying the commands given them by the police*; failure to obey means getting arrested.  If the initial order was illegal, then that's what court is for.  Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds.  You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now.  You make me so angry I could spit.  I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done.  Have a great day.



Scary idea.

yes, I have been raised on the tradition that police have been used to do evil. lawful orders that violated about any shred of decency on many levels.

So you suggest to shut up and go home? Then how do you take it to court?
With what money?

The system does not work well for the little guy. There are too many cases where wrongs are left untouched because there is no money to fight it and right it. 

Wow, just wow!


----------



## RandomPhantom700

clfsean said:


> No it means protest. Do legally, do it loud, do it like you mean it.
> 
> But don't get upset when you're not doing it legally & are told to disburse, refuse to & then are handled the way any normal criminal is handled, because oh yes at that time you are a criminal, don't whine & try to hide behind the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You can't break the law & expect another law to protect you. If you do, then you should be politics!



My point is that if all it takes is a cop saying "disperse" to turn your legal protest into an illegal one, thereby warranting arrests, pepper spray, firehoses, bulldozers, or whatever level of force is involved, then there's not much other option than protesting until the cop says he really really means it.  

All the students here did was protest.  That's it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everyone who has ever been arrested has said _"You're violating my rights,"_ and _"You can't do this to me!"_



I sure as hell didn't.  



> Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds. You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now. You make me so angry I could spit. I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done. Have a great day.



Who are you addressing?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> So you suggest to shut up and go home? Then how do you take it to court?
> With what money?
> 
> The system does not work well for the little guy. There are too many cases where wrongs are left untouched because there is no money to fight it and right it.
> 
> Wow, just wow!



The idea behind civil disobedience is this.  First the citizen intentionally misbehaves.  Then they get arrested.  Then they go to court.  That's the whole plan.  That's the point.  

Not getting arrested is not part of the plan.  Any part of this unclear to you?

So no, they are not supposed to go home.  That helps nothing for them.

They are *supposed to get arrested*.  That means that when they are ordered to disburse, they refuse. * THEN THEY TAKE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT*.  If that means pepper spray, then that is what it means.  That's what civil disobedience is.  It is NOT the police ignoring behavior that they've been ordered to stop.  It is NOT the protesters going home.  It is everybody playing their part.  Protesters protest and refuse to leave.  Police arrest them.  They go to court and we find out who's rights have been violated.  Review Gandhi's peaceful protest when he lead a group to make salt; they took the beatings the police gave them; because the beatings, filmed and played back on newsreels around the world is how India gained its independence.  Civil disobedience works, but it requires the protesters to take their lumps good and hard, in front of the media, so that people like you can whine and cry about the brutality of it all.  

When the police order the protesters to leave, and they refuse, they have no choice left but to arrest them.  So they do.  And if that involves pepper spray, that is understood to be part of the protest; this is actually DESIRED by the protesters, because it gains them sympathy from people who haven't a clue how the world works.

Yeah, they got pepper sprayed.  They wanted that to happen.  It happened.  They won.  That's how civil disobedience works.

As to how they afford it, that is NOT MY PROBLEM.  I DO NOT CARE.  Not even a little bit.

However, the ACLU will be loving them long time, so no worries.  They'll be well-coddled little criminals.


----------



## ballen0351

Simple solution would have been protest in the grass and don't block the sidewalk.  Im sure there is a law about blocking sidewalks and streets.  We have them where I work.  You can't block free passage of the side walk.  Your right to protest is not greater them my right to walk freely and not to be bothered by you.  They blocked the sidewalks knowing that reaction would come from the police.


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> ok, let me rephrase that:
> 
> As martial artist (yes, digging deep) is it ethical to attack an opponent who is not actively engaging you?
> 
> maybe this gets closer to the point.
> 
> (it is actually amazing how far the country has come in just a shade of over 200 years...yes, I am poking fun, since civil disobedience is at the heart of the nations foundation)



Sorry, I don't see the above as being the same.  You are describing an MA who just decides to go up to somebody who probably can't defend themselves, and hurt them.  How does that equate to police who have a duty to uphold the law?

If you sympathize with the protestestors, I can understand that.  Some of the things they say they stand for, I can also sympathize with.  But I will not likely break the law to say so.  But if I do, I certainly won't be angry at the police fo doing what the law says they must do.  And don't anyone bring up the trials against thow who in WWII were just obeying orders.  US military law recognizes unlawful orders and the need to disobey them.  Actually, the duty to disobey them.  But anyway, I don't see this a crime against humanity.  If you do (not what it might someday turn in to), then rant away with my blessing.  But if you join a group protest that infringes on my rights, don't expect any sympathy if the police pepper spray you in protection of my rights.

I have only gotten to the bottom of the 3rd page, but I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative as Mr. Hubbard requested.  What would you have preferred the police do in enforcing law as they are duty bound to do?


----------



## clfsean

RandomPhantom700 said:


> My point is that if all it takes is a cop saying "disperse" to turn your legal protest into an illegal one, thereby warranting arrests, pepper spray, firehoses, bulldozers, or whatever level of force is involved, then there's not much other option than protesting until the cop says he really really means it.
> 
> All the students here did was protest.  That's it.



Nope... a legal protest garners police assistance & protection. 

An illegal protest garners police orders to disburse & then the circus ad infinitum. 

All the students didn't do was to get the universities permission to stage & the protest. All the students didn't do was disburse when ordered. Some did, actually the majority did. They weren't pepper sprayed.

All the students did was set up a shanty town camp. It's unsanitary without proper facilities. It's unsafe as not too far off Oakland has shown. 
All the students did was to encircle the LEO's there, not like the infamous "cowboys & indians" manner, but they weren't allowing ease of disgress. Plus with shear volume of number, they intimidated the LEOs intentionally or not.
All the students did when asked to disburse was not.
All the students did when told to disburse was not.
All the students did when ordered to disburse was not.

All the students did was break the law & then were treated as common criminals. Ask for it, sometimes you get it.


----------



## shesulsa

My husband says to me all the time, "the Constitution is not in effect anymore - police can order you to do anything and you must comply even if it is in direct conflict with the law, either local, state or federal, if they want you to do it you must comply."  

I *try* not to believe that. Sounds like many do.

So ... you who treasure your rights would not fight for nor get arrested nor pepper-sprayed for them. I'll remember that when I read how much you detest the representation of the land.

Buh-bye.


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, I don't see the above as being the same.  You are describing an MA who just decides to go up to somebody who probably can't defend themselves, and hurt them.  How does that equate to police who have a duty to uphold the law?
> 
> If you sympathize with the protestestors, I can understand that.  Some of the things they say they stand for, I can also sympathize with.  But I will not likely break the law to say so.  But if I do, I certainly won't be angry at the police fo doing what the law says they must do.  And don't anyone bring up the trials against thow who in WWII were just obeying orders.  US military law recognizes unlawful orders and the need to disobey them.  Actually, the duty to disobey them.  But anyway, I don't see this a crime against humanity.  If you do (not what it might someday turn in to), then rant away with my blessing.  But if you join a group protest that infringes on my rights, don't expect any sympathy if the police pepper spray you in protection of my rights.
> 
> I have only gotten to the bottom of the 3rd page, but I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative as Mr. Hubbard requested.  What would you have preferred the police do in enforcing law as they are duty bound to do?



well, it's the same scenario:
a person not offering to enter your space in person or via proxy.

is it morally justified to engage such a person?


And golly, people....read for comprehension: 
I am not even blaming the cops for being in the situation.

I am questioning the actions put in motion by the _dean of the college. _

But I find it - not unlike Elder - troublesome that so many just shrug and leave it at that. 
Yep, we let it happen, we deserve what's coming to us.

Following orders given without questioning makes us sheeple at best. 

I fear that dispersing people - peaceful people - by means of elevated aggression will in turn reduce the peacefulness and elevate the potential for aggression and violence.

I suppose it's all good, then the naysayers can say 'told you so' while other than pepper spray is rolled out.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> My husband says to me all the time, "the Constitution is not in effect anymore - police can order you to do anything and you must comply even if it is in direct conflict with the law, either local, state or federal, if they want you to do it you must comply."
> 
> I *try* not to believe that. Sounds like many do.


Your husband wrong.  Point balnk. period.



> So ... you who treasure your rights would not fight for nor get arrested nor pepper-sprayed for them. I'll remember that when I read how much you detest the representation of the land.
> 
> Buh-bye.


Im not getting arrested for my right to sit my lazy butt on a side walk.  If your husband doubts the right to free speach and assembly and wants to talk about us evil Police Officers I personally invite him to come with me next time I stand guard Protecting the westboro church creeps rights to protesting a Military funeral. Your both welcome to come stand with me and get things thrown at you also for protecting these evil people as cars ride by pissed that they are there.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> I am questioning the actions put in motion by the _dean of the college. _
> 
> .


A school is a place people go to learn.  The dean is charged with running that School to make sure education is taking place.  So when these protesters start to disrupt that mission the dean must act.  
What should the dean have done?  "Just say ok all students walking to and from class dont go down path XYZ because its blocked by a mob of protesters.  I know you may need to go that way to get to your next class but take a different route and maybe by spring they will leave and we can get back to normal.  Never mind the HUGE sums of money your partents are paying with the expectation of us keeping you safe and giving you a top notch education. we cant do anything on our own property that might upset people"


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Bill Mattocks said:


> They go to court and we find out who's rights have been violated. Review Gandhi's peaceful protest when he lead a group to make salt; they took the beatings the police gave them; because the beatings, filmed and played back on newsreels around the world is how India gained its independence. Civil disobedience works, but it requires the protesters to take their lumps good and hard, in front of the media, so that people like you can whine and cry about the brutality of it all.



Interesting you should make that comparison.  So, relying on Ghandi's example, would you look at the cops there who were beating the civil disobedients and say "they're just doing their jobs" and "they're stuck in an unfortunate situation"?  I'm not going to say whether pepper spray and police beatdowns are equivalent because, thankfully, I've received neither in my life.  But these protester's pepper spray is, for example's purposes, the same as Ghandi's beatings, or at least occupying the same spot.  

So was the public correct in whining and crying over the beatdowns they saw, or was it just business as usual?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Say you get pulled over by the police.  Say you have a taillight out.

The police run your plate number and it comes back stolen.  It's not REALLY stolen; a mistake has been made.  Perhaps the cop read the license number to the dispatcher wrong.  Perhaps the dispatcher keyed it in wrong.  Perhaps it was entered wrong in the stolen car database.  All kinds of things could happen.  But whatever; the car is not stolen.  You know that; the cop does not.

The cop treats you like a common car thief.  He has to.  He gets on the PA and orders you to drop the car keys out the window.  He orders you to open the car door with your right hand reaching outside the car to do it.  He orders you to get out of your car and raise your hands over your head and face forward; he has a gun pointed right at you.  If you do something stupid that he interprets as a threat, he'll shoot you dead.

Now, some of you *numbskulls* are going to refuse to comply.  I know, because I've dealt with you.  You're doing to say _"I have done nothing wrong, I refuse to get out of the car."_  OK, fine, I'm coming in after you.  I will break your window and I will drag you out onto the pavement and you will not like it.  I will handcuff you and stuff you into the back of my cruiser and when I find out later that the car is NOT stolen, it won't matter; I gave you a lawful order and you refused to obey it.  *GET IT?*

It does not matter if the students do or do not have the lawful right to assemble and block the sidewalk at the time of arrest.  That is for the courts to decide, which you seem to not be able to grasp; it's a very simple concept.  Regardless if the courts later find that it is or is not legal; the police were ordered to disburse the crowd.  They gave a LAWFUL ORDER to do so.  They protesters refused, they got arrested IT IS THAT SIMPLE.  And totally legal.

Ask any cop; ask any defense attorney.  When you get pulled over by the police and they take you out at gunpoint and put you face-down on the pavement, whether you did or did not do anything wrong, you do what you are told, or you are breaking the law.  That is a FACT.  You do not get the option of sitting down and discussing with the cop whether or not you feel like complying today because after all, you are totally innocent of any crime.  You might be totally innocent; or you were until you refused to do as you were told.  When I was a cop, people did what I told them to do, or they got arrested.  Whether they were guilty or innocent of what I arrested them for did not matter; that's for the courts to decide, not me, and certainly not you.

Do what the cop tells your or get arrested.  It has nothing to do with your civil rights being violated; it has to do with the police authority to arrest.  If they have the legal grounds to arrest, you have to do what you're told.  If you think you don't, go ahead and fight it; in court.  If you argue it, you're going to end up face-down on the pavement in handcuffs.  And believe me, I've hear plenty of citizens whining about how I've violated their rights while they laid there waiting for transport.  Know how often I got in trouble?  None.  Know how many times I was sued?  None.  Was I ever wrong?  Sure.  Didn't change anything.  I say put your hands up, you put them up, and I mean now.  If you don't, you're going to be arrested.  End of discussion.  I can't understand how anyone doesn't get that.


----------



## ballen0351

I dont think you can compare what Ghandi did with a bunch of spoiled rich kids going to a school that costs over 78K a year (per the schools own website)


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think you can compare what Ghandi did with a bunch of spoiled rich kids going to a school that costs over 78K a year (per the schools own website)



The point is that civil disobedience works (when it works) because those who are protesting know they are breaking the law, break it anyway (peacefully) and then accept the consequences.  Their goal is to a) fight it in court, where they will now have a forum and b) garner public support and sympathy by being shown being roughed up or rousted by the local gendarmes.  This is all according to plan by the protesters.

Believe me, the protesters did NOT want to be ignored, or to be told they could block the sidewalk as long as they liked, no problem.  They WANTED to be told to disburse - this gave them grounds to be arrested and fight it in court and they WANTED not to comply with police orders so that they would be pepper sprayed or worse; this gave them public sympathy by empty skulls and hand-wringers.  They got EVERYTHING they wanted.  They would have been bitterly disappointed if the police had not pepper sprayed them.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think you can compare what Ghandi did with a bunch of spoiled rich kids going to a school that costs over 78K a year (per the schools own website)



No, the med school doesn't even cost that much.


----------



## clfsean

Bill Mattocks said:


> Say you get pulled over by the police.  Say you have a taillight out.
> 
> The police run your plate number and it comes back stolen.  It's not REALLY stolen; a mistake has been made.  Perhaps the cop read the license number to the dispatcher wrong.  Perhaps the dispatcher keyed it in wrong.  Perhaps it was entered wrong in the stolen car database.  All kinds of things could happen.  But whatever; the car is not stolen.  You know that; the cop does not.
> 
> The cop treats you like a common car thief.  He has to.  He gets on the PA and orders you to drop the car keys out the window.  He orders you to open the car door with your right hand reaching outside the car to do it.  He orders you to get out of your car and raise your hands over your head and face forward; he has a gun pointed right at you.  If you do something stupid that he interprets as a threat, he'll shoot you dead.
> 
> Now, some of you *numbskulls* are going to refuse to comply.  I know, because I've dealt with you.  You're doing to say _"I have done nothing wrong, I refuse to get out of the car."_  OK, fine, I'm coming in after you.  I will break your window and I will drag you out onto the pavement and you will not like it.  I will handcuff you and stuff you into the back of my cruiser and when I find out later that the car is NOT stolen, it won't matter; I gave you a lawful order and you refused to obey it.  *GET IT?*
> 
> It does not matter if the students do or do not have the lawful right to assemble and block the sidewalk at the time of arrest.  That is for the courts to decide, which you seem to not be able to grasp; it's a very simple concept.  Regardless if the courts later find that it is or is not legal; the police were ordered to disburse the crowd.  They gave a LAWFUL ORDER to do so.  They protesters refused, they got arrested IT IS THAT SIMPLE.  And totally legal.
> 
> Ask any cop; ask any defense attorney.  When you get pulled over by the police and they take you out at gunpoint and put you face-down on the pavement, whether you did or did not do anything wrong, you do what you are told, or you are breaking the law.  That is a FACT.  You do not get the option of sitting down and discussing with the cop whether or not you feel like complying today because after all, you are totally innocent of any crime.  You might be totally innocent; or you were until you refused to do as you were told.  When I was a cop, people did what I told them to do, or they got arrested.  Whether they were guilty or innocent of what I arrested them for did not matter; that's for the courts to decide, not me, and certainly not you.
> 
> Do what the cop tells your or get arrested.  It has nothing to do with your civil rights being violated; it has to do with the police authority to arrest.  If they have the legal grounds to arrest, you have to do what you're told.  If you think you don't, go ahead and fight it; in court.  If you argue it, you're going to end up face-down on the pavement in handcuffs.  And believe me, I've hear plenty of citizens whining about how I've violated their rights while they laid there waiting for transport.  Know how often I got in trouble?  None.  Know how many times I was sued?  None.  Was I ever wrong?  Sure.  Didn't change anything.  I say put your hands up, you put them up, and I mean now.  If you don't, you're going to be arrested.  End of discussion.  I can't understand how anyone doesn't get that.



That happened to me last year. The only thing that kept me out of handcuffs is when he asked for my registration & it matched me not what his computer showed. 

If he'd asked me to exit the truck, I would've been out & asking where he wanted me to stand.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So, the cop who did the spraying is now being harassed. His address, phone published. His family threatened.

Peaceful protest my left *** cheek.

Remember parents, when your kid plops on the floor, locks arms with the table, that's a peaceful protest, not resistance.
Just let the kid get it out of their system, because anything you do is unnecessary force.
Maybe offer them a cookie or something for being so brave.

Me, I'm reaching for bear mace and a Klingon shock stick.   *BZZZZT*


----------



## Bill Mattocks

clfsean said:


> That happened to me last year. The only thing that kept me out of handcuffs is when he asked for my registration & it matched me not what his computer showed.
> 
> If he'd asked me to exit the truck, I would've been out & asking where he wanted me to stand.



Right!

And that is the point.  The police are required to enforce the law as they see it that moment; they will stand liable if they make serious mistakes, but you don't get to decide if you will or will not comply with them based on what you think is legal at that time.  Cop says "I am placing you under arrest, put your hands behind your back," you do it.  If he is making a serious mistake, or even violating your rights, you will have an opportunity to address that issue; that's what lawyers and courts are for.  The cop is not a Constitutional scholar; neither are most of us.  We don't stand around and debate the issue until we reach a consensus about what the police ought to properly do.  If they say do it, you do it.  If they're wrong, you may be in line to take some money off their jurisdiction; it happens all the time.  But if you resist, you get arrested.  If you fight, you get hurt.  Whether you are right or wrong in the end, that does not matter at the time of arrest.


