UC Davis 2.0

[Josh Oakley]

First of all, thanks for posting the videos. It will be interesting to watch when I have more time.

Secondly, from my experience, I felt a sense of solidarity with the Occupy movement as a whole when I went to events. From what I've seen, there seems to be that at UC Davis as well.

Thirdly, I can't really converse about the pepper spray incident without putting into the larger context. Without the larger context, I don't think breaking the law is defensible. The students could have made their point about local issues more effectively in a regular demonstration.

1.You're welcome.

2. I'm not disputing that at all. There definitely is a sense of solidarity at UC Davis with the larger Occupy movement, and it is made clear in the videos. However, focusing on the individual characteristics within the UC Davis movement allows us to dig deep, something I feel hasn't really happened with this or a number of other topics within The Study, and it really is a shame. That is why I am taking this thread from a point of deeper understanding, without politicking, demonizing, etc., and encouraging others to do the same. I really mean this to be a study of the UC Davis Occupy movement, especially in relation to the pepper spray incident, rather than yet another soapbox thread. If we only ever voice our views without hearing one another's views, there really is no point to The Study. We can intellectually masturbate on the blogs provided us in MartialTalk. Or in front of a mirror. Intellectual masturbation doesn't require a partner, and an intellectual circle jerk is just... gross.

(Too far? Moving on!)

3a. I fully intend to see the pepper spray incident within a larger context. Specifically, the larger context of the history leading up to the incident, the stakeholders involved, the fallout of the incident, and what this means for UC Davis. You can get into a lot of detail focusing on just these points. And some of the statements of the greater Occupy movement will indeed be brought up, but by focusing on how that pertains to UC Davis specifically, we might gain greater insight to how the Occupy movement interacts in other communities, and figure out in which ways those interacts are of an accord with one another, and in which ways they are different. And there are significant differences between individual Occupy efforts, just as there are significant different differences between the cultures from from which the various protesters come.

3b. Frankly I think they could have made their point about both local and national issues more effectively in a regular demonstration. Period. I don't believe breaking the law in this or in prior protests is or was defensible, both in local context or otherwise.

 

[Josh Oakley]

http://www.occupyucdavis.org/

This is the official website for Occupy UC Davis. My motivation for sharing this link is to show the stated motivations, goals, and plans of the Occupy UC Davis effort. It should be taken as such. This is not an endorsement nor reprisal of those motivations, goals, or plans. Furthermore, statements by movement leaders such as Joshua Clover and Nathan Brown.

This website also contains official letters from Linda B. Katehi, Chancellor of UC Davis. I encourage those following this thread to read, in its entirety, the contents of the website.

 

[Makalakumu]

Josh, I'm out fishing and can't read your links, but I read your posts and I'm curious why you, as a soldier, think the occupy movement will turn into a full scale revolt.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just a side note. I'm keeping 1 eye on this, but am refraining from comment at this time.
Carry on.

 

[Josh Oakley]

There is a large amount of rhetoric that colors the coverage of the pepper spray incident, referring to those who were pepper-sprayed as "victims". Demands of redress to those "injured" by the pepper spray. References to the pepper spray as "chemical gas". Descriptions of the police response as "brutality". Descriptions of protesters as "peaceful". I have a big problem with using phrases and words which color incidents in a light more favorable to one's opinion, because it frames the entire discussion in a way that focuses the reader, viewer, or participant on the speaker's preferred interpretations of the event, to the exclusion of other, possibly more accurate interpretations.

Let's look at these terms:

1. Victim: generally this term implies a sense of unwillingness, helplessness, etc. By the videos, we can see that they weren't helpless, nor very unwilling. After repeated warnings, they chose to remain, though it was entirely possible to make their point made without violating the law.
2. Injury: All of us here are martial artists. And we know the difference between injury and pain. And as far as any reports have gone, there have been no injuries as a result of the police response. Not one (But feel free to prove otherwise). Now those of us who have been exposed to pepper spray and CS gas know that such an experience unequivocally sucks. A lot. But the effects from both pepper spray and CS gas last hours at most. Usually minutes. And then you're fine. Now both used on the extremely old or young can cause actual injury, and we are experiencing media coverage here in Seattle from just such an event. But this simply wasn't the case at UC Davis.
3. Chemical gas: The method of employment in the pepper spray was aerosol. This is not the same as gas. Nor is the term "chemical" entirely appropriate. Were CS gas used in this, the term would be more appropriate. However, the employment of this term is a rhetorical device that is meant to call to mind the vivid and grotesque images of the effects of weapons such as mustard gas and vx gas. The emotive context that "chemical gas" draws up is a far far cry from either pepper spray or CS gas.
4. Brutality: Having viewed the videos, I can state with confidence that this is hyperbole at best. Brutal actions are savagely violent. This might be more applicable at Berkeley, where people actually went to the hospital, or Tienanmen Square, where people got killed.
5. Peaceful: Almost universally, "peaceful" and "non-violent" are being equivocated, and again, this is not accurate. Just as "hostile" is not the same as "violent". Just as you can be violent and peaceful at the same time (which is very tough to do, but Aikidoka somehow manage to pull it off, as well as competitors in Tae Kwondo, jujitsu, and UFC events, in general), you can be non-violent and hostile at the same time as well (ask those of us who are married... or were). This rhetoric is being used to sanctify the protesters and vilify the police officers.

So when reading these reports, pay attention to the language used, and ask, why are they choosing to use the language they use. Try to find an emotively neutral way to say the same thing. This is not an attempt at political correctness, but factual accuracy. This is also how we can avoid tense situations on this thread. This is an emotionally charged event as it is, there is no need to add to that tension through sabotage by rhetoric.

Perhaps read through your posts before putting them up to see if you yourself are not guilty of this as well.

(This is not directed at makalakumu, he just happens to be the only one to post so far, and has been pretty amiable in conversation. This is an exhortation to future posters.)

 

[Josh Oakley]

Just a side note. I'm keeping 1 eye on this, but am refraining from comment at this time.
Carry on.

understood.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Josh, I'm out fishing and can't read your links, but I read your posts and I'm curious why you, as a soldier, think the occupy movement will turn into a full scale revolt.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

First off, I'm envious of you going fishing in Hawaii in late November!

Second, ask me that question on a thread about the Occupy movement as a whole and I'll gladly answer it. Not here. And you'll hear that from me every time you ask me a question about the Occupy movement on this thread without direct application to UC Davis specifically.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

MOD NOTE:
Embedded video links for easier viewing here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm interested in seeing where this goes. I think the points Josh has made are very clear. Protest is part of American culture and history. Civil disobedience is also part of our political and social landscape; it's a time-honored tradition. But it seems that some want to see the act of civil disobedience as a protected status, and it's not.

Let me explain