but:
Is it really morally justified to spray people crouching on the ground?
yes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
but:
Is it really morally justified to spray people crouching on the ground?
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.
It can also be broken down into the standard police use of force continuum:
- Verbal command
- Handcuff suspect
- Use wrist/arm lock
- Use takedown
- Block/punch/kick
- Strike suspect
- Wrestle suspect
- Pepper spray
- Use baton
- Use firearm
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
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)
*is drumming her fingers waiting for a Tienanmen Square-like incident to wake everyone's *** up as to what's going on right now*
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.
Not at all the same comparison -- but yes, it is, if they are preparing to attack you.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...
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.
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.
An enlightening take on this HERE
I suppose they got to do their thing.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.
Nope, not Kent State - yet.People are sobbing "kent state" and "china".
These aren't all quite, polite, peaceful protesters.
On the Campus of UC Davis?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.
action and reaction.That is not peaceful protest. That is a riot 1 step short of going off.
What would you have the police do?
silly non-argumentStay 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.
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.
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?