----------



## granfire

Now  is stupid

But expected?

and no, it depicts the wrong party.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> The idea behind civil disobedience is this.  First the citizen intentionally misbehaves.  Then they get arrested.  Then they go to court.  That's the whole plan.  That's the point.
> 
> Not getting arrested is not part of the plan.  Any part of this unclear to you?
> 
> So no, they are not supposed to go home.  That helps nothing for them.
> 
> They are *supposed to get arrested*.  That means that when they are ordered to disburse, they refuse. * THEN THEY TAKE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT*.  If that means pepper spray, then that is what it means.  That's what civil disobedience is.  It is NOT the police ignoring behavior that they've been ordered to stop.  It is NOT the protesters going home.  It is everybody playing their part.  Protesters protest and refuse to leave.  Police arrest them.  They go to court and we find out who's rights have been violated.  Review Gandhi's peaceful protest when he lead a group to make salt; they took the beatings the police gave them; because the beatings, filmed and played back on newsreels around the world is how India gained its independence.  Civil disobedience works, but it requires the protesters to take their lumps good and hard, in front of the media, so that people like you can whine and cry about the brutality of it all.
> 
> When the police order the protesters to leave, and they refuse, they have no choice left but to arrest them.  So they do.  And if that involves pepper spray, that is understood to be part of the protest; this is actually DESIRED by the protesters, because it gains them sympathy from people who haven't a clue how the world works.
> 
> Yeah, they got pepper sprayed.  They wanted that to happen.  It happened.  They won.  That's how civil disobedience works.
> 
> As to how they afford it, that is NOT MY PROBLEM.  I DO NOT CARE.  Not even a little bit.
> 
> However, the ACLU will be loving them long time, so no worries.  They'll be well-coddled little criminals.



The smart protesters know the game.  They simply "resist", get arrested, and sign on the line to come to court.  Frequently, the cameras cover the arrest...

That's the idea of protest.  Get arrested, create visibility, and make the government react and change the laws.  The idea isn't "protest, convince the police, and create a stalemate because nothing has changed, but we're no longer enforcing anything."

Maybe this story will help...


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> No, the med school doesn't even cost that much.


Nope your right I looked up UC and UC Berkeley law that popped up not Davis. My mistake.


----------



## crushing

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, the cop who did the spraying is now being harassed. His address, phone published. His family threatened.



The protestors really put the cop (who I highly doubt is a 1%er) in a very difficult situation.  If the officer doesn't follow orders, he loses his job.  He does follow orders, he is made the scapegoat and put on administrative leave.  It really was a no win situation for him.  Apparently, the 99% don't give a **** about cops.


----------



## granfire

crushing said:


> The protestors really put the cop (who I highly doubt is a 1%er) in a very difficult situation.  If the officer doesn't follow orders, he loses his job.  He does follow orders, he is made the scapegoat and put on administrative leave.  It really was a no win situation for him.  Apparently, the 99% don't give a **** about cops.



Now there, _proof_ it was the protestors and not some twit laughing all the way to the bank!

The 1% is certainly counting hits and there fore $$$ on all of this.

And yes, the poor sap is being made the butt of all jokes.

he did what the Dean of the college asked off him. 

And it made him look bad.

the 1% does not give a rip about cops either. not unless it suits their purpose. 

Gotta say, the dean got it made.

being an **** and not having to stand in the poo flung over it. 
Should run for president, I say!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm gonna bow out here. Said my piece, nothing more to add, just go in circles and I stopped doing that when I stopped selling soap.
So I'll take my leave and go back to watching the topless OWS gals protest about jobs being rights. I don't agree, but they are a sure site prettier than the guy pooping on the flag.


----------



## jks9199

granfire said:


> And golly, people....read for comprehension:
> I am not even blaming the cops for being in the situation.
> 
> I am questioning the actions put in motion by the _dean of the college. _


The dean has the duty to look after the safety and ability to attend classes, use facilities, and the like of everyone on the campus.  The dean said "protest all you want -- but no tents."  When they were told to take the tents down, they said no.  When they were told to leave, they said no.  Thus, creating a dangerous situation; what if the next "no" is to something like "don't rob people?"

There is indeed a reason that the Occupy movement has taken hold.  There are a lot of people quite legitimately fed up with the status quo.  I'm one of them... but I'll work for change in other ways.  Until the movement can actually come together around some actual goals, it's going to be little more than a tantrum.


> But I find it - not unlike Elder - troublesome that so many just shrug and leave it at that.
> Yep, we let it happen, we deserve what's coming to us.
> 
> Following orders given without questioning makes us sheeple at best.
> 
> I fear that dispersing people - peaceful people - by means of elevated aggression will in turn reduce the peacefulness and elevate the potential for aggression and violence.


They ceased to be "peaceful" when they blocked paths and refused to move.  Have you ever been in the middle of a group like that?  At first it's exciting -- but it gets scary real fast, because you start to realize that it's one person removed from a riot.  One person gets the bright idea to fight over something, and suddenly, it's chaos.


> I suppose it's all good, then the naysayers can say 'told you so' while other than pepper spray is rolled out.


As I said -- unlike a lot of the world, our cops have rules.  While I think that it's wrong the the UCLA-Davis chief is being thrown under the bus and is on suspension, it does show that cops have to answer for the use of force.

But that's not even the point.  Yep, lots of the protesters don't know the "rules" of protest.  They don't realize that the arrest and even receiving the use of force is part of the plan.  Much of the watching public doesn't either -- because it wouldn't work if they did!  The protesters WANT public outcry to motivate the change.

A little bit ago, I almost wrote that protesters are "nice terrorists."  I'm going to go with that.  Terrorism is the use of force to create political, social, or religious change.  It's using highly visible force against highly vulnerable targets so that nobody feels safe until the change that the terrorists desire happens.  Well, civil disobedience actually has a similar approach.  It's using highly visible acts of disobeying the law to call attention to a problem and motivate change.  The idea is that when people see the protesters arrested (or even beaten), they'll make the government respond and change the law or solve the problem.


----------



## Big Don

clfsean said:


> That happened to me last year. The only thing that kept me out of handcuffs is when he asked for my registration & it matched me not what his computer showed.
> 
> If he'd asked me to exit the truck, I would've been out & asking where he wanted me to stand.


I had a different circumstance, but, I always do what people better armed than I tell me to do.
That keeps me from getting my *** kicked. Perhaps the police departments should set up a big screen and show this:


----------



## Sukerkin

Every time I see that vid I chortle greatly - not usually a fan of Chris Rock but that was comedy gold.


----------



## MJS

Bob Hubbard said:


> So.
> 
> They were ordered to move.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> They were ordered to clear the sidewalk.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> They were ordered to stop -trespassing- and remove their tents.
> 
> They refused.
> 
> What is the appropriate law enforcement response when someone refuses to obey ---lawful--- orders?
> 
> You are outraged. You are upset. Fine.
> 
> Present an alternate solution.
> 
> "Not this" is NOT an acceptable answer. You must have an actual answer.
> "ask again" is also not an acceptable answer.
> "ignore them" is also not an acceptable answer.



Some protesting idiots were sitting, blocking an on-ramp to a highway, a day ago, in Hartford, Ct.  I saw on the news today, another report on the OC incident.  Had to laugh at how the media strikes again, making the students the innocent victims, and the LEOs the bad guys.  Given this was Hartford, I'm surprised nobody got killed.  What I mean is, given the high violence rate, ie: shootings daily, I'm surprised someone in a vehicle, trying to get onto the highway, didn't say, "Ok *******s, I honked twice, you didn't move....prepare to die!!  I'm driving right thru you dumb ****ers! "LOL! That or someone getting out of their car, and blowing a few of them away...lol.


----------



## jks9199

Incidentally, I'm aware of at least 3 "demonstrations" in my area.  They stayed within the law, made their point, had their say, and nobody got pepper sprayed.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Alright, so in attempt to be balanced in my opinion on matters I make an effort to understand as much as possible the full view of all sides in a situation.

To that end first I would like to share a couple of articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/19/uc-davis-protest_n_1103039.html

This was written by a college professor at UC Berkeley. The article touches on too many points to summarize very easily, but I do want to highlight a few points:

Six years ago, tuition at UC Davis was around $5000. Currently it is $12000. The protest is surrounding the coming raise in tuition rates for 2015-2016to $22000 (I am assuming this means per year.) Now, granted, that is quite a bit of money. Here in my state (Washington) we are about $2000 a year less than UC Davis, and have steadily increased our tuition rates about $500 average per year for the last 10 years.

Then again... Washington has not had the gnawing financial problems that California has had in the past 10 years. The state of California has had a number of debt crises, even with its $1.9 trillion GDP ( which is the highest GSP in the union, and were it an indepentent country, it would have between the 8th and the 11th highest GDP of any country in the world). But even with all this revenue, the state has been running on a budget deficit in the tens of billions of dollars for at least the last four years. And the budget problems didn't begin with Schwartzeneger. Part of the reason he made it into office was the state's existing and long-standing budget problems at the time.

What that means and has meant for California is fewer services available, more revenue needed. Tuition hikes are inevitable.
This is also the state that has more millionaires than any state in the union (663,000) AND the highest unemployment rate in the country as well. The richest 3% of the state pay 60% of the state's taxes. If there is any place in America where the gap between rich and poor, this is it.

On the police side of the house, many of the current leaders in the state's police force were also experienced or were mentored by who did experience the race riots of the nineties. This very likely would affect in some way or another the training and mentality of those assigned to riot control in these times. 

As Tupac said, "only in cali will we riot, not rally".

However, as Bill Mattocks pointed out, of all the methods they could have used to disperse the crowd, pepper spray, for all its issues, likely WAS the method most likely to disperse the crowd with the least hazard of injury to either side.

There is also the issue of peaceable assembly. This is the category most fraught with difficulty. On the one hand, you can see in the millieu of videos covering the UC Davis protests, the attempt was made by both protestors and police to be peaceable. Protestors did start in with chants such as "the Nazis, are here, they came equipped with riot gear" (protesters did not make an attempt to stop this chant), and "from Davis to Greece, f#$% the police" (which protesters successfully quashed as quickly as possible).

And the police made reapeated attempts at dispersing the crowd peacefully. They listed section 409 of the California penal code, tried to talk the protesters into leaving, and sought advice and clearance from their chain of command before proceeding. All officers were armed with less than lethal implements, though outnumbered 7or 8 to 1. That the two officers were suspended is frankly revolting.

As to the legality of the assembly itself, here are the laws pertaining to this issue:

California Penal Code 407: " Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly."

 Violent... No. Boisterous and tumultuous? I would have to say yes, absolutely. Therefore: unlawful assembly.

California Penal Code 409: " Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 

The protestors were told to clear out and did not. 

California Penal Code 409.6(c): "Any unauthorized person who willfully and knowingly enters an area closed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) and who willfully remains within that area, or any unauthorized person who willfully remains within an area closed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), after receiving notice to evacuate or leave from a peace officer named in subdivision (a) or (b), shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. If necessary, a peace officer named in subdivision (a) or (b) may use reasonable force to remove from the closed area any unauthorized person who willfully remains within that area after receiving notice to evacuate or leave."

Having been hit with sticks, bitten by dogs, shot with those stupid rubber paintball round things, and breathed in CS gas, I would prefer the perpper spray.

It is a quagmire, bu I have to side with the cops ultimately. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Master Dan

*DO WE REALLY NEED TO MILATERIZE THE POLICE FORCE TO COMMITT VIOLENCE AGAINS PEACFUL UNARMED DEMONSTRATORS THIS IS NOT PROTECT AND SERVE BUT CARRY OUT A RIGHT WING POLITICAL AGENDA.  THE FBI STOOD OFF FOR HOW MANY DAYS WITH DAVID K. THEY COULD NOT WAIT HOURS OR DAYS FOR THESE KIDS? OH THATS RIGHT GINGRICH SAYS TAKE A BATH AND GET A JOB? HOW MANY HOT TUB MASSAGE BATHS DOES 1.6 MILLION BUY? *



Whom Do You Serve?Posted 2 days ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 12:23 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt





This incident took place at UC Davis. See below for video of this incident, as well as more examples of state repression against the 99% movement across the U.S.
**TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic images.*

Such incidents are unfortunately common.  Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities. But now that the 99% and the Occupy movement are standing up for social and economic justice, we all are subject to those same violent tactics of repression.  How can the police protect and serve the public, when they repeatedly assault the public in the interest of the 1%?  What exactly are the police defending -- our right to free speech and peaceful assembly, or broken financial and government institutions?




Police officers that brutalize people fighting for democracy and against the tyranny of the 1% need to be brought to justice. We call on police to protect and serve by taking direct action to prevent the abuses of power by their fellow officers. More broadly, we call on police to work to end the criminal injustice system that profits from the systematic imprisonment and dehumanization of poor and working class people, queer and trans people, people of color and other marginalized groups. We call on all police officers to disobey illegal orders and follow the example Captain Raymond Lewis and others who stand proudly in solidarity with the 99%.




A few more examples of repression, from Los Angeles and Portland:









      616 Comments


----------



## Josh Oakley

What makes it merely a right-wing agenda?


----------



## Master Dan

Josh Oakley said:


> What makes it merely a right-wing agenda?


 *Its not the left or progressives asking for the police to be sent in and please would you spray and beat us????

Not all these people Universitie students and OWS are uneducated or unemployed or unwashed some are taking time off at real expense to change the discussion in this country that the capitalist propaganda of feed the rich and powerfull all they want and the scraps will feed the 99% is a lie and responsible for the trouble we are in now, And why more people cannot see that what corporations together with polititions together with insurance companies have done over the last 30 years if it was converted to bullets on the protestors there would be none left standing. That in no way compares to the few fringe bad apples that migrate to any mass collective gather. As our buddy Herman Cain says Its Apples and Elephants? And if all else fails claim loss of memory or invent an new volcabulary like I wasn't paid to loby I was acting as a historian for 1.6 million Gingrich the Pig*


----------



## ballen0351

Master Dan said:


> *Its not the left or progressives asking for the police to be sent in and please would you spray and beat us????
> 
> *



Hmm pretty much every mayor in these occupy cities ordering crack downs are Left wing Obama Supporting Dumocrats.


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> What makes it merely a right-wing agenda?



I guess it started with the media outlets billi loves to quote, really.

I mean it started off with derogatory dismissive verbage.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> I mean it started off with derogatory dismissive verbage.



Oh like Tea Baggers?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Oh like Tea Baggers?



don't be obtuse.

You know what I mean.
Just look at....nvm...you look forever in the flood of billi threads that virtually all start out with 'thugs' 'lefties' (like that was a disease...) and while his vocabulary is limited, half of it escapes me ATM.

Those evil squatters tinkling on Wall Street.

i think a hippie was in there as well. 

(how soon we forget) 

But then again, that's billi's MO.
(and I have yet to figure out why! Why would somebody who is in all likelihood NOT part of the 1% defend them crying poor?!)


----------



## jks9199

Y'know what?  So far, this has been a fairly reasonable discussion.  Let's keep it that way and stop the digs at each other, OK?


----------



## ballen0351

So when Rachel Madcow(national TV Host) calls people Tea Baggers its funny and cool when Billi (NOT a national TV host) calls people thugs and evil hes wrong?

I just think its funny the Tea Party was evil up until the OWS then they became equal.


----------



## MJS

Master Dan said:


> *DO WE REALLY NEED TO MILATERIZE THE POLICE FORCE TO COMMITT VIOLENCE AGAINS PEACFUL UNARMED DEMONSTRATORS THIS IS NOT PROTECT AND SERVE BUT CARRY OUT A RIGHT WING POLITICAL AGENDA.  THE FBI STOOD OFF FOR HOW MANY DAYS WITH DAVID K. THEY COULD NOT WAIT HOURS OR DAYS FOR THESE KIDS? OH THATS RIGHT GINGRICH SAYS TAKE A BATH AND GET A JOB? HOW MANY HOT TUB MASSAGE BATHS DOES 1.6 MILLION BUY? *
> 
> 
> 
> Whom Do You Serve?Posted 2 days ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 12:23 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This incident took place at UC Davis. See below for video of this incident, as well as more examples of state repression against the 99% movement across the U.S.
> **TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic images.*
> 
> Such incidents are unfortunately common.  Brutal repression has long been a daily reality for people of color, trans and queer people, criminalized drug users, sex workers, and other marginalized communities. But now that the 99% and the Occupy movement are standing up for social and economic justice, we all are subject to those same violent tactics of repression.  How can the police protect and serve the public, when they repeatedly assault the public in the interest of the 1%?  What exactly are the police defending -- our right to free speech and peaceful assembly, or broken financial and government institutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police officers that brutalize people fighting for democracy and against the tyranny of the 1% need to be brought to justice. We call on police to protect and serve by taking direct action to prevent the abuses of power by their fellow officers. More broadly, we call on police to work to end the criminal injustice system that profits from the systematic imprisonment and dehumanization of poor and working class people, queer and trans people, people of color and other marginalized groups. We call on all police officers to disobey illegal orders and follow the example Captain Raymond Lewis and others who stand proudly in solidarity with the 99%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few more examples of repression, from Los Angeles and Portland:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 616 Comments



Gotta love how people tend to make the protesters the innocent victims by saying they were peaceful.  Does anyone know if, when the police told them to move, they told the cops to **** off and pound sand?  How about **** you pig, I'm not moving?  Is it against the law to protest?  No, but I'd imagine that if you're blocking traffic, blocking other people from accessing the sidewalk or wherever you're sitting, that that is against the law.  

I mean really, you dont need to overturn cars and light things on fire, in order to be considered an *******.


----------



## granfire

he picking on me!:waah::waah::vu::vu::wah::wah::wah::slapfight:





<WINK>

getting more coffee...might not jump start my brain, but it keeps me away from the computer for a minute...


However...

Rachel Madcow (no really, that's her name?! :lfao who is she supposed to be.

and believe it or not: There are actually people who have been prior to this been completely unaware of the _interesting_ connotation of the term. So yeah, it might have been funny to a lot of people. After all, ignorance can be bliss. (but it still ought to hurt)

However, you are pinning one term against a whole long list of them. 

name calling is stupid and it usually shows you have no more arguments.

So, you give me a tea bagger, I give you thug, lefty, hippie....and like I said, I am missing most.
if you go by namecalling =/= argument....

Oh, FWIW, I don't listen to either side of the 'news'. Gives my blood pressure a rest.
sad times when you get the most balanced (I didn't say accurately balanced, mind you!) news from a comedy show. 

Actually, I get better information about the state of the US nation by listening to the hourly 5 minute news on German radio.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> he picking on me!:waah::waah::vu::vu::wah::wah::wah::slapfight:
> 
> .


I would Never.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> Gotta love how people tend to make the protesters the innocent victims by saying they were peaceful.  Does anyone know if, when the police told them to move, they told the cops to **** off and pound sand?  How about **** you pig, I'm not moving?  Is it against the law to protest?  No, but I'd imagine that if you're blocking traffic, blocking other people from accessing the sidewalk or wherever you're sitting, that that is against the law.
> 
> I mean really, you dont need to overturn cars and light things on fire, in order to be considered an *******.



Ah, but didn't they tell you that words can't hurt you?!

(yeah, I know, I know somebody who can utter the F word with such energy, you can physically feel an impact) 


being a jerk, well, thee is no merit and most people can accomplish that easily before breakfast, to only improve (you know what i mean) over time.

And no, manners have sadly not improved in the last decade or 2 (I suppose at some time it will be acceptable to greet your minister with 'F you Preacher, how the hell is it hanging' )

But what do you want? An invitation to a tea party (oh, sorry, didn't mean to put a pun there) with fine china?

