Thats alot of pepper spray.

[Carol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ‘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...)

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]

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]

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]

And apparently it has gotten hairier.

WHAT the damn hippies are back?

 

[Josh Oakley]

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*