Some people are a-holes. Regardless of their environment.
And usually those are the only ones you will hear. probably on either side.

And I suppose unless they cuss in front of women and children in the great state of Ohio (might be a different one tho) having a foul moth is not illegal.
Regrettable, but not illegal.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> i would never.



:uhyeah:

(I know)


----------



## Grenadier

Subjects such as the one in this thread are often touchy issues. So far, this thread has been full of pretty good discussion, and I would like to keep it that way. 

Please keep in mind, that you're allowed to attack the message here, but attacking the sender of that message is off-limits. Furthermore, this specific forum does *not* give you the same leeway as The Great Debate. 



With that being said...

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this discussion polite and civil.

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> Ah, but didn't they tell you that words can't hurt you?!
> 
> (yeah, I know, I know somebody who can utter the F word with such energy, you can physically feel an impact)
> 
> 
> being a jerk, well, thee is no merit and most people can accomplish that easily before breakfast, to only improve (you know what i mean) over time.
> 
> And no, manners have sadly not improved in the last decade or 2 (I suppose at some time it will be acceptable to greet your minister with 'F you Preacher, how the hell is it hanging' )
> 
> But what do you want? An invitation to a tea party (oh, sorry, didn't mean to put a pun there) with fine china?
> 
> Some people are a-holes. Regardless of their environment.
> And usually those are the only ones you will hear. probably on either side.
> 
> And I suppose unless they cuss in front of women and children in the great state of Ohio (might be a different one tho) having a foul moth is not illegal.
> Regrettable, but not illegal.



LOL!  Can't disagree with you.   I was simply trying to say that things may not seem as they appear.  IMO, telling someone to "F" off, isn't peaceful, but thats just me.  

Anywho....this is just another one of those debates in which its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.  Both sides are holding strong in their opinions, so frankly, I dont see anything new happening in this thread over the next 20 pages..lol.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> LOL!  Can't disagree with you.   I was simply trying to say that things may not seem as they appear.  IMO, telling someone to "F" off, isn't peaceful, but thats just me.
> 
> Anywho....this is just another one of those debates in which its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.  Both sides are holding strong in their opinions, so frankly, I dont see anything new happening in this thread over the next 20 pages..lol.



nothing going to change.
Throw in some cops in the middle.
they can't tell the protesters,k, stay if you want, they can't tell the guys on the other side how f'd up their stand is.

So they are thrown in the grinder.

And just so that you guys know it: I find it terrible that these cops have been suspended for the job they were hired to do. 
As so many of you pointed out, it was by all means legal action on their side, however one might disagree. They did not club people, kick or beat them...
(did they have to pay the price for those OWS cops who lost their temper and were caught using excessive force?) 

Shows you how truly screwed the situation is (and that the estabishment is willing to throw the cops under the bus to safe face and stay out of the lime light)

brings me right back to my original point nobody bothered to read:
the UC Davis dean screwed up.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Master Dan said:


> *Its not the left or progressives asking for the police to be sent in and please would you spray and beat us????Not all these people Universitie students and OWS are uneducated or unemployed or unwashed some are taking time off at real expense to change the discussion in this country that the capitalist propaganda of feed the rich and powerfull all they want and the scraps will feed the 99% is a lie and responsible for the trouble we are in now, And why more people cannot see that what corporations together with polititions together with insurance companies have done over the last 30 years if it was converted to bullets on the protestors there would be none left standing. That in no way compares to the few fringe bad apples that migrate to any mass collective gather. As our buddy Herman Cain says Its Apples and Elephants? And if all else fails claim loss of memory or invent an new volcabulary like I wasn't paid to loby I was acting as a historian for 1.6 million Gingrich the Pig*


So, who specifically is calling them in? Not in general groups, but specific individual leaders, and what is their political affiliation? I am ignoring the rest because it isn't pertinent to the question.By the way, as far as UC Davis, the person who called in the cops was left wing oriented.


----------



## Josh Oakley

MJS said:


> LOL!  Can't disagree with you.   I was simply trying to say that things may not seem as they appear.  IMO, telling someone to "F" off, isn't peaceful, but thats just me.   Anywho....this is just another one of those debates in which its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.  Both sides are holding strong in their opinions, so frankly, I dont see anything new happening in this thread over the next 20 pages..lol.


Maybe once the investigation in over and they publish the results.


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> Maybe once the investigation in over and they publish the results.


:lfao:

right...
6 month from now on page 15....


----------



## Tez3

This is floating around on the UK bit of FB, not sure if it's on Americans ones.


----------



## Carol

granfire said:


> nothing going to change.
> Throw in some cops in the middle.
> they can't tell the protesters,k, stay if you want, they can't tell the guys on the other side how f'd up their stand is.
> 
> So they are thrown in the grinder.
> 
> And just so that you guys know it: I find it terrible that these cops have been suspended for the job they were hired to do.
> As so many of you pointed out, it was by all means legal action on their side, however one might disagree. They did not club people, kick or beat them...
> (did they have to pay the price for those OWS cops who lost their temper and were caught using excessive force?)
> 
> Shows you how truly screwed the situation is (and that the estabishment is willing to throw the cops under the bus to safe face and stay out of the lime light)
> 
> brings me right back to my original point nobody bothered to read:
> *the UC Davis dean screwed up*.



This.

This is no from Occupy but from a local libertarian group with a slant towards mild civil disobedience.  The group put this on YouTube in an attempt to make the LEO look like the bad guy...I'll leave it the audience to decide if the LEO loooked like the bad guy or not.

The LEO lays out boundaries right away (including keeping the walkways clear) and responds to the actvists with sometimes eye-opening honesty.   The activists, while not happy that their friend is in jail manage to express themselves and make their presence known without destroying anything.

[yt]QVtjM9gx_3Y[/yt]


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> This is floating around on the UK bit of FB, not sure if it's on Americans ones.



that is actually not much different from the images spread back in the hay days of the protests in the 80s.

OH EM GEE we got hit.
On the other hand, i think the only casualties around the Rhein/Main airport expansion where 2 policemen...

maybe my parents were too cynical to raise me to follow blindly?


----------



## MJS

Josh Oakley said:


> Maybe once the investigation in over and they publish the results.



Sure, threads that're many years old canand have been brought back to life.


----------



## Brian King

It has been an interesting discussion. I am glad to see so many step up to the plate and defend the blockaders and publicly condemn those that do not support those that are practicing their constitutional rights to block access, take over privately owned buildings and property, rightly seeing that defense of first amendment rights is important, no matter the cause or facility being protested or the groups doing the protesting.


Many different activist groups are watching and taking notes of these blockades and civil disobedience campaigns, whether the public is standing for and supporting the law breaking and inconveniences, how they are being covered by both wings of the media, what the local and federal authorities are saying and just as importantly doing, and what the judges are ruling. It was not that long ago (1994 and signed into law by Bill Clinton) that the face act was passed making it a federal offense to block access to reproduction facilities/abortion clinics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_Entrances_Act This movement has lawyers sharpening their pencils, some to add further restrictions to the first amendment others to challenge past restrictions such as the FACE act. 


Here is a link to an interesting article by NPR on blockaders but in this case ones that neither the left nor the right like. 
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/01/140094051/obama-takes-tougher-stance-on-abortion-protesters





> Snip/  "One of the dangers we have seen is that the people who commit the major violent acts often started with minor violent acts," Levin says, "and they were never arrested, so their activities escalated. ?Snip


 



> Snip/ "This is a ridiculous overstepping of the federal government's bounds and with the intent of restricting our freedom, our liberties and our speech," says Newman  /Snip


 
People on this thread are making the arguments that others will be using or have used. It will be interesting to see if the opinions hold when it is they being inconvenienced or their cause being protested. 

As a perspective test, take every post in the thread above and switch the protestors, make them religious activists blockading abortion clinics, then make them homosexual activists blockading churches, make them peta activists blockading shooting ranges and gun stores, make them Muslim activists blockading bars and nightclubs, make them people that do not like a course of instruction given by a certain professor at the local university so they are sitting in the doorway of his class and not allowing students in, make the greens blocking entrances to Los Alamos cause they do not like the experiments going on or nuclear power, make them what ever group protesting what ever cause. Be honest, does this make any difference to your opinion? If so then your opinion is based on emotion and politics which is no big deal as long as it is realized. The danger of course comes in when laws and acts are passed based on the emotional and politics of a given moment and movement. 

My opinion is if one group of citizens is allowed to blockade private businesses and public thoroughfares then all groups should be able to. If one group is denied the right then all should be. Protests should be allowed but should not interfere with the rights of others or take away from public order. Private property rights should be upheld and enforced. Common decency should be expected and enforced. When arrests are called for they should be made. If made they should use the least amount of force needed to make the arrest. I agree with Levin quoted in the NPR article above that acts that are illegal should be addressed not encouraged, as the encouraged illegality promotes not only further illegal acts but an escalation of the violence. 

These kids linking arms and blockading after numerous warnings and with the foreknowledge that they were breaking the law should have been arrested and should face federal not just misdemeanor charges. The means of breaking up the protest by use of pepper spray is legal (I am not an attorney nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn) and justified in my opinion. As would have been the use of pain compliance methods even if they further risked bad pr. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## granfire

PETA is never gonna block a shooting range!


Ok, sorry. but I had to say that!


----------



## Josh Oakley

And now it's gotten bigger.

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2011/11/21/5000-gather-on-davis-quad-for-police-protest/


----------



## Josh Oakley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmD6XIOp2g4

I post this speech mildly tongue-in-cheek, as this is the same Nathan Brown who lied and said the cops forced open the mouths of the protestors to administer pepper spray. And the group-think occurring here, combined with Mr. Brown's final line in the speech... well, let's say my spidey sense is tingling.


----------



## jks9199

Brian King said:


> It has been an interesting discussion. I am glad to see so many step up to the plate and defend the blockaders and publicly condemn those that do not support those that are practicing their constitutional rights to block access, take over privately owned buildings and property, rightly seeing that defense of first amendment rights is important, no matter the cause or facility being protested or the groups doing the protesting.


I'm confused, because you seem to be coming from both sides with your post.  Let me make this clear; I think that you have every right to protest.  Your right to protest stops when you start interfering with other people's property or rights.  (Strictly speaking, there are some exceptions for semi-public private property, like malls.)  You can't take over Acme Inc's office.  You can't block people's access to a business; you can picket the business.  But you can't block the sidewalk.  You can't block the roads.  Late last week, the Occupy DC group staged a protest; they marched to the Key Bridge.  They were completely legal; they didn't block the roads, they didn't block the bridge.  Nobody arrested them for this.  (I think there may have been a couple of arrests for people who did something that the group was not supporting.)  I absolutely defend and support their right to this protest.  But not when they break the law.


> ...
> 
> As a perspective test, take every post in the thread above and switch the protestors, make them religious activists blockading abortion clinics, then make them homosexual activists blockading churches, make them peta activists blockading shooting ranges and gun stores, make them Muslim activists blockading bars and nightclubs, make them people that do not like a course of instruction given by a certain professor at the local university so they are sitting in the doorway of his class and not allowing students in, make the greens blocking entrances to Los Alamos cause they do not like the experiments going on or nuclear power, make them what ever group protesting what ever cause. Be honest, does this make any difference to your opinion? If so then your opinion is based on emotion and politics which is no big deal as long as it is realized. The danger of course comes in when laws and acts are passed based on the emotional and politics of a given moment and movement.



Again, so long as they don't block the entrance, get any appropriate permits, disperse when told to do so, they're free to protest.  I'm very definitely pro-life; if I'm dispatched to a clinic that does abortions for being vandalized, or for protesters blocking it -- I'm going to do my job, without regard to my beliefs regarding abortion.  




> My opinion is if one group of citizens is allowed to blockade private businesses and public thoroughfares then all groups should be able to. If one group is denied the right then all should be. Protests should be allowed but should not interfere with the rights of others or take away from public order. Private property rights should be upheld and enforced. Common decency should be expected and enforced. When arrests are called for they should be made. If made they should use the least amount of force needed to make the arrest. I agree with Levin quoted in the NPR article above that acts that are illegal should be addressed not encouraged, as the encouraged illegality promotes not only further illegal acts but an escalation of the violence.





> These kids linking arms and blockading after numerous warnings and with the foreknowledge that they were breaking the law should have been arrested and should face federal not just misdemeanor charges. The means of breaking up the protest by use of pepper spray is legal (I am not an attorney nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn) and justified in my opinion. As would have been the use of pain compliance methods even if they further risked bad pr.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



I don't see what federal charge there might have been at UC-Davis.  And, like I said -- I'm confused.  You seem to be on both sides of this.  To me, it's clear.  Protest all you want.  If you break the law in protesting -- you get arrested.  If enough people get arrested, maybe it convinces the larger public that the law is bad.  Or maybe it convinces them of the opposite -- and they push to make that law stronger or more restrictive.  (Yeah, that's a risk when you draw attention to something...  Wonder if some of these Occupy folks have considered that they may just find some backlash, and have people who paid off their college loans get a little ticked that they don't want to have to do the same.  Just seizing on one issue that's been brought out...  Imagine a law requiring public service if you can't pay off your loan...)


----------



## Josh Oakley

MJS said:


> Sure, threads that're many years old canand have been brought back to life.



No it is set for no later than 90 days.


----------



## Josh Oakley

jks9199 said:


> I'm confused, because you seem to be coming from both sides with your post.  Let me make this clear; I think that you have every right to protest.  Your right to protest stops when you start interfering with other people's property or rights.  (Strictly speaking, there are some exceptions for semi-public private property, like malls.)  You can't take over Acme Inc's office.  You can't block people's access to a business; you can picket the business.  But you can't block the sidewalk.  You can't block the roads.  Late last week, the Occupy DC group staged a protest; they marched to the Key Bridge.  They were completely legal; they didn't block the roads, they didn't block the bridge.  Nobody arrested them for this.  (I think there may have been a couple of arrests for people who did something that the group was not supporting.)  I absolutely defend and support their right to this protest.  But not when they break the law.
> 
> Again, so long as they don't block the entrance, get any appropriate permits, disperse when told to do so, they're free to protest.  I'm very definitely pro-life; if I'm dispatched to a clinic that does abortions for being vandalized, or for protesters blocking it -- I'm going to do my job, without regard to my beliefs regarding abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is if one group of citizens is allowed to blockade private businesses and public thoroughfares then all groups should be able to. If one group is denied the &#8216;right&#8217; then all should be. Protests should be allowed but should not interfere with the rights of others or take away from public order. Private property rights should be upheld and enforced. Common decency should be expected and enforced. When arrests are called for they should be made. If made they should use the least amount of force needed to make the arrest. I agree with Levin quoted in the NPR article above that acts that are illegal should be addressed not encouraged, as the encouraged illegality promotes not only further illegal acts but an escalation of the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kids linking arms and blockading after numerous warnings and with the foreknowledge that they were breaking the law should have been arrested and should face federal not just misdemeanor charges. The means of breaking up the protest by use of pepper spray is legal (I am not an attorney nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn) and justified in my opinion. As would have been the use of pain compliance methods even if they further risked &#8216;bad pr&#8217;.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what federal charge there might have been at UC-Davis.  And, like I said -- I'm confused.  You seem to be on both sides of this.  To me, it's clear.  Protest all you want.  If you break the law in protesting -- you get arrested.  If enough people get arrested, maybe it convinces the larger public that the law is bad.  Or maybe it convinces them of the opposite -- and they push to make that law stronger or more restrictive.  (Yeah, that's a risk when you draw attention to something...  Wonder if some of these Occupy folks have considered that they may just find some backlash, and have people who paid off their college loans get a little ticked that they don't want to have to do the same.  Just seizing on one issue that's been brought out...  Imagine a law requiring public service if you can't pay off your loan...)
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic at the beginning.


----------



## Brian King

*Granfire wrote:*


> PETA is never gonna block a shooting range!




I understand that there is a show on television that makes heroes out of anti whale hunting protestors and their combative strategies against the hunters. These type of confrontational protests often lead to violence which is in my opinion the goal. 






A bunch down under playing lousy music loudly trying to disrupt hunts. (disclosure I did not watch all of this clip...too many years bouncing in nightclubs being paid to listen to awful music to tolerate it on my own time.) 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8GnTrfALc&feature=related
A protestor accidentally shot in the face.


Police action (in the UK somewhere) against hunt saboteurs. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRm4fkxLJdE&feature=related


Peta and the like internationally is willing to confront during the hunt given enough cameras and police protection, so it is not inconceivable that in the future if it has not already happened that they would be willing to blockade target ranges and hunting licensing facilities. 


*jks9199 wrote:*


> I'm confused


The confusion is in my own writing and ability or lack of to communicate. I wrote that I am glad that so many are stepping up and supporting these and the other protestors. I did not say that I was supporting them, only that I applaud others noticing and being willing to condemn others of different opinions while giving support to the protestors. In this day and age of Political Correctness it is great that folks here on Martial Talk are willing to step up and say how disappointed and ashamed they are of the other forum members for voicing their opinions. Anytime people can take notice of politics it is usually good. The irony and hypocrisy will be fodder in the upcoming election cycle. 




> Late last week, the Occupy DC group staged a protest; they marched to the Key Bridge. They were completely legal; they didn't block the roads, they didn't block the bridge. Nobody arrested them for this.




Thats cool. Here in the Seattle area the Occupiers also blocked bridges and key roads. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Occupy-protest-blocks-traffic-marches-on-bridge-2274874.php
They only blocked the bridge for an hour or so but the results tied up traffic for many hours. Most reading this forum that particular bridge means nothing to them, but it is the access for two of our major hospitals. The Childrens Hospital and the UW facility. Both are world renowned for their cancer and other disease treatments and care. Anybody here ever have to take a loved one to the hospital for their treatment? Know what riding in a car is like for those suffering from cancer or the drugs and treatment of it? How difficult it is to get an appointment or what happens if the appointment is missed? The protestors dont give a rip. No arrests despite blocking the bridge showing it is now legal to block hospitals and clinics if you do it with enough people and far enough away that you are not on the actual hospital grounds
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Occupy-protest-blocks-traffic-marches-on-bridge-2274874.php
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/Occupy-Seattle-march-University-Bridge-134054558.html


The occupiers are now occupying homes despite laws against squatting. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Occupy-Seattle--134294853.html



> I don't see what federal charge there might have been at UC-Davis. 




Well I have no standing to bring about such charges, but if there is any medical or religious facilities on campus and the protestors were blocking the sidewalk, theoretically they were in violation of the FACE act as just one charge, is there post office facilities being blocked, that could be another charge... Wont happen as the political leanings of the protestors and the local authorities currently seem to coincide but who knows the future. 


*Josh Oakley wrote:*


> I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic at the beginning.




Who Me?...insert innocent smiley winky face thing here.


Mostly just offering some perspectives and venting a bit. 


Regards
Brian King


----------



## granfire

Oh, sorry...I forgot the PETA joke was on another forum....

There is a reason PETA does not pick on bikers but on little old ladies with fur coats.
They don't picket people with guns.


The whale thing...yes, but different.

(oh, and you were looking for :angel


----------



## Josh Oakley

It's weird, because every time I go past the occupy Seattle location, there's maybe 20 people there. Must have been on their coffee break. At least they're better than the occupy Tacoma crowd. They won't even get out of their tents!


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> It's weird, because every time I go past the occupy Seattle location, there's maybe 20 people there. Must have been on their coffee break. At least they're better than the occupy Tacoma crowd. They won't even get out of their tents!


come on, nobody goes outside in Tacoma...the Aroma is deadly....


----------



## MJS

Josh Oakley said:


> No it is set for no later than 90 days.



I'm inclined to say that if we're lucky, a) the Occupy (insert location here) will be done, and b) this thread will die a quick death, however, I think its wishful thinking on all counts.


----------



## Sukerkin

I'd like to think the Occupy brouhaha will develop into something a bit more potent and actually get some decision makers thinking how to reconfigure the economic system to work better - but all the power and all the money lies in the hands of those with no interest in changing things as that would operate against their short-term interests.

Sadly the OWS is too disparate and unfocussed an outpouring of "Summats up but we can't say what" to go anywhere but downhill - a leaderless mass is far too easily hijacked by those with no sympathy for it and fails to convince those who don't really see that anything is wrong or needs fixing.


----------



## billc

To really help make some changes these occupiers would need to go where the power is actually manifested and that would be congress and the white house.  The problem with occupying the offices of democrat politicians is that they would be going to where their Santa Claus lives. The people who are actually voting for the things they want changed are also the same ones who will vote to forgive their student loan debt, extend their unemployment, grant amnesty to illegal aliens and countless other benefits these folks hope to take advantage of.  You don't protest Santa Claus and expect to get gifts on Christmas.


----------



## Josh Oakley

But we are getting somewhat off topic again. This thread is about UC Davis. And apparently it has gotten hairier.


----------



## ballen0351

Josh Oakley said:


> And apparently it has gotten hairier.


WHAT the damn hippies are back?


----------



## Josh Oakley

Grenadier said:


> Subjects such as the one in this thread are often touchy issues. So far, this thread has been full of pretty good discussion, and I would like to keep it that way. Please keep in mind, that you're allowed to attack the message here, but attacking the sender of that message is off-limits.  Furthermore, this specific forum does *not* give you the same leeway as The Study.  With that being said...*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*Please keep this discussion polite and civil.Thank you.-Ronald Shin-MT Supermoderator


With all manner of politeness and civility, I would like to point out that this _is_ The Study, not a specific subforum. But I appreciate the things you do for our community, your SuperModeratorship!*flees from the banhammer*


----------



## Josh Oakley

ballen0351 said:


> WHAT the damn hippies are back?


Dude. Read the last link I posted. Now the quad really IS flooded with protesters. Somewhere around 500 or more.


----------



## ballen0351

Josh Oakley said:


> Dude. Read the last link I posted. Now the quad really IS flooded with protesters. Somewhere around 500 or more.


guess they need a bigger can of OC spray


----------



## Josh Oakley

ballen0351 said:


> guess they need a bigger can of OC spray


Enough tabasco, and enough supersoakers and we'll be good to go. Only this time it sounds like they're doing it legally. Repugnant isnt enough to warrant the peppers.But seriously, how come there's no video of the spraying incident set to _Spice Up Your Life_? I can't POSSIBLY be the first person to think that.


----------



## Josh Oakley

So it turns out that the "hacktivist" group anonymous was responsible for releasing John Pike's information to the public. Figures. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...avis-article-1.981391?localLinksEnabled=false


----------



## elder999




----------



## Josh Oakley

Like that would really stop Yoda.


----------



## elder999

Josh Oakley said:


> Like that would really stop Yoda.



Yeah, I'm thinking someone's about to lose an arm........:lol:


----------



## Grenadier

Josh Oakley said:


> With all manner of politeness and civility, I would like to point out that this _is_ The Study, not a specific subforum. But I appreciate the things you do for our community, your SuperModeratorship!*flees from the banhammer*



No prob.  I meant to type "The Great Debate" instead of "The Study."


----------



## billc

I think yoda would be the one dispersing the silly people on the sidewalk.  Everyone knows the Jedi Council is a tool of corporate interests.  Of course he wouldn't need to use CS gas because remember, the Jedi mind trick works really well on people with weak minds.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*University to pay medical bills of pepper spray victims - CNN.com* 
www.cnn.com


> University  of California officials said Tuesday they will pay the medical expenses  of students who were pepper sprayed during an Occupy Davis protest last  week.


 Also all charges dropped, the cops involved suspended, and the whole process to be reviewed which means the cops will have their bollocks blocked in the future.

What this is, is a win for  those 10 idiots. They got -exactly- what they wanted.  
Great PR, the  cops painted as nazis, themselves painted as helpless victims. 
 Future  protesters will be able to do much much more, with the cops handcuffed  to do their jobs, and the people will  further blame the 'ineffective' cops for all the violence that comes.    
Good job on the part of the organizers. 
They did better than Osama. He  needed 20 guys to undermine us, these guys only needed 10.

DROIDEKA!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

View attachment $Bxd3X.jpg

Captions
"Here honey, let me freshen your breath"
"I project my chi at you"
"Say AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

Sorry, feeling a bit of the *** today. I blame the pilgrims.


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye, sadly you're being a most unpleasant fellow on this issue.  It is not a good thing that you're not alone in taking such delight in being so, most especially when talking about what is potentially an important matter regarding civil liberties and effective protest (as oppossed to anodyne and un-noticed protest).

I pray that doesn't just mean the low-brow tide is getting higher here.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> *University to pay medical bills of pepper spray victims - CNN.com*
> www.cnn.com Also all charges dropped, the cops involved suspended, and the whole process to be reviewed which means the cops will have their bollocks blocked in the future.
> 
> What this is, is a win for  those 10 idiots. They got -exactly- what they wanted.
> Great PR, the  cops painted as nazis, themselves painted as helpless victims.
> Future  protesters will be able to do much much more, with the cops handcuffed  to do their jobs, and the people will  further blame the 'ineffective' cops for all the violence that comes.
> Good job on the part of the organizers.
> They did better than Osama. He  needed 20 guys to undermine us, these guys only needed 10.
> 
> DROIDEKA!



nah, it's more like the OJ DA who stuck that glove into OJ's hand.

The Dean handed this to them.

But yeah, it made the police work in these case nearly impossible.


----------



## crushing

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, sadly you're being a most unpleasant fellow on this issue. It is not a good thing that you're not alone in taking such delight in being so, most especially when talking about what is potentially an important matter regarding civil liberties and effective protest (as oppossed to anodyne and un-noticed protest).
> 
> I pray that doesn't just mean the low-brow tide is getting higher here.




If you would please, be more specific about the civil liberties that this is regarding.  Thank you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, sadly you're being a most unpleasant fellow on this issue.  It is not a good thing that you're not alone in taking such delight in being so, most especially when talking about what is potentially an important matter regarding civil liberties and effective protest (as oppossed to anodyne and un-noticed protest).
> 
> I pray that doesn't just mean the low-brow tide is getting higher here.



Suk,
  I have sympathy for the girl who allegedly lost her baby after a thug cop maced her and kicked her in the gut. 
  I have sympathy for those women the NYC PD penned up so Tony Balony could target paint them.
  I have sympathy for quite a lot of folks actually.

But
I don't have sympathy for someone who puts themselves needlessly in harms way.
I don't have sympathy for a set up, where the participants were aware of the risks, and went in to 'take one for the team' as it were.

I'm sorry they have to pay more for a college education. I'm sorry they might have to not get the latest fashions, or forego that new video ipod and spend a little more out of pocket on living expenses and books.

But sometimes people are just asses and they deserve a good thump.

I also don't have any sympathy for the sorry prat who got drunk, climbed over a wall and fell to his death in a canyon near me.

If they had deployed LRAD and those 'brave heroic youths' had stood there and let their ears go pop....would we feel sorry for them?
Should we?

I don't see the cop here in the wrong.
I see a group of martyrs and a public crucifixion.

And when you have people destroying property, threatening, assaulting, and  so forth (as in Oakland and NYC), my sympathies for bull **** done under the veil 'freedom of  express', wanes which is why I really have little but contempt for the  "Occupy" movement.  
Hey, when Europe was "Occupied" we sent in some  "Liberators".


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Correction: LRAD has been used.



> [h=3]Against protesters[/h] Most recently, the sound canon was used to evict Occupy Wall Street  protesters from Liberty Plaza in the early morning (approximately 1am)  of November 15th, 2011.
> The LRAD device was on hand at protests of the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City[SUP][6][/SUP] but not used;
> The LRAD was used for the first time in the United States in Pittsburgh during the time of the G20 summit on September 24&#8211;25th, 2009.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
> Pittsburgh police again utilized LRAD as a precautionary measure to  prevent unruly crowds from getting out of control following the 2011  Super Bowl.
> LRAD systems were also purchased by Toronto Police for the 2010 G20 summit.
> 
> LRAD was also used against college students in the city of Macomb,  Illinois at the Wheeler Block Party at Western Illinois University  ("WIU")[SUP][11][/SUP] on May 1, 2011.[1]
> LRAD was reportedly[SUP][12][/SUP] used by the Oakland Police Department during the clearance of the Occupy Oakland encampment on the morning of 25 October 2011.
> LRAD use was reported as the New York City Police department cleared  protestors during the Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park on  the morning of 15 November 2011.[2]


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> Suk,
> I have sympathy for the girl who allegedly lost her baby after a thug cop maced her and kicked her in the gut.
> I have sympathy for those women the NYC PD penned up so Tony Balony could target paint them.
> I have sympathy for quite a lot of folks actually.
> 
> But
> I don't have sympathy for someone who puts themselves needlessly in harms way.
> I don't have sympathy for a set up, where the participants were aware of the risks, and went in to 'take one for the team' as it were.
> 
> I'm sorry they have to pay more for a college education. I'm sorry they might have to not get the latest fashions, or forego that new video ipod and spend a little more out of pocket on living expenses and books.
> 
> But sometimes people are just asses and they deserve a good thump.
> 
> I also don't have any sympathy for the sorry prat who got drunk, climbed over a wall and fell to his death in a canyon near me.
> 
> If they had deployed LRAD and those 'brave heroic youths' had stood there and let their ears go pop....would we feel sorry for them?
> Should we?
> 
> I don't see the cop here in the wrong.
> I see a group of martyrs and a public crucifixion.
> 
> And when you have people destroying property, threatening, assaulting, and so forth (as in Oakland and NYC), my sympathies for bull **** done under the veil 'freedom of express', wanes which is why I really have little but contempt for the "Occupy" movement.
> *Hey, when Europe was "Occupied" we sent in some "Liberators*".



Bob, that's below the belt and not worthy of you.


----------



## Sukerkin

crushing said:


> If you would please, be more specific about the civil liberties that this is regarding.  Thank you.



Did I not already have a go at that earlier in this thread?  

If not, then I shall have to have a go later as, right now, I am too brassed off with the poor reactions I have read from people I thought knew better to be eloquent and dispassionate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Correct me if I am wrong here Tez.

The Nazi held portion of Europe was referred to as "Occupied".
The Allied forces (which included British troops) were referred to as "Liberators".
The B-24 bomber was called _Liberator_.

So, for an 'below the belt' remark, I'm sorry, but I'm missing where that's fitting.

But historically, the bad guys occupy, the good guys liberate.

I wouldn't expect the OWS movement to get it, as they use a large amount of Soviet phrasing in the comments.


But I support the liberation of the occupied territory in the US, with its return to use by all of the people, not just protester tent cities of socialistic squaller and 'equality'. By peaceful means as much as possible, of course.


----------



## ballen0351

Im not sure why medical bills are an issue.  How much does a garden hose and a few gals of water cost in California?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

They get free money for their 'pain and anguish' which would never have happened if they had obeyed the -lawful- order to disperse.

Kind of like how in NY if a guy hurts himself while breaking into your house, you're liable for an 'unsafe work condition'.



It's time to Liberate America. End the "Occupation". Drive the occupiers into the sea, and include some biodegradable soap. Use the most effective of non-lethal means.  Pepper spray is too random. Water cannons waste water. Use LRAD and when that's not available, full volume on episodes of the Laurence Welk show, or Hogan Knows Best!  Jam the wifi, turn off their texting, and silence the drums. 

Then send the bill for the whole cluster to AIG, Wall Street and Bank of America because if those sobs hadn't screwed up so badly, these idiots wouldn't be freezing their bongos off to make a point, which I doubt is 'cops cars are toilets'.

Then vote the sobs out of congress, and put the people back into government.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> They get free money for their 'pain and anguish' which would never have happened if they had obeyed the -lawful- order to disperse.
> 
> Kind of like how in NY if a guy hurts himself while breaking into your house, you're liable for an 'unsafe work condition'.
> 
> 
> 
> It's time to Liberate America. End the "Occupation". Drive the occupiers into the sea, and include some biodegradable soap. Use the most effective of non-lethal means.  Pepper spray is too random. Water cannons waste water. Use LRAD and when that's not available, full volume on episodes of the Laurence Welk show, or Hogan Knows Best!  Jam the wifi, turn off their texting, and silence the drums.
> 
> Then send the bill for the whole cluster to AIG, Wall Street and Bank of America because if those sobs hadn't screwed up so badly, these idiots wouldn't be freezing their bongos off to make a point, which I doubt is 'cops cars are toilets'.
> 
> Then vote the sobs out of congress, and put the people back into government.



have some more turkey.
make it Wild Turkey if you must.

because the mind set you are displaying is the same that you are against when you are arguing against TSA.

But I think the billing part has merit.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure why medical bills are an issue.  How much does a garden hose and a few gals of water cost in California?



Water? oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Tez3

Bob Hubbard said:


> Correct me if I am wrong here Tez.
> 
> The Nazi held portion of Europe was referred to as "Occupied".
> The Allied forces (which included British troops) were referred to as "Liberators".
> The B-24 bomber was called _Liberator_.
> 
> So, for an 'below the belt' remark, I'm sorry, but I'm missing where that's fitting.
> 
> But historically, the bad guys occupy, the good guys liberate.
> 
> I wouldn't expect the OWS movement to get it, as they use a large amount of Soviet phrasing in the comments.
> 
> 
> But I support the liberation of the occupied territory in the US, with its return to use by all of the people, not just protester tent cities of socialistic squaller and 'equality'. By peaceful means as much as possible, of course.



Sorry thought you were doing another, 'if it wasn't for us ' thing. My apologies.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bob Hubbard said:


> View attachment 15734
> 
> Captions
> "Here honey, let me freshen your breath"
> "I project my chi at you"
> "Say AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!"
> 
> Sorry, feeling a bit of the *** today. I blame the pilgrims.









http://www.naturalnews.com/033779_JP_Morgan_Occupy_Wall_Street.html



> (NaturalNews) It may be a simple coincidence, or it may be the perfect  embodiment of exactly why thousands of protesters across the US are  hitting the streets en masse under the banner of Occupy Wall Street  (OWS). Earlier this year, financial giant* JPMorgan Chase & Co.  donated $4.6 million to the New York Police Department (NYPD) to  "strengthen security in the Big Apple"* and several months later, the  NYPD conveniently arrests over 700 individuals, all at one time,  involved in peaceful OWS protests.




These *people *put on their stormtrooper outfits, take Judas' silver, and convince themselves that they are doing the "right" thing in order to go to sleep at night.

Meanwhile...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1032008/-Lawmakers-Probe-$75T-Derivatives-Dump-by-Bank-of-America



> "*Because of the favored treatment of derivative contracts in  receivership, it appears highly likely that losses on derivatives would  result in losses to insured deposits ultimately borne by taxpayers*,"  Miller wrote in his letter, which was signed by eight House Democrats.  The transfers were first reported by Bloomberg News on Oct. 18.



Note - I added the hyperlink to the quoted section, so people can verify this.

75 trillion.  This is several times more then our entire economy folks.  The police are protecting the thieves that will hijack their retirements, their pensions, and most of their income through austerity.  The **** is very close to hitting the fan and I have a message to any cop who's on a power trip and thinks that they are doing the right thing by enforcing law and order to protect the thieves who are stealing their wealth, if you don't take off that stormtrooper outfit and join the people who are protesting, *you deserve it*.  You deserve to have the system turn on you and take with both hands what it gave with one.  Grow a pair, be a man, and stand up for something good for a change.
​ 
These cops are on the wrong side and I have no respect for them.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> These cops are on the wrong side and I have no respect for them.


The Police Officers are on the side of the rest of the millions of people trying to live their lives and not be bothered by these freeloading campers, crapping and pissing in the streets, blocking the streets while they try to go to work to make a living to support families. They are on the side of the small businesses trying to stay open yet the sidewalks in front of the shops are blocked by these so called protesters. The police are on the side of the other 1000's of kids going to UC Davis trying to get an education and live their lives. The police are on the side of my family that wants to go downtown here where we live and enjoy some ice cream by the water front on this unseasonably warm nov day and not be bothered by people cussing yelling playing loud drums begging for money and then screaming when you dont give them any (and we have a small group of only about 15 protesters).​


----------



## crushing

Sukerkin said:


> Did I not already have a go at that earlier in this thread?
> 
> If not, then I shall have to have a go later as, right now, I am too brassed off with the poor reactions I have read from people I thought knew better to be eloquent and dispassionate.



No, not in this thread.  Maybe another thread that I'm not following?  Thank you.


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> Lose an arm, someone is about to........:lol:



fix that for ya...


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> The Police Officers are on the side of the rest of the millions of people trying to live their lives and not be bothered by these freeloading campers, crapping and pissing in the streets, blocking the streets while they try to go to work to make a living to support families. They are on the side of the small businesses trying to stay open yet the sidewalks in front of the shops are blocked by these so called protesters. The police are on the side of the other 1000's of kids going to UC Davis trying to get an education and live their lives. The police are on the side of my family that wants to go downtown here where we live and enjoy some ice cream by the water front on this unseasonably warm nov day and not be bothered by people cussing yelling playing loud drums begging for money and then screaming when you dont give them any (and we have a small group of only about 15 protesters). ​




:BSmeter:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/16/bloomberg_articlesLUQ7FP0YHQ0X.DTL



> Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Examiners from CME Group Inc., the world's  largest futures exchange, found unexplained wire transfers at MF Global  Inc. and a $900 million shortfall in client funds during the weekend the  failing broker was talking with possible buyers, a person briefed on  the matter said.
> 
> 
> CME, which was the overseer of MF Global, noticed the  shortfall by Oct. 30 -- about a day before U.S. regulators said they  were told of the missing funds and the broker filed for bankruptcy  protection, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity  because the review isn't public.



It's starting.  You call this law and order?  

The stormtroopers are on the side of the bankers as they trade on inside information, make insane bets with your money, then perform internal bank runs when the bets go bad.  The cops are protecting the thieves that will steal their savings, confiscate their pensions and retirement accounts, and plunder their income through austerity.  Sure, the protestors have some issues when it comes to the propaganda they've been fed through the government schools, but when it comes to opposing the banks, they are hitting the nail on the head.  

The cops are on the wrong side.  Go and arrest John Corzine for stealing 1.2 billion from grandma and grampa.  Take off the damn stormtrooper outfit and do something good for a change.
​


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> :BSmeter:
> 
> 
> 
> Take off the damn stormtrooper outfit and do something good for a change.
> ​


Id love to but were too busy guarding the sanitation workers trying to clean up the human waste, and filth and taking assault and rape reports caused by these so called peacful protesters.  
Next your going to tell me fire cant bend steel too right rosie?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/16/bloomberg_articlesLUQ7FP0YHQ0X.DTL
> 
> 
> 
> It's starting. You call this law and order?
> 
> The stormtroopers are on the side of the bankers as they trade on inside information, make insane bets with your money, then perform internal bank runs when the bets go bad. The cops are protecting the thieves that will steal their savings, confiscate their pensions and retirement accounts, and plunder their income through austerity. Sure, the protestors have some issues when it comes to the propaganda they've been fed through the government schools, but when it comes to opposing the banks, they are hitting the nail on the head.
> 
> ​



So instead of blaming the police and fighting them march your butts down to the white house and protest Obama hes the man in charge.  Hes the man that wants MORE bail outs.  Hes driving this ship take it up with him.  Leave the rest of us alone.​


----------



## Bob Hubbard

granfire said:


> have some more turkey.
> make it Wild Turkey if you must.
> 
> because the mind set you are displaying is the same that you are against when you are arguing against TSA.
> 
> But I think the billing part has merit.



Step back and reread what I posted carefully. I don't think you read this as intended.

Please.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Id love to but were too busy guarding the sanitation workers trying to clean up the human waste, and filth and taking assault and rape reports caused by these so called peacful protesters.



I've been at these OWS events.  We held some signs, passed out literature, had conversations, and then had a BBQ with our kids.  Yup, sounds violent to me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Hawaii isn't NYC.  Neither's Buffalo.
The folks in Buffalo are putting on an 'everyone welcome' potluck on Friday.
That's only violent when they run outta gravy.

Editing to add link
http://www.facebook.com/events/179647988794708/


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> I've been at these OWS events. We held some signs, passed out literature, had conversations, and then had a BBQ with our kids. Yup, sounds violent to me.


Im happy for you but they are not ALL like that. Even the small one we have here we get complaints about aggressive pan handeling, vulgar language, people using the bathroom in public, ect and this is a small group by comparison most Ive seen so far is 30 but its normally around 15 and they dont even camp out since its against city code to camp overnight with in city limits. Every night when they leave sanitation must go in clean up all the trash. 

.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> So instead of blaming the police and fighting them march your butts down to the white house and protest Obama hes the man in charge.  Hes the man that wants MORE bail outs.  Hes driving this ship take it up with him.  Leave the rest of us alone.  [/LEFT]



Leave you alone?  Nope.  I'm going to continually point out who the police are protecting and keep asking them to take off their stormtrooper outfits and stop.  Why?  Because it's the right thing to do.  I'm actually protecting your property and assets by doing this.  And like I said, we're beyond the time and place where cops can claim ignorance.  The banks are running the show and stealing any pot of money they can get their hands on.  If you keep protecting the criminals, *you deserve it*.

Obama, the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same beast.  They won't help you.  OWS strikes at the root of the Hydra when it focuses on the corporations, banks, and military industrial complex.

What really pisses me off about these cops is that they'll take "donations" from the banks and then go out and do their dirty work.  Unbelievable.  If you are one of these guys who took the silver and are standing there pepper spraying the people who are looking out for your best interest, you're no better then a henchman for a big mobster, IMO.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Makalakumu said:


> I've been at these OWS events.  We held some signs, passed out literature, had conversations, and then had a BBQ with our kids.  Yup, sounds violent to me.


Occupy movements vary from state to state, city to city. In my city they vary from moment to moment. As bob said, cali isn't Hawaii. And in any event there are a number of posters her who are police. If you have no respect for them you have a chance to tell some of them. But I would advise against it. You sound like you are coming from a place of rage rather than intellect. That never works out very well.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Why if all this is going on as you say and bail outs are so bad then why are there not millions of people marching on the white house.  Obama is in charge, Obama wants more money for bail out. Go protest him.



Obama isn't in charge.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Leave you alone? Nope. I'm going to continually point out who the police are protecting and keep asking them to take off their stormtrooper outfits and stop. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. I'm actually protecting your property and assets by doing this. And like I said, we're beyond the time and place where cops can claim ignorance. The banks are running the show and stealing any pot of money they can get their hands on. If you keep protecting the criminals, *you deserve it*.
> 
> Obama, the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same beast. They won't help you. OWS strikes at the root of the Hydra when it focuses on the corporations, banks, and military industrial complex.
> 
> What really pisses me off about these cops is that they'll take "donations" from the banks and then go out and do their dirty work. Unbelievable. If you are one of these guys who took the silver and are standing there pepper spraying the people who are looking out for your best interest, you're no better then a henchman for a big mobster, IMO.


When I said leave US alone I was speaking of me as a Citizen not an officer.  Im one of the MILLIONS of US Citizens that want you OWS people to shut up and leave us alone.  Take the fight to the real root of the problem


----------



## Makalakumu

Josh Oakley said:


> Occupy movements vary from state to state, city to city. In my city they vary from moment to moment. As bob said, cali isn't Hawaii. And in any event there are a number of posters her who are police. If you have no respect for them you have a chance to tell some of them. But I would advise against it. You sound like you are coming from a place of rage rather than intellect. That never works out very well.



Some things should make normal people angry.  Massive theft by a class of people who have made themselves above the law is one of those things.  The striking thing about these protests is that the very people who are protecting the banksters are the people who are being victimized.  The cops are protecting the people who are plundering their livelihoods.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> When I said leave US alone I was speaking of me as a Citizen not an officer.  Im one of the MILLIONS of US Citizens that want you OWS people to shut up and leave us alone.  Take the fight to the real root of the problem



This strikes me as sticking fingers in the ears and shouting because you don't want to hear something.  Wake up!  We're in deep ****!  My family is having our wealth stolen from us as well.  We're all in the same boat and we all need to realize this.  

The real fight is right here in the minds of the people.  OWS is about waking people up.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Obama isn't in charge.


OK nevermind Im waisting my time with you.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Im happy for you but they are not ALL like that. Even the small one we have here we get complaints about aggressive pan handeling, vulgar language, people using the bathroom in public, ect and this is a small group by comparison most Ive seen so far is 30 but its normally around 15 and they dont even camp out since its against city code to camp overnight with in city limits. Every night when they leave sanitation must go in clean up all the trash.



http://gawker.com/5854870/is-nypd-sending-drunk-homeless-people-to-occupy-wall-street



> The increased presence of homeless drug addicts and drunks has been  causing tension in Zuccotti Park. Apparently the amount of "freeloaders"  caused the Occupy Wall Street kitchen to scale back operations for a few days in protest. The Daily News today reports  that the place has basically become divided between "real" occupy wall  street protesters on the east, and the homeless riffraff on the West:  There is now a "wrong side of the tracks" at Zuccotti Park.
> 
> 
> According to _Daily News_ op-ed contributor Harry Siegel, this shift has been helped along by friendly NYPD officers:
> 
> "The NYPD seems to have crossed a line in recent days, as the park has  taken on a darker tone with unsteady and unstable types suddenly seeming  to emerge from the woodwork. Two different drunks I spoke with last  week told me they'd been encouraged to "take it to Zuccotti" by officers  who'd found them drinking in other parks, and members of the community  affairs working group related several similar stories they'd heard while  talking with intoxicated or aggressive new arrivals."



The Empire Strikes Back politically.  The protesters can get pepper sprayed to get some great photo-ops and the Police can send drunks, homeless, and crazies down to the protests in order to get some great photo-ops.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> OK nevermind Im waisting my time with you.



He's not.  Obama is a puppet.  Look at all of the Banksters he installed in his cabinet.  It's time to get real and understand *we *don't control the government.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Your right to protest ends where my right to make a living begins.
Your right to protest ends where my right to be safe from harm begins.

You have every right to protest peacefully.

Not break windows, destroy private property, trespass on private property, assault, rob, steal, rape, hinder traffic to hospitals and doctors, and so forth.

That's the point that OWS doesn't get.

You're mad at the bankers, the brokers, the government.
Guess what, so are a lot of us.

But we, the real 99% (more likely 65%) of the population just want to live our lives. 
I want to serve my customers and not have to clean **** off the floor and spend an extra 50 a week on TP so non-customers can use my loo.
I want to just get to work on time, not get stuck in a jam so I get crap from my boss because some hippie with a hard on and a sign tied up the I95.
I just want to get a sub, not have to wade through a writhing mass of smell teens who think a protest is a good time for all.

That's how -most- of America is looking at OWS.
Sorry.

We see the pictures of the cops and protesters and we think they are -ALL- out of line.
Cops need to back down, protesters need to go home and do something productive.

While the OWS NYC group is trashing vendor carts and terrorizing MCD's, the WNY group is hosting a potluck on Friday.
Which groups going to do more to win public support?
While the Oakland group was shatting on cop cars and US flags, the WNY group brought attention to a scumbag attorney whose practice is now going to close, in part as a result?
Which group "won"?

John, what's the Hawaii group doing? I'd honestly love to hear of their successes. You're the only one to take me up on that invite. You have an uphill battle here, but your input -is- appreciated.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> Step back and reread what I posted carefully. I don't think you read this as intended.
> 
> Please.



I might not have.

but I like the idea of billing wallstreet for the clean up.

all of it.

But I think, especially with some of the posts from 'the other side'
it is clear why there is such a dissent with wall street:
You can't vote them out of office.
You can't even vote with your wallet, because the buck 50 you have to play with does not even buy their frist cup of coffee for the day. 

Add t that that they had the nerves to allow themselves _bonuses_ for screwing up the economy, and not a lick of consequences to be had.

Blame Obama?
oh good grief. There is enough blame to be shared to go a couple of decades back.

I am not sure what your beef with those folks is that populate OWS. 
I mean aside from the obvious criminal element that uses the confusion as cover. Nobody likes them, though a few misguided folks want to cover for them in the name of solidarity.

You can't protest and go home. You get a pad on the head, maybe a cookie and thinks keep on going the way they have been. 
you think anybody would have been bothered to look at OWS if they had gone home after the weekend was over? 

We are in a heap of trouble and have let it go on for decades. Life was good, even though we got our daily screw job, it wasn't too bad to be noticed.
now it seems like the daily job was a group effort and the groups are working on keeping it that way.

The news is - no matter how you slice it - not part of the 99%.
$$ rules what is being put out as news. truth is optional, but mostly a hindrance.

We started off with the OWS being dismissed as stinky lazy hippies. 
Do read that as the 1%'s attempt to dismiss them and establish lack of credibility.

Now we have the lovely situation in Davis. 
I am sure they were a nuisance camping out, but how disruptive were they really? And how much more criminal than the un-assembled student body (in terms of theft and rape and violence)
Oh, and the gawkers and bystanders are the dangerous part of the mob. those who egg on without getting their hands dirty....

now the 1% happily throws the cops under the bus.
There is really no need to get all mad about the cops. 
We are at this time not talking about gunning people down.
beating people who resist arrest is not a new things, and I think it is frowned upon in the daily activities of LE. I am guessing it is individuals that lose their temper. 

of course the media covers that. blood and gore sells as well as sex. 
again, who owns the outlets...truth is optional.

Without protest - historical speaking - there is no political advancement.
And historically you tend to see bloodshed. Sometimes you get progress, sometimes you get restoration. but without protest you are at a stale mate and the little guy gets it. 
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute.

And I think we long since have realized that political heads have no factual power. Those who hold the money do.

the cops are just pawns. Whipping boys and sacrifice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

No, you can't vote out the bank head. No more than you can vote me out of an Admin position here, or the CEO spot at SilverStar.
You can vote for representatives who can make some changes though.
You can vote for President. There's more than 2 parties. Has been for a long time.
Start 'wasting' some votes. Enough 'wasted' votes, and suddenly you have a 3rd party with power.

How many OWS supporters vote? Voted last year? the year before?
Because if they didn't vote, they've got no cred with me.
If they voted 'lesser of 2 evils', no cred with me.
I vote mostly 3rd party. Uphill fight, but it's how you get things done.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> No, you can't vote out the bank head. No more than you can vote me out of an Admin position here, or the CEO spot at SilverStar.
> You can vote for representatives who can make some changes though.
> You can vote for President. There's more than 2 parties. Has been for a long time.
> Start 'wasting' some votes. Enough 'wasted' votes, and suddenly you have a 3rd party with power.
> 
> How many OWS supporters vote? Voted last year? the year before?
> Because if they didn't vote, they've got no cred with me.
> If they voted 'lesser of 2 evils', no cred with me.
> I vote mostly 3rd party. Uphill fight, but it's how you get things done.



I suppose unless you vote for Scrooge Duck, the point will be lost.

The ballot usually only offers bad or worse. Write ins are pointless, so you still only get bad or worse in office.

I should think that election participation of 30% or lower should make the point.
But it does not, because the power people are good in ignoring issues and made it a high artform to actively ignore people.

There will be no 3rd party. The system is not laid out like that, will never be, because the big 2 live of it being the way it is.
The system, while the best at the time is static and bound to $$$


----------



## Josh Oakley

Makalakumu said:


> Some things should make normal people angry.  Massive theft by a class of people who have made themselves above the law is one of those things.  The striking thing about these protests is that the very people who are protecting the banksters are the people who are being victimized.  The cops are protecting the people who are plundering their livelihoods.



What does that have to do with the topic? The topic is Occupy UC DAVIS, not occupy Wall Street. Those cops weren't protecting bankers. They were clearing an unlawful assembly. DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.


----------



## Makalakumu

It's the same movement. Part of this movement is a protest against the banksters.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley

Seriously, everyone. The various Occupy movements are separate circumstances, and there is plenty to discuss about UC Davis in particular, which is the focus of the thread, with out jumping to the whole occupy movement. There are two other threads for that. This one is for UC Davis. Specifically. And we were doing a great job keeping on topic up until a few pages ago. Can we please try and bring it back on track? Anyone? Buehler?


----------



## ballen0351

Josh Oakley said:


> Seriously, everyone. The various Occupy movements are separate circumstances, and there is plenty to discuss about UC Davis in particular, which is the focus of the thread, with out jumping to the whole occupy movement. There are two other threads for that. This one is for UC Davis. Specifically. And we were doing a great job keeping on topic up until a few pages ago. Can we please try and bring it back on track? Anyone? Buehler?


Thats part of the problem Nobody even knows what these people want.  You can walk down to any Occupy event and talk to 5 different people and get five different reasons they are protesting.  
I just did a quick google search of what the Occupy protesters want and I see everything from the Bank bailouts to, demanding single payer health care, to free college education, end use of all fossil fuels, Open Boarders, 100% debt forgiveness for all americans starting now, Out law all credit reporting, union rights.  The list goes on and on.


----------



## granfire

no, the people don't know what they want, they know they DON'T want what they have.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> no, the people don't know what they want, they know they DON'T want what they have.


So they want to take what others have to make them feel better?  Id rather work hard and make a good life for my family then sit on my butt for 3 months in a park yelling and screaming about being poor.


----------



## elder999




----------



## Bob Hubbard

Actually a good point, and I'm as guilty as anyone in thread drift here.  Sorry.

Lets refocus on the UD situation here.


----------



## billc

Okay, those UC Davis kids were jerks.  Is that enough refocusing?:angel:


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> So they want to take what others have to make them feel better?  Id rather work hard and make a good life for my family then sit on my butt for 3 months in a park yelling and screaming about being poor.



at some point you have to take a stand.
or you get the shaft. 

Or to rephrase that:

you have a job.
and maybe by the grace of being a working stiff
you did not lose a lot in material goods.

but at one point the BS hits the fan with a vengeance....
I think we are at the point right now.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Okay, those UC Davis kids were jerks. Is that enough refocusing?:angel:



Yes. A bunch of unruly malcontents, refusing to obey the lawful order of the uniformed force entrusted with maintaining public peace and order, who were forced to use the only means at their disposal of enforcing that lawful authority. 

Seem to recall something like that occuring in Boston, back in 1770.......


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> at some point you have to take a stand.
> or you get the shaft.
> 
> Or to rephrase that:
> 
> you have a job.
> and maybe by the grace of being a working stiff
> you did not lose a lot in material goods.
> 
> but at one point the BS hits the fan with a vengeance....
> I think we are at the point right now.


Yes and Thats why Im active in my community.  My local and state representitives know me on a first name basis.  I go to comminuity meetings.  I write letters to congress.   Im active in my county Republican central committee.  I donate to causes and programs that I believe in.  Ive worked to get bills passed in my state house and have actually been to a bill signing and Hope to attend my 2nd next year when my new project passes.  What I dont do is sit on my butt and cry about what I dont have.  What I dont do is demand Govt take from others that have to give to me since I dont.  AND most importantly I VOTE.  If you dont then you have no right to cry about anything.


----------



## jron

Brilliant, no lawsuits there....


----------



## Sukerkin

It is usually considered poor form amongst the Mentors and Moderators to 'action' threads in which they have been an active participant but, please, come along ladies and gentlemen, try to cleave to the topic of the OP.  It should be recalled that threads in the Study, as a 'price' for the somewhat looser standards of conduct, are expected to stay much more strictly focussed on the first post that started them.

The points being made of late are not invalid but they belong in a thread of their own perhaps?

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor


----------



## Carol

elder999 said:


> Yes. A bunch of unruly malcontents, refusing to obey the lawful order of the uniformed force entrusted with maintaining public peace and order, who were forced to use the only means at their disposal of enforcing that lawful authority.
> 
> Seem to recall something like that occuring in Boston, back in 1770.......



And even today you can find people from Mass. who dismiss Crispus Attucks as little more than "a slave from Framingham who got shot."


----------



## Sukerkin

crushing said:


> No, not in this thread.  Maybe another thread that I'm not following?  Thank you.



*Crush*, I think that what I said in post#24, referencing *Elder*'s post#19 was tied to the civil liberties issues that I considered important.  It's not at all relevant to the 'issues' (or lack of them) prompting the OWS nor the specifics of the complaints of the students sprayed by the long-arm-of-the-law at the university that is the subject of this thread - it is a general point regarding the exercise of effective protest rather than a little supine bleating and then going home because the authorities say you must.


----------



## Big Don

Bob Hubbard said:


> Correct me if I am wrong here Tez.
> 
> The Nazi held portion of Europe was referred to as "Occupied".
> The Allied forces (which included British troops) were referred to as "Liberators".
> The B-24 bomber was called _Liberator_.
> 
> So, for an 'below the belt' remark, I'm sorry, but I'm missing where that's fitting.
> 
> But historically, the bad guys occupy, the good guys liberate.
> 
> I wouldn't expect the OWS movement to get it, as they use a large amount of Soviet phrasing in the comments.
> 
> 
> But I support the liberation of the occupied territory in the US, with its return to use by all of the people, not just protester tent cities of socialistic squaller and 'equality'. By peaceful means as much as possible, of course.


Remember, Occupation is EVIL when done by Israel or the US...


----------



## Makalakumu

The corporate presstitutes really want people to believe that all of the OWS movements are disconnected, and its true, they don't agree on everything.  However, everyone that I've talked to at the protest understands that the financial elite has taken over and needs to be dealt with. Bob mentioned wanting to just live his life and do his business and I think under normal circumstances, that's a realistic expectation. This isn't a normal situation anymore. Not  when BoA moves 75 trillion in bad bets to be secured by the citizenry. That threatens everyone's economic security. Sorry if you can't buy a sandwich, but you need to hear this in exactly the same way you need to hear that your roof is on fire. The difference is that here we see a crisis in slow motion.

My experience at OWS Honolulu has been positive. I had the chance to talk about the issues and clarify them and I didn't have to get arrested. I support the people who choose that route as long as they don't hurt anyone. The one and only time I've ever been arrested was at a  protest.

And the cops were on the wrong side there too. For me it all comes back to that initial photo of the stormtrooper pepper spraying those kids while casually strolling by. I want  to write a musical that includes a scene where that guy flips back his face shield and 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don

Makalakumu said:


> Leave you alone?  Nope.  I'm going to continually point out who the police are protecting


The law abiding? Those bastards!





> and keep asking them to take off their stormtrooper outfits and stop.


 Godwin's law! Calling American police officers stormtroopers shows a profound lack of any sense of history





> Why?  Because it's the right thing to do.  I'm actually protecting your property and assets by doing this.  And like I said, we're beyond the time and place where cops can claim ignorance.  The banks are running the show and stealing any pot of money they can get their hands on.  If you keep protecting the criminals, *you deserve it*.


hahhaha





> Obama, the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same beast.  They won't help you.  OWS strikes at the root of the Hydra when it focuses on the corporations, banks, and military industrial complex.
> 
> What really pisses me off about these cops is that they'll take "donations" from the banks and then go out and do their dirty work.  Unbelievable.  If you are one of these guys who took the silver and are standing there pepper spraying the people who are looking out for your best interest, you're no better then a henchman for a big mobster, IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu

He breaks out into song about American liberty. The scene ends with the cop stripped naked and gleefully waterboarded while Uncle Sam and Daddy Warbucks insert the cops nightstick into his rectum.

Montey Python with a crass American twist.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## crushing

Sukerkin said:


> *Elder* made the post I would have done - well said good sir.
> 
> For it does indeed boil down to the fact that you are not being even the tiniest bit outraged that the law enforcement agencies of your country will be used to suppress dissent, no matter how peaceful.
> 
> They blocked the pavement - ooh how evil and anarchistic of them.  They didn't move when the police officers ordered them to - well that is kind of the point of civil disobedient protest.
> 
> I can't really say it is the officers fault, they were doing what they were asked and, as yet, what was being asked of them was not going to end up with herding people onto cattle trucks.  But there does come a point, well defined by a certain set of famous trials, that following orders is not a sufficient excuse.  Now that point is so far over the horizon yet that it is almost comical to have to make it but creeping erosion of attitudes is what leads to such ends if you are not vigilant as individuals.



The right to block a passageway?  There was no issue with people gathering and speaking their minds.  The problem was the blockade of a pathway.  The police did nothing with the gauntlet of students that lined the sides of the pathway, only those tbat blocked access.  I would expect the same treatment for a gang of people that block access to a clinic and refused to move.


----------



## Sukerkin

Was it really blocked, *Crush*?  From what I understood they were 'in the way' but not obstructing access?  Details are muddy at present for me on that one it seems.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> Was it really blocked, *Crush*?  From what I understood they were 'in the way' but not obstructing access?  Details are muddy at present for me on that one it seems.


well they are lined up 2 deep across the sidewalk.  Linked arms and refusing tio move.  Looks blocked to me.


----------



## elder999

Seems to me there was a time in 1965 when a few people were "blocking the way" down in Selma. One of them became a Congressman....






The beaten man on the ground here is Congressman John Lewis, *D*, from Georgia.
Guess he should have gotten out of the way...


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> Yes. A bunch of unruly malcontents, refusing to obey the lawful order of the uniformed force entrusted with maintaining public peace and order, who were forced to use the only means at their disposal of enforcing that lawful authority.
> 
> Seem to recall something like that occuring in Boston, back in 1770.......
> 
> View attachment 15735



This is not really the best comparison. Pepper spray and paintball guns filled with rubber balls is hardly comparable to muskets and bayonets. UC Davis is hardly Kent State. And in comparison, the UC Davis cops did a much better than either example.


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> The law abiding? Those bastards! Godwin's law! Calling American police officers stormtroopers shows a profound lack of any sense of historyhahhaha


 
Big Don can be the cop in my musical and we'll cast Rush Limbaugh as Daddy Warbucks.

"I'm proud to be an American cuz at least I know I'm free..."

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## crushing

Sukerkin said:


> Was it really blocked, *Crush*?  From what I understood they were 'in the way' but not obstructing access?  Details are muddy at present for me on that one it seems.



Now back to my question.  Are you are saying "being in the way" is a civil liberty?


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> Seems to me there was a time in 1965 when a few people were "blocking the way" down in Selma. One of them became a Congressman....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beaten man on the ground here is Congressman John Lewis, *D*, from Georgia.
> Guess he should have gotten out of the way...


Comparing the current a holes to those in the civil rights protests of the 60's is beneath you, Jeff. I had thought better of you.


----------



## crushing

elder999 said:


> Seems to me there was a time in 1965 when a few people were "blocking the way" down in Selma. One of them became a Congressman....
> 
> The beaten man on the ground here is Congressman John Lewis, *D*, from Georgia.
> Guess he should have gotten out of the way...



Did he ever get his student loans forgiven?


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> Seems to me there was a time in 1965 when a few people were "blocking the way" down in Selma. One of them became a Congressman....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beaten man on the ground here is Congressman John Lewis, *D*, from Georgia.
> Guess he should have gotten out of the way...



This is more comparable to Berkeley than Davis. At UC Davis there were no beatings, no injuries. On either side. Pepper spray sucks, and in some cases could pose a health hazard. But it is safer than dogs, clubs, rubber bullets, water hoses, or physical manipulation.  Of all the possible ways they could have cleared the quad, this was the best option. Interestingly, the Lieutenant did it himself, rather than let one of the lower ranks take the heat. It seems everyone there knew this was going to escalate, and from the video, that is what the protesters wanted. 

There were better ways for the protesters to assemble. They did not need to put up tents (which are NOT symbolic free speech), nor restrict access, (which is also against the law). Other Occupy movements have been much better at dealing with cops and administration, making their statement _legally._


----------



## Sukerkin

crushing said:


> Now back to my question.  Are you are saying "being in the way" is a civil liberty?



Are you being deliberately obtuse, good sir, or do you really not see the underlying point?  

Either way, I'm wandering away from this now as it's two in the morning for me.  Maybe Elder can set you straight as I know he sees where the problem lies quite clearly.


----------



## elder999

Quite right. I suppose this fellow should have gotten out of the way as well


----------



## Big Don

You know what, the police had the following options:
Order the people to disperse. They disperse as ordered
Order the people to disperse, they don't disperse, threaten arrest. They disperse as ordered.
Order the people to disperse, they respond with catcalls, spitting on the police, link arms and sit pat.
At which point the police could employ night sticks, OC spray, tazers, physical force, or draw firearms.

Would you rather they beat them senseless? Shoot them? Taze them?
OK, then. 
The protestors had 2 choices:
Obey the lawful orders of the police 
OR
Suffer the consequences of their choice


----------



## crushing

Sukerkin said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse, good sir, or do you really not see the underlying point?



I'm not being obtuse.  I asked a simple question and instead of an answer I've been sent on a wild goose chase looking at old posts and left trying to dig up underlying points.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Quite right. I suppose this fellow should have gotten out of the way as well


So You think the civil rights movment of the 60's is on par with a bunch of kids protesting higher college prices?  Your doing a MAJOR disservice to the entire civil rights movement with that comparison.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> So You think the civil rights movment of the 60's is on par with a bunch of kids protesting higher college prices? Your doing a MAJOR disservice to the entire civil rights movement with that comparison.



No, I'm not-the principles are the same. I'd compare a bunch of *KKK* morons in the same situation, which is, frankly, just exercising their rights.

More to the point, there's far, far more to the whole "Occupy" movement than the *right wing corporate owned* media is letting anyone know.

[yt]ohevRQb-dJM[/yt]

Guy sounds like he belongs at a Tea Party, doesn't he? :lol:


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> So You think the civil rights movment of the 60's is on par with a bunch of kids protesting higher college prices?  Your doing a MAJOR disservice to the entire civil rights movement with that comparison.



I disagree with your assessment.  Elder is doing a great job of showing the contrast between a civil rights struggle with violent actions from government and the rather peaceful action at UC Davis.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> well they are lined up 2 deep across the sidewalk.  Linked arms and refusing tio move.  Looks blocked to me.



I took the trouble to looking at UC Davis, bird's eye view...
There is a lot of room to get about...of course, you do have to step off the sidewalk, but I always though outside of Germany it was not criminal to walk on the grass? (being cynical, as well as German)


----------



## Josh Oakley

granfire said:


> at some point you have to take a stand.
> or you get the shaft.
> 
> Or to rephrase that:
> 
> you have a job.
> and maybe by the grace of being a working stiff
> you did not lose a lot in material goods.
> 
> but at one point the BS hits the fan with a vengeance....
> I think we are at the point right now.



Allow me to point out to the both of you that the rally was about education, not jobs. The cost of education at UC Davis is twice what it was 6 years ago, and will roughly double again in the next 6 years.

My problem with this group's reaction (other than going from a legal protest to an illegal protest needlessly) is they publicly state that education should be _free. _How they figure a state government that is BILLIONS of dollars in the hole can possibly provide free education is beyond me. This group of students has a legitimate beef, I think, But they took it out of hand, and the protests are not going to help change the situation.  All they do is raise protest on other side.

Now some of the problem _can_ be alleviated by looking for sponsors, scholarships, and looking at ways to help reduce spending in manners that won't cripple services. Ramping up their waste reduction program (which they are working on), Finding more efficient ways to do business, etc. There are many ways that can be done to reduce cost.

But it will mean some decreased services. It will still mean that tuition increases. But focused efforts could stem the tide. 

All the protesting is doing is costing more, and making a bad situation worse. It is vilifying administrators and police, both of whom are also constantly trying to maximixe the use of fewer and fewer resources, finances, and personnel, and creating a situation they will be increasingly worse. 

And the ***** of it is that the rates aren't set at UC Davis. They are set by the University of California Board of Regents. If they started a letter writing campaign to the office of the President of the Board of Regents, protested outside of where they meet, or better yet, flooded every board meeting (which are open to the public-I checked) to capacity and spoke repeatedly about the situation, you would likely see a more effective resolution. Not a perfect one, because perfect is unattainable, but one that might be more workable.

But here is the problem with having aligned themselves with the Occupy movement: That movement is not seeking mere change, it is seeking revolution. From the standpoint of revolution, there is no working with administrators. Only their usurpation. And we are seeing in the videos that the tactics are indeed focused on revolution, not mere change. This is a highly publicized protest,which means it is tough for either side to lie, and frankly, both have made the attempt. 

In short, no matter how well the cops could have or did perform, based on the mindset of the protesters, they would have been painted negatively _regardless_ of the outcome.


----------



## crushing

Of course it isn't criminal to be on the grass.  That's where most of the protesters were standing just off the edges of the sidewalk.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> No, I'm not-the principles are the same.


So the principles of All men should be treated equal regardless of race color or creed is on par in your mind with I want my tuition to go down and I refuse to transfer to a community college or a cheaper school to get the same education?


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> You know what, the police had the following options:
> Order the people to disperse. They disperse as ordered
> Order the people to disperse, they don't disperse, threaten arrest. They disperse as ordered.
> Order the people to disperse, they respond with catcalls, spitting on the police, link arms and sit pat.
> At which point the police could employ night sticks, OC spray, tazers, physical force, or draw firearms.
> 
> Would you rather they beat them senseless? Shoot them? Taze them?
> OK, then.
> The protestors had 2 choices:
> Obey the lawful orders of the police
> OR
> Suffer the consequences of their choice



I love how it never enters into your mind that the police should join the protesters.  The moment this happens, we'll reach a turning point in this nation.  Until then, we'll march toward tyranny.


----------



## ballen0351

Josh Oakley said:


> And the ***** of it is that the rates aren't set at UC Davis. They are set by the University of California Board of Regents. If they started a letter writing campaign to the office of the President of the Board of Regents, protested outside of where they meet, or better yet, flooded every board meeting (which are open to the public-I checked) to capacity and spoke repeatedly about the situation, you would likely see a more effective resolution. Not a perfect one, because perfect is unattainable, but one that might be more workable.
> 
> .


Well that just sounds like work and no fun.  Its much more fun to skip class, camp in a tent, demand free stuff, and wait to get on you tube and face book.


I go to most local city meetings and whenever my state and federal reps come to town for a "town hall" meeting.  There are nomally about 10% of the seats used up at these meetings the rest are empty.  If people really cared and wanted to change things these meeting would be filled to the brim.  However it takes real work to change things and nobodys willing to work to create change they would rather stand around and cry about how lifes not fair.


----------



## jks9199

granfire said:


> Water? oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



Yep.  Water.  Dihydrogen monoxide.  H2O.  That's all it takes to decontaminate after OC.  Wanna go all out?  Add some dish soap.

In fact, you don't even need that.  About 30 minutes of fresh air will do the job, too.


----------



## Big Don

Makalakumu said:


> I love how it never enters into your mind that the police should join the protesters.


Maybe they should join the drug dealers, the pimps, the prostitutes and the thieves too...
No, it never entered my mind that the police should join the criminals, because, make no mistake, when you are given a lawful order by a police officer and CHOOSE not to obey it, you CHOOSE to be a criminal.


----------



## elder999

Josh Oakley said:


> Allow me to point out to the both of you that the rally was about education, not jobs. The cost of education at UC Davis is twice what it was 6 years ago, and will roughly double again in the next 6 years.
> 
> My problem with this group's reaction (other than going from a legal protest to an illegal protest needlessly) is they publicly state that education should be _free. _How they figure a state government that is BILLIONS of dollars in the hole can possibly provide free education is beyond me. e.



Not as hard as it sounds-it was free in California until Reagan was elected governor. Hell, it was even really, really cheap when I was college age. More to the point, it's part of the job of a government like ours to ensure that the populace is educated as much as they can be because, well, because *we are the government, dammit!*



> *1789 January 8.* (to Richard Price) "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."
> 
> *1787 December 20.* (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
> 
> *1810 May 6.* (to the Trustees of the Lottery for East Tennessee College) "No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in it's effect towards supporting free & good government
> *1818 August 4.* "The objects of this primary eduction [university education] determine its character and limits. These objects are To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor and judgement; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. To instruct the mass of our citizens in these, their rights, interests and duties, as men and citizens, being then the objects of education in the primary schools, whether privet or public, in them should be taught reading, writing and numerical arithmetic, the elements of mensuration...and the outlines of geography and history.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> I love how it never enters into your mind that the police should join the protesters. The moment this happens, we'll reach a turning point in this nation. Until then, we'll march toward tyranny.


Or maby the protesters should stop claiming to represent the 99% because last itme I checked I dont make 1% of all income in this country and they sure as heck dont represent me.  We dont join because we know camping in a park and going to the bathroom in a bucket or worse on the ground WONT change anything.  If you want real change you ahve to work for it.  You have to get people elected that will change things.  You have to go to the real problem and make your opinions known.  Sitting at a park in Hawaii crying about bank bailouts and Corp Greed and then having a BBQ with the kids wont fix anything.  March to Washington.  Hold Obama accountable hes in charge now.  You all elected him on this hope and change crap so hold his feet to the fire.  Demand meetings with your elected officials.  Write letters, make phone calls, find people that believe like you and support them for a run for office.  But again thats real work and no fun.


----------



## Makalakumu

Josh Oakley said:


> Allow me to point out to the both of you that the rally was about education, not jobs. The cost of education at UC Davis is twice what it was 6 years ago, and will roughly double again in the next 6 years.
> 
> My problem with this group's reaction (other than going from a legal protest to an illegal protest needlessly) is they publicly state that education should be _free._



My argument to a protestor who presented this argument would be that education *IS* free.  We live in a day and age where you can learn just about anything you want to learn.  What isn't free is the government permission slip that allows you to hold a job.


----------



## granfire

jks9199 said:


> Yep.  Water.  Dihydrogen monoxide.  H2O.  That's all it takes to decontaminate after OC.  Wanna go all out?  Add some dish soap.
> 
> In fact, you don't even need that.  About 30 minutes of fresh air will do the job, too.



LOL, and I am reading the post of mine you quoted, and your reply and I am thoroughly lost, though I know I said it, but I can't for the life of me remember the context....

I blame it on old age and the desperate need to go blond...
:lfao:

I am so sorry.
^_^


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> . What isn't free is the government permission slip that allows you to hold a job.


What?  I dont have a permission slip.  Crap does this mean my paycheck wont be coming next friday?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Uh, what permission slip?  In the Peoples Socialist Empire State of NY, all I need to do is show up.
I can start a business without -any- paperwork. Tens of thousands of folks do that daily.
I don't have to ask any Central Assembly for a Concensus to work.
I just do.
Started a dozen businesses. Most with no paperwork.
The corporation took the most.

But again, has nada to do with OCD.


----------



## Makalakumu

Big Don said:


> Maybe they should join the drug dealers, the pimps, the prostitutes and the *thieves *too...
> 
> No, it never entered my mind that the police should join the criminals, because, make no mistake, when you are given a lawful order by a police officer and CHOOSE not to obey it, you CHOOSE to be a criminal.



But the police have joined the *thieves* when they stand against OWS...


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> What?  I dont have a permission slip.  Crap does this mean my paycheck wont be coming next friday?



Look at the degree posted on your wall (assuming you have one).  It's a permission slip.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> So the principles of All men should be treated equal regardless of race color or creed is on par in your mind with I want my tuition to go down and I refuse to transfer to a community college or a cheaper school to get the same education?



Intersting that you omitted the part of my quote where I basically said that the police would be wrong to do that to the KKK. 

In a free society such as  ours, the content of speech does not negate it's stautes as free speech.

In a free society such as ours, the status of the assembled does not negate their right to free assembly.

In a free society such as ours, the downright absurdity of a grievance against the govenment does not negate the right to seek redress against that grievance from the government.

More to the point: I have children just a little older than those college kids. Agree with them or not, I support their right to protest-_*whatever*_, right up to and including the imprisonment of aliens at Area 51. I'd say that they could have conducted themselves better-but the whole sitting there with arms linked thing is your basic "non-violent resistance 101," and goes all the way back to Gandhi. 

The  cops-the only so-called "professionals" on the scene could have done better as well, and supporting their actions, even to say "they really had no choice" misses the point I've been trying to make, which goes back to the beginning of this thread and what you've posted here.

What those kids were protesting, and who they were in no way excuses the police, nor should it. You want to make a procedural case of it? Fine. You say the cops had no choice? Good. You say that's what the kids wanted and intended in the first place? You're almost certainly right. 

You say it's okay because it's just a bunch of smelly spoiled college students who could use a bath and a job? Well, let's commence with the pogroms now, because I just don't have the patience anymore: I've got my food stockpiled,my guns are all clean and my ammo locker is currently full......as the Great Communicator said when faced with a similar situation as governor:



> "If it takes a bloodbath,* let's get it over with*. No more appeasement."
> 
> *Ronald Reagan*, May, 1969, when asked about demonstrations at Berkley, just hours before he ordered the National Guard to put the demonstration down, with an action that wounded 51 and killed 1.(And 111 cops injured as well)


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Look at the degree posted on your wall (assuming you have one). It's a permission slip.


Haa Only thing hanging on my walls are an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps pictures of my family, and a Cross with my Lord and Savior on it.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bob Hubbard said:


> The corporation took the most.
> 
> But again, has nada to do with OCD.



Bob, get real.  You have plenty of paper, especially if you incorporated.

This has everything to do with OCD.  If the students are protesting the cost of school, it's because of the government/bank partnership.

Learn more about this here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

OWS are not the heros. They are a disorganized movement, pulling in multiple directions, more than half of which are impractical at best and ludicrous at worst.


This is why there was a police action.


> Katehi said students have a right to protest peacefully, but the  university bans camping on campus because of safety and health concerns.
> Occupy  UC Davis protesters have ignored the camping ban. The encampment went  back up Monday night, and campus officials said it included as many as  80 tents Wednesday.


 (source)

The students are violating campus safety rules.

The police are charged with ensuring safety.

Why are they protesting now?



> UCLA students gathered Monday night in Westwood to  protest tuition increases and the recent pepper-spraying of students by  police at UC Davis. 	 Sixty students rebuilt the Occupy encampment after it was shut  down last Friday by police in riot gear, who arrested 14 people that  day.
> The students want to show their solidarity with Occupy UC  movements across the state. UCLA is one of four UC campuses to protest.


(source)

Protesting tuition increases, and the pepper spraying of the students who were (say it with me) guilty of ignoring the lawful orders of law enforcement officers who were attempting to peacefully disperse an sit in. Said students were given ample opportunity to move before they began resisting arrest which resulted in their spraying.

No bankers, no bail outs, no brokers.

Just "college costs too much".


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Intersting that you omitted the part of my quote where I basically said that the police would be wrong to do that to the KKK.
> 
> In a free society such as ours, the content of speech does not negate it's stautes as free speech.
> 
> In a free society such as ours, the status of the assembled does not negate their right to free assembly.
> 
> In a free society such as ours, the downright absurdity of a grievance against the govenment does not negate the right to seek redress against that grievance from the government.


I agree with you they have the right to protest anyhting they want. They can protest the high price of pop tarts if they want. My comment was there grievance is no where near the same level of the civil rights movment and for you to keep posting pictures of the civil rights movment in my opinion lowers the struggles they went thru.



> More to the point: I have children just a little older than those college kids. Agree with them or not, I support their right to protest-_*whatever*_, right up to and including the imprisonment of aliens at Area 51. I'd say that they could have conducted themselves better-but the whole sitting there with arms linked thing is your basic "non-violent resistance 101," and goes all the way back to Gandhi.


I agree again with that statement however your rights are no greater then mine and do not trump my rights. Your right to be you is no greater then my right to be freeew from you. When you start to disturb the peace of others and block others rights to free movement you are wrong and need to back off to one side or the other.



> The cops-the only so-called "professionals" on the scene could have done better as well, and supporting their actions, even to say "they really had no choice" misses the point I've been trying to make, which goes back to the beginning of this thread and what you've posted here.


And how would you do it. You play police officer. The order comes down to clear the side walk. You ask, then order, then make the threat of arrest to get kids to move and they refuse. What would you do? Walk away? say oh well never mind?



> What those kids were protesting, and who they were in no way excuses the police, nor should it. You want to make a procedural case of it? Fine. You say the cops had no choice? Good. You say that's what the kids wanted and intended in the first place? You're almost certainly right.
> 
> You say it's okay because it's just a bunch of smelly spoiled college students who could use a bath and a job? Well, let's commence with the pogroms now, because I just don't have the patience anymore: I've got my food stockpiled,my guns are all clean and my ammo locker is currently full......as the Great Communicator said when faced with a similar situation as governor:
> 
> [/SIZE]


I never said it was because they were smelly kids is why I agreed with the action of the police. I said they violated the LAW. If you disagree with the LAW take it up with the LAW MAKERS or the board of directors of the college. The officer did not make the LAW and merely swore to uphold the LAW. If the LAW is wrong file a suit and have it challenged in court and have the bad LAW overturned. Its the legal way things are done in this country. Thats why we have Checks and balances written into our Constitution.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Haa Only thing hanging on my walls are an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps pictures of my family, and a Cross with my Lord and Savior on it.



Not impressed.  A person is judged by their actions, not by their symbols.


----------



## Makalakumu

Bob Hubbard said:


> No bankers, no bail outs, no brokers.
> 
> Just "college costs too much".



It costs too much because of the government and the banks.  See my above post.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Makalakumu said:


> Bob, get real.  You have plenty of paper, especially if you incorporated.
> 
> This has everything to do with OCD.  If the students are protesting the cost of school, it's because of the government/bank partnership.



John.
I started this forum. -0- government paperwork.
Started 10 in fact. total gov. paper? -0-.
Launched an programming biz.
A pc repair company.
A landscaping biz.
A consulting biz.
A photography biz.
An Amway biz.
A publishing biz.
A few others I can't recall.
Total Government Paperwork?
- Z  E  R  O  -
Guess I forgot to ask my owners huh?


----------



## shesulsa

Makalakumu said:


> I love how it never enters into your mind that the police should join the protesters.  The moment this happens, we'll reach a turning point in this nation.  Until then, we'll march toward tyranny.



I know I made this suggestion - if not on MT, then elsewhere.  They are, after all, part of the 99%.  The fellas up here voluntarily took a two- and three-year pay freeze to avoid layoffs. Damned if they weren't cut anyway.  I don't see the people responsible for making the poor decisions rolling downward causing the upheaval in these people's lives getting laid off or taking pay cuts - in fact, they are taking raises and getting promoted.

Am I *really* the only one who sees something wrong here?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Not impressed. A person is judged by their actions, not by their symbols.


Not impressed by who?  Me I could careless I have zero interest in impressing anyone.  Them? They earned my respect the day they signed on the line and strapped on the boots


----------



## Bob Hubbard

shesulsa said:


> I know I made this suggestion - if not on MT, then elsewhere.  They are, after all, part of the 99%.  The fellas up here voluntarily took a two- and three-year pay freeze to avoid layoffs. Damned if they weren't cut anyway.  I don't see the people responsible for making the poor decisions rolling downward causing the upheaval in these people's lives getting laid off or taking pay cuts - in fact, they are taking raises and getting promoted.
> 
> Am I *really* the only one who sees something wrong here?



No, you're not.  In fact, a number of us have said there's a problem.

We're just disagreeing on which is better to get things fixed: to bang on bongos and poop on cop cars, or get involved in the political system, vote etc.

I'm taking B here.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I have to call my owner and check in and make sure I said the right thing. Damn this lack of freedom.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> I never said it was because they were smelly kids is why I agreed with the action of the police..





ballen0351 said:


> Your husband wrong. Point balnk. period.
> 
> 
> *Im not getting arrested for my right to sit my lazy butt on a side walk*. If.





ballen0351 said:


> I dont think you can compare what Ghandi did with *a bunch of spoiled rich kids* going to a school that costs over 78K a year (per the schools own website)





ballen0351 said:


> The Police Officers are on the side of the rest of the millions of people trying to live their lives and not be bothered by these freeloading campers, crapping and pissing in the streets, blocking the streets while they try to go to work to make a living to support families. They are on the side of the small businesses trying to stay open yet the sidewalks in front of the shops are blocked *by these so called protesters*. The police are on the side of the other 1000's of kids going to UC Davis trying to get an education and live their lives. The police are on the side of my family that wants to go downtown here where we live and enjoy some ice cream by the water front on this unseasonably warm nov day and not be bothered by people cussing yelling playing loud drums begging for money and then screaming when you dont give them any (and we have a small group of only about 15 protesters).





ballen0351 said:


> *What I dont do is sit on my butt and cry about what I dont have*. What I dont do is demand Govt take from others that have to give to me since I dont. AND most importantly I VOTE. If you dont then *you have no right to cry about anything.*



,


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> ,



Yes they are lazy kids sitting on their butts doing nothing I dont disagree with that but no where did I say thats why they got sprayed.  In My opinion they are P.O.S but thats not a crime and they can cry until the cows come home thats not why they were sprayed.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Yes they are lazy kids sitting on their butts doing nothing I dont disagree with that but no where did I say thats why they got sprayed.



In the first place, how do you know they're lazy kids sitting on their butts doing nothing?

This one is a grad student:

[yt]9C_A2bHvKWY[/yt]
Secondly, making the statement does imply some sort of correlation-it really shouldn't matter if they're lazy or not, if the police actions were correct. To make the statement implies that it supports the police action.




ballen0351 said:


> In My opinion they are P.O.S but thats not a crime and they can cry until the cows come home thats not why they were sprayed.



Well, here's the raw footage:

[yt]K8Uj1cV97XQ[/yt]

Based on the interactions beforehand, I'd say the police pepper sprayed them because they wanted to. Based on what took place _after_ the spraying, I'd have to say that the spraying made no difference-the cops could have broken up that feeble "human chain" at any time, with a minimum of pain compliance technique, and put the cuffs on those kids-who, as Bill Mattocks has pointed out, *wanted* to be arrested, and weren't going to _physically_ resist the police beyond the _passive_ resistance they were already displaying. There were enough cops there to do this physically without harming anyone, if they were properly trained.

 Hell, I've _never_ worked in law-enforcement, but I've trained lots of people-cops and otherwise-in getting a sitting person to comply-and that's what took place here. It isn't even like the pepper spray made them move or unlink their arms or anything. 

The whole thing is just stupid-and so is saying it was the right thing to do.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Yes they are lazy kids sitting on their butts doing nothing I dont disagree with that but no where did I say thats why they got sprayed.  In My opinion they are P.O.S but thats not a crime and they can cry until the cows come home thats not why they were sprayed.



I think you are buying into the "news" rhetoric.

the thing is, all those people have been told they must go to college to amount to something. 
now they are in college and have the prospect of being somebody: up to their eyeballs in dept for the rest of their lives.

And no, we all do need those lazy students at some point in our lives:
be it as the engineer who designs that new bridge in place of the old one that was build during the last depression, or the doctors that treat out various ailments.

Even the teachers we all love to hate, or the nurses.
I am sure the list goes on, and I am sure by now a lot of those people would have rather learned a good trade instead of wasting their time in college.


but generally speaking, I do think it is time for everybody to take a deep breath and maybe look at the issue from a less than personal angle.

it is easy to pad a soldier on the shoulder to thank him/her for the service, quiet another to put on those fatigues and do the job yourself.
The protesters are no different. 
They sit in the camps, on the sidewalk in the stream of pepper spray, so you don't have to.

no, they don't all know why, and not all of them actually care. Some of them even use it as excuse to behave badly. 
but that is the deal when you deal with that: human beings.

it's a matter of 'I am madder than hell and I am not gonna take it anymore'

The system is broken and it won't be fixed by voting and it won't happen from the top down.

you know the old saying: Don't pi$$ down my back and tell me it's raining.

We have taken that for far too long. And the fact that the movement has spread not only across the nation but has gone international ought to tell you something!

yes, Wall Street did that, all of that, globally.

No, Wall Street probably has little to do with the rising tuition in cali. Not directly anyhow.
But seriously! 
When middle aged people get depressed over the outlook of the economy and expect 2 decades of recession, how are young people supposed to feel?

But again, this is not OWS NYC, this is UC Davis. 
I am assuming the occupied area is what shows up when you look at the satellite image googling for UC Davis: a wide open space, I am sure the handful people camping there did not bother much but the esthetic feelings of the administrator. 


alas, it is pointless to speculate. The situation has escalated. What was a rather small problem has now gone national and 'viral' and grown locally. 
It would have probably been easier and served the purpose better to just tear the tents down....
again, water under the bridge.

The results were obviously not the desired ones.


----------



## billc

There you go again elder showing democrats beating up minoritites.  I really can't see how anyone can honestly compare the OWS silly people to the civil rights movement.  What a stretch.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> There you go again elder showing democrats beating up minoritites. I really can't see how anyone can honestly compare the OWS silly people to the civil rights movement. What a stretch.



As I said, the man on the ground in the first picture is now a  _*Democrat*_ congressman.

As in, one of the minorities being beaten up......

As in, the issue not being party but *race.......
*

And, as I said, the principle is the same-it doesn't matter _what_ they're protesting, or what their viewpoint is, or who they are. 

Hell, ballen has posted that he's had to _protect_ the Phelps family's "God hates" church at their "protests." I know the cops have had to protect the KKK elsewhere. Why is that so hard to understand? And, as Bill said, the kids wanted to be arrested-the police didn't need to pepper spray them at all, all they had to do was what they did after they pepper sprayed........


----------



## billc

If the UC silly kids want to complain about tuition then they need to stop government backed student loans.  The government student loan program has allowed Universities to jack up their prices many times where they should be.  Whenever the government increases student loans, "Big Education" jacks up their tuition and fees to match the hike and then they add a little more.  The UC kids should be fighting to stop government backed student loans and they should go after the colleges that have more than enough money to support providing financial aid to students without going to the tax payers.  The endowments to the biggest universities are huge.  They are the ones who need to fix the education problem, not government.

Another picture of Democrats with police dogs attacking minorities.  Elder, do you dislike democrats or something, you should stop showing how they behaved toward minorities.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> In the first place, how do you know they're lazy kids sitting on their butts doing nothing?


 well they are in school to learn yet they were not in class they were sitting on their well BUTTS.  So not going to class = lazy sitting on butts = sitting on butts.  Lazy kids sitting on butts its really simple actually.



> Secondly, making the statement does imply some sort of correlation-it really shouldn't matter if they're lazy or not, if the police actions were correct. To make the statement implies that it supports the police action.


 Wrong I said several times they were only sprayed for braking the law and it has nothing to do with them being smelly or lazy.  You choose to see what u want thats not my problem thats yours.






> Based on the interactions beforehand, I'd say the police pepper sprayed them because they wanted to. Based on what took place _after_ the spraying, I'd have to say that the spraying made no difference-the cops could have broken up that feeble "human chain" at any time, with a minimum of pain compliance technique, and put the cuffs on those kids-who, as Bill Mattocks has pointed out, *wanted* to be arrested, and weren't going to _physically_ resist the police beyond the _passive_ resistance they were already displaying. There were enough cops there to do this physically without harming anyone, if they were properly trained.


so now you would have rather seen the cops using physical force and not OC spray?  OC spray has very very small chance of causing injuries.  Physical force well has much greater chance of causing injuries.



> Hell, I've _never_ worked in law-enforcement, but I've trained lots of people-cops and otherwise-in getting a sitting person to comply-and that's what took place here. It isn't even like the pepper spray made them move or unlink their arms or anything.


So you have no idea what your talking about then.  You have zero idea about crowd control methods, zero idea about police tactics, zero idea about that departments Use of force policy.  So basiclly you have zero idea what your talking about yet insist they were wrong 



> The whole thing is just stupid-and so is saying it was the right thing to do.


It is stupid.  The kids should have been in class learning.  They cry about how much they pay to go to that school and then dont even go to class they camp out and sit on sidewalks.


----------



## billc

Yes, once the democrats realized they couldn't beat, kill or intimidate minorities from voting, they knew they had to change their tactics to stay in power, so, they became the give away party and hooked as many minorities as possible on government handouts.  They are still doing it.

Here is an article that details why college tuition is rising so much and so out of proportion with every other industry.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/05/09/Rising-Tuition-Student-Loans-Education-Bubble.aspx#page1



> *$800 billion*
> *Outstanding student debt.
> The Federal Government is on the hook for almost all of it.*​​The loans and costs are caught in the kind of dangerous loop that occurs when lending becomes both profitable and seemingly risk-free: high and increasing college costs mean students need to take out more loans, more loans mean more securities lenders can package and sell, more selling means lenders can offer more loans with the capital they raise, which means colleges can continue to raise costs. The result is over $800 billion in outstanding student debt, over 30 percent of it securitized, and the federal government directly or indirectly on the hook for almost all of it.
> While the debt numbers for four-year programs look risky, for-profit [URL="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/05/09/~/media/Fiscal-Times/Research-Center/Personal-Savings/2010/10/28/College_Pricing_2010.ashx"]two-year schools





> have apocalyptic figures: 96 percent of their students take on debt and within fifteen years, 40 percent are in default. A Government Accountability Office sting operation in which agents posed as applicants found all fifteen institutions they approached engaged in deceptive practices and four in straight-up fraud. For-profits were found to have paid their admissions officers on commission, falsely claimed accreditation, underrepresented costs, and encouraged applicants to lie on federal financial aid forms. For-profit degree programs were found to be more expensive than the nonprofit alternatives nearly every time.


[/URL]


----------



## Big Don

Makalakumu said:


> But the police have joined the *thieves* when they stand against OWS...


Uh, wait, I thought that "With us or against us" language was WRONG WRONG WRONG?! Oh, that was only when Bush talked about terrorism...


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> well they are in school to learn yet they were not in class they were sitting on their well BUTTS. So not going to class = lazy sitting on butts = sitting on butts. Lazy kids sitting on butts its really simple actually.



This took place on a Friday. Frankly, I'll let you have a pass on this one, since you probably didn't attend college, but most college students don't go to class all day, or even every day-I bet a lot of those kids didn't have *any* classes on a Friday afternoon.






ballen0351 said:


> so now you would have rather seen the cops using physical force and not OC spray? OC spray has very very small chance of causing injuries. Physical force well has much greater chance of causing injuries.



Wach the video again-they used physical force, after the pepper spray.They didn't need to use much, and it wasn't because of the pepper spray, either.




ballen0351 said:


> So you have no idea what your talking about then. You have zero idea about crowd control methods, zero idea about police tactics, zero idea about that departments Use of force policy. So basiclly you have zero idea what your talking about yet insist they were wrong



Actually, I've been a police defensive tactics instructor for more than 20 years. You're right, though-I have no idea about that department's use of force strategy, and only a minimum of ideas about crowd control (mostly related to HAZMAT and....er...._other_ work).

Base on that video, though, I'd say that the UC Davis police department has no idea about crowd control, or police tactics. They certainly don't seem to have been trained in dealing with passive resistance, something you think would be required for a campus police force.



ballen0351 said:


> The kids should have been in class learning. They cry about how much they pay to go to that school and then dont even go to class they camp out and sit on sidewalks.



See above-while some of them probably were skipping classes (oh, another thing-it's not like high school, where attendance is required: I basically skipped a whole semester of Religious Studies classes, did the reading and papers, took the exams, and got an A.) a great many of them, I'm willing to bet, didn't have classes on Friday.....

.,.,I know I didn't. :lfao:


----------



## billc

Tsk, Tsk, Elder...



> I'll let you have a pass on this one, since you probably didn't attend college



That seems like a personal attack, and on the eve of Thanks Giving...


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Tsk, Tsk, Elder...
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a personal attack, and on the eve of Thanks Giving...



Not a personal attack at all: if he'd gone to college, he'd *know* that. 

And I know many fine, intelligent people with good paying jobs and no college education.

(Don't see what those evil imperialist Pilgrims have to do with it, anyway......:lfao: )


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Not a personal attack at all: if he'd gone to college, he'd *know* that.
> 
> And I know many fine, intelligent people with good paying jobs and no college education.
> 
> (Don't see what those evil imperialist Pilgrims have to do with it, anyway......:lfao: )



The pilgrims are socialists! Remember?

(oh good grief....this marks the one year anniversary of billi sucking me into the study!)


----------



## billc

Actually, the pilgrims survived by not being socialists...more later...


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> Not as hard as it sounds-it was free in California until Reagan was elected governor. Hell, it was even really, really cheap when I was college age. More to the point, it's part of the job of a government like ours to ensure that the populace is educated as much as they can be because, well, because *we are the government, dammit!*



Yes. In the 60's. Now research for California Budget in the 60's is harder to find (at least for me. If you can provide this, I'd greatly appreciate it.), but from what little I've found, these were California's golden years. But this is a different economy, and California faced a budget crisis since before Schwarzenegger. Now, I would _like _free education and health care, and in a different time, with a different economic climate.

And yes, it even really cheap back in 2003-2004, when my wife went to college down there. But this is _still _a different economic climate than then.

Yet another yes, we are the government. So why is it that Californians didn't rally like crazy when its state's gnawing budget problems were still crazy, but much easier to fix. 

Fiscal responsibility comes before a great many things, because if we cannot manage our finances, both personal and governmental. California has made significant progress to its budget gap in the last five years, but it is still not out of the hole. It's still not even to the point where the budget is _balanced._

Education is _vitally_ important, but it is not a divine right.


----------



## Josh Oakley

And hopefully in its own thread...


----------



## Josh Oakley

Bob Hubbard said:


> John.
> I started this forum. -0- government paperwork.
> Started 10 in fact. total gov. paper? -0-.
> Launched an programming biz.
> A pc repair company.
> A landscaping biz.
> A consulting biz.
> A photography biz.
> An Amway biz.
> A publishing biz.
> A few others I can't recall.
> Total Government Paperwork?
> - Z  E  R  O  -
> Guess I forgot to ask my owners huh?



In this case only, Makalakumu might have a point. Sallie Mae is a major lender of of student loans, and has ties going back to its inception. It also funds campaigns for elected officials. How big a part it plays in the cost of education I don't know but it certainly would play a part. 

How much the state of California can subsidy though, has much more to do with its major budget woes.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> ...more later...



Please.....God....no....please....


----------



## elder999




----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


>



the dude gets around....they need to put him to work!


(OK, I find those pictures really dumb. the first 2 were maybe funny, but I guess since the guy already cropped him out of the news photo, why not paste him in a few pictures...the hard work is already done...)


----------



## elder999




----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


>



HAHAHAHAHAHA

I guess on the other forum they have Canadian invasion, here we have '
elder quotes pictures' day 
:lfao:


----------



## elder999




----------



## elder999




----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Actually, the pilgrims survived by not being socialists...more later...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

:s392:


----------



## granfire

put a helmet on, you'll get a head ache!


----------



## Sukerkin

crushing said:


> I'm not being obtuse. I asked a simple question and instead of an answer I've been sent on a wild goose chase looking at old posts and left trying to dig up underlying points.



I thought those posts were my answer and I didn't feel like repeating myself at that hour - my mistake. 

Simply put, the obvious underlying point is that protest being summarily ended by use of the law enforcement arm of the government is a dangerous precident to set.  It's been done before, aye, but not for a while against (largely) non-violent groups.  If such action is not strongly rejected by the population as a whole, you run the risk of it being yourself under the hammer one day when the government decides it can get away with more overt 'encouragement' of it's citizenry to do as they're told.

If the protest is actually 'riot' and causing real danger to property and public safety or indeed officers in the pursuance of their duty, then, as I've said previously, rock up the APC's and open fire (well maybe not quite that far, otherwise it's "Welcome to Syria!" ).


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Not a personal attack at all: if he'd gone to college, he'd *know* that.
> 
> And I know many fine, intelligent people with good paying jobs and no college education.
> 
> (Don't see what those evil imperialist Pilgrims have to do with it, anyway......:lfao: )


no personal attack I didn't go to college.  I was busy defending the country.  I have taken many college classes and some were on fridays.   HOWEVER reading the article on the events say these kids have been camping out for weeks not just one friday.  So i stand by my post.  Stop camping out andgo to class you bums


----------



## Makalakumu

Meanwhile, look at all of the people we've inspired here in the land of the free...

http://rt.com/usa/news/ows-police-cairo-protests-883/



> _"We saw the firm stance the US took against OWS people (and the  German government against green protesters) to secure the state,"_  an Egyptian state television anchor said on Sunday (as translated by  Sultan Sooud al Qassemi). While it&#8217;s without a doubt a hyperbole to  compare the deaths of at least 33 of this writing with the indeed brutal  but comparably tame assaults carried out by US police departments, it  still says something to the forces in the States that their ridiculous  response to protests so far has spawned a lethal follow-up in Egypt.
> 
> While protesters have proven in America during the last two months of  demonstrations to be peaceful, assaults from police officers across the  country have only increased in recent weeks. A coordinated crackdown on  several cities last week led to mass injuries, and two overzealous raids  in New York alone last week left many protesters bloodied and bruised.  Peaceful protesters were assaulted by cops with clubs and journalists  were assaulted and arrested for doing their job during last Thursday&#8217;s  Day of Action, which brought tens of thousands to the street of  Manhattan. The next morning across the country, campus cops at the  University of California Davis fired toxic pepper spray on protesters  who sat quietly without provoking the police. In the aftermath, outrage  over the handling of the OWS movement by local police departments has  only erupted further, with rallies against ongoing brutality occurring  in countless cities.



Such a wonderful example we're setting with our Beacon of Liberty...more like the Eye of Sauron.


----------



## ballen0351

Thats the biggest bunch of crap Ive seen in a while.  Toxic pepper spray (ive seen people spray it on a cracker and eat it)  cops with clubs running around beatting up reporters.  Peaceful protesters (Rapes, assaults, crapping on police cars, smashing windows)  Brutality in countless citys.  So much for unbias reporting.  lol whatever When egypt stops killing each other maybe ill care what they have to say


----------



## Sukerkin

*Maka* and *Ballen*, isn't it rather that the media is taking relatively isolated incidents and blowing them up out of all proportion?  

In a sense tho' it doesn't matter, for, as I've said before, quite often the perception of something is more important and more compelling than the reality.  Distance can lend perspective when information is good but when information is bad (i.e. most news coverage) then the further away from source the 'perceiver' is, the less what they see and hear tends to bear any relation to the reality.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Thats the biggest bunch of crap Ive seen in a while.  Toxic pepper spray (ive seen people spray it on a cracker and eat it)  cops with clubs running around beatting up reporters.  Peaceful protesters (Rapes, assaults, crapping on police cars, smashing windows)  Brutality in countless citys.  So much for unbias reporting.  lol whatever When egypt stops killing each other maybe ill care what they have to say



The point is that they justify what they are doing based on what we are doing.  The article even states that the difference magnified and that the comparison is hyperbolic.  However, a cop smacking a protester is a cop smacking a protester when it's caught on film.  A cop pepper spraying defenseless kids is a cop pepper spraying defenseless kids when it's caught on film.  *There is no context*.  Not that I buy the so called contest anyway.

And, what's the next step?  What happens if this doesn't work?  When the protesters show up and camp out somewhere different, when does it go to the next level?


----------



## Makalakumu

Sukerkin said:


> *Maka* and *Ballen*, isn't it rather that the media is taking relatively isolated incidents and blowing them up out of all proportion?
> 
> In a sense tho' it doesn't matter, for, as I've said before, quite often the perception of something is more important and more compelling than the reality.  Distance can lend perspective when information is good but when information is bad (i.e. most news coverage) then the further away from source the 'perceiver' is, the less what they see and hear tends to bear any relation to the reality.



Looks like our posts crossed.  This was my point.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Sukerkin said:


> I thought those posts were my answer and I didn't feel like repeating myself at that hour - my mistake.
> 
> Simply put, the obvious underlying point is that protest being summarily ended by use of the law enforcement arm of the government is a dangerous precident to set.  It's been done before, aye, but not for a while against (largely) non-violent groups.  If such action is not strongly rejected by the population as a whole, you run the risk of it being yourself under the hammer one day when the government decides it can get away with more overt 'encouragement' of it's citizenry to do as they're told.
> 
> If the protest is actually 'riot' and causing real danger to property and public safety or indeed officers in the pursuance of their duty, then, as I've said previously, rock up the APC's and open fire (well maybe not quite that far, otherwise it's "Welcome to Syria!" ).




Maybe a bit over done. Fat Tuesday, WTC protest, you name it. Seattle PARTIES! Sometimes that means we get out of hand. And pepper spray just doesn't do it for us. They break out the CS gas! Pepper spray.... pbbth. CS is where it's at. 

I figured I might as well do ONE pic.

View attachment $Pimpin aint easy.jpg


----------



## elder999




----------



## Makalakumu

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...address-phone-number-email-posted-online.html



> A rogue computer hacking group has  posted online the personal contact details - including his home address -  of the police officer who pepper-sprayed peaceful student Occupy  protesters.
> 
> 
> 
> Anonymous also disclosed the mobile telephone number and email address of Lt John Pike on a YouTube video.
> 
> 
> 
> The  University of California Davis officer sparked worldwide outrage when  he was seen, clad in riot gear, casually spraying an orange cloud at the  heads of protesters, over the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> A  computer-generated voice in the video, posted on Tuesday, said: 'Dear  Officer John Pike. Your information is now public domain'.
> It has since been removed because it is 'a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting hate speech'.
> 
> 
> 
> Anonymous  has threatened or claimed credit for attacks on numerous media  organizations, including Fox News - but this appears to be the first  time the hacking group has targeted an individual.
> 
> 
> 
> The  group said: 'We have no problem targeting police and releasing their  information even if it puts them at risk. We want them to experience  just a taste of the brutality and misery they serve us on an everyday  basis.'



I don't know if this has been posted earlier in the thread, because I jumped in late, however, I think it's an interesting development.  The message seems clear, if a cop is going to do this, you don't get to go home and live anonymously anymore.  On the other hand, I can see this getting out of hand quickly.  It's essentially cyberbullying with the added element of possible violence and I DO NOT support that.  On the other hand again, the people have never had a tool like this to hold our public officials accountable.  If the law protects them even when they do us wrong, well...

:flame:

Let the flaming begin!


----------



## granfire

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...address-phone-number-email-posted-online.html
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been posted earlier in the thread, because I jumped in late, however, I think it's an interesting development.  The message seems clear, if a cop is going to do this, you don't get to go home and live anonymously anymore.  On the other hand, I can see this getting out of hand quickly.  It's essentially cyberbullying with the added element of possible violence and I DO NOT support that.  On the other hand again, the people have never had a tool like this to hold our public officials accountable.  If the law protects them even when they do us wrong, well...
> 
> :flame:
> 
> Let the flaming begin!




I think that sucks majorly.

There is no need for that.
Do that for Sanduski....but that poor sap?


----------



## billc

If it is true that the officer who did the spraying is a Lt.  who did the spraying to spare his fellow officers the **** storm that was going to happen, good for him.  That is the mark of a good leader.  I hope that if he is a good guy that this works out for him and his family.  Holding the line against jerks like those spoiled teenagers isn't an easy thing to do when the media, academia and at least half of the political class, if not a little more than half, is either cowardly or corrupt and willing to place good police officers in bad situations, and then attack them for doing the job they were asked to do.


----------



## Sukerkin

billcihak said:


> If it is true that the officer who did the spraying is a Lt.  who did the spraying to spare his fellow officers the **** storm that was going to happen, good for him.  That is the mark of a good leader.



I agree.  It'd have been better not to do it at all, as I understand the circumstances, but he was between a rock and a hard place vis a vie the wishes of the university's Dean.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> I agree.  It'd have been better not to do it at all, as I understand the circumstances, but he was between a rock and a hard place vis a vie the wishes of the university's Dean.


well I've asked and nobody answers so ill ask you.  What should the cops have done?  How long do you allow people to break the law before you step in?  When do you step in and take control of a situation and no longer allow it to get worse?  What would the next step for the protesters if if the cops didn't step in and ignored them?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> well I've asked and nobody answers so ill ask you.  What should the cops have done?  How long do you allow people to break the law before you step in?  When do you step in and take control of a situation and no longer allow it to get worse?  What would the next step for the protesters if if the cops didn't step in and ignored them?



That is actually not the question applicable IMHO.

There is really no question he ad to do it.

Seems he knew the poop rolling downhill would land on him.

he should not have been put into the position. I don't think it was necessary.

but that is me.

And frankly, there is always a bit of horse dealing involved, do a little crime, if it's not going to be bothersome, prevent a big one from happening.

or let one slide because the results would be bad...

Like this one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

No one wants to answer the "What should he have done" question. It's been asked in a few cases and no one has the bollocks to say "They should have just let them break the law."


----------



## elder999

Bob Hubbard said:


> No one wants to answer the "What should he have done" question. It's been asked in a few cases and no one has the bollocks to say "They should have just let them break the law."




Take a look at the raw footage, especially the part before the pepper spraying. They could-and _should_-have just dragged them off.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> What should the cops have done?



Quit.  Find a new line work.  Do something that doesn't put you in these situations.



ballen0351 said:


> How long do you allow people to break the law before you step in?



It depends on what the situation is.  If your boss is telling to you to do something that violates ethical standards and is an expectation of your job, you face a moral dilemma.



ballen0351 said:


> When do you step in and take control of a situation and no longer allow it to get worse?



That's what OWS is doing.  They are stepping in before the situation gets worse and the cops are defending the bad guys.



ballen0351 said:


> What would the next step for the protesters if if the cops didn't step in and ignored them?



That is a good question.  Keep gathering support.  Focus your ideas.  Organize and topple the ruling class.  That's the next step.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> No one wants to answer the "What should he have done" question. It's been asked in a few cases and no one has the bollocks to say "They should have just let them break the law."




tear the tents down.
The people were not in violation, the tents were...


----------



## Makalakumu

Ultimately, this whole thread, including the part where the Lt. is retaliated against is a product of the break down of Law and Order in this country.  The Founding Fathers didn't agree on much, but they did agree that the law should apply to everyone.  In our society, we have traversed the boundary into tyranny by allowing the powerful to do what they please and take control of the monopoly on the use of force for their own benefit.  When the cops enforce "the law" on people who are protesting others who break "the law" and get away with it, they become part of the broken system.  This story only ends in tragedy.  

Here's a book that I think gets at the heart of the matter.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/0805092056

Here's an interview of the author that I recently listened to.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/11/20/glenn-greenwald-36/



> Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald  discusses how Gerald Fords pardon of Richard Nixon cut the last  vestiges of the rule of law in America; the too big to jail justice  system where powerful people need not fear incarceration; turning the  Nuremberg courts opinion on aggressive war on its head, as the US  continually attacks countries that dont pose a threat and government  officials never face war crimes tribunals; the world-record US prison  population, comprised of drug offenders and regular people who cant  afford to replace their (usually incompetent) public defender; and how  US presidents refrain from prosecuting previous administrations, with  the expectation that their own crimes will also go unpunished.



I hope the cops can take a good hard look at what they do and see beyond their paychecks.  It's only going to get darker.


----------



## Sukerkin

I seem to be missing a chunk of the story here - I thought that the only crime involved was that they were somewhat in the way and were pitching tents where the Dean didn't want them?  Now yes, public nuisance is a crime in some circumstances but it's hardly GBH {Grievous Bodily Harm}.  What am I missing?

For Ballen, I've noted before that 'police work', in the broadest sense, is different between our two countries.  Over here, until recent times at least, unless the protesters were really breaking the law (i.e. being more than a pest), the police would be happy enough to keep an eye on things and let them run their course, not making things worse or more unpleasant than is necessary for public safety.  So if you ask me what I'd expect our police to do in similar circumstances, I'd expect them to leave well enough alone unless things escalated.  

In an American context, going from what I've heard on here over the past few years, well ... it's my impression that the 'quality' of officers and their grasp of what the laws are that they're supposed to enforce and with what methods, seems highly variable.  For me, as I said earlier, I'd've been more than happy for them just to keep 'watch' and act non-provocatively until there was a real need to 'cease to be nice'.

Not the answer you wanted I suspect and my answer may change if I can be shown that there was indeed a public danger being presented by these students.


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> *It's only going to get darker*.



*QFT*, though I think you've really got no idea. 





What's old is new again....


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> *QFT*, though I think you've really got no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's old is new again....



Yup, and If I had any idea, I wouldn't be wasting my time.


----------



## ballen0351

Some of these photoshops are getting quite offensive.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Some of these photoshops are getting quite offensive.



I'm trying for outrage. Offensive is ok, though...I mean, if you're not at least offended by a paunchy cop pepper-spraying _a bunch of children while they passively sit there_, why should you be offended by photoshops of said paunchy cop pepper spraying other protesters, or anything else.....



.......you're clearly not paying attention.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I think that's the point.

We're supposed to be offended. Order the cops to stand down. Let these protesters do whatever they want. Smash windows, block traffic, beat up photographers. Whatever they want. Because the bankers are evil. Because the cops are evil pawns. Because the government is under banker control.
Because we don't want another Kent State.

We need to ignore the -FACT- that the only protesters who have died so far, were killed by -other "Peaceful" protesters.

We need to think that a cop macing someone refusing to comply with a -lawful- order is somehow on par with the military putting down a revolt by force.

We need to ignore the -FACT- that all the OWS people calling for revolution are in -direct violation- of the US Constitution.
We need to ignore the -FACT- that the US Government is -AUTHORIZED- to use -FORCE- to put down an -INSURRECTION-, by that same document.

Lots of things are ignored.

10+ calls to refocus on the OCD situation specifics for example.

This is that point where I do something I rarely ever do on this site.

I make an decision and lock a thread and throw away the key on it without the usual back room review and 'hands off' nature while insisting on an uninvolved perspective.
Just making a gut-call.  

May be right, may be wrong, maybe 'moderator abusing power', etc.

_*Don't care.*_

This threads really taking the piss outta me tonight and that's my call.

Thread Closed.


----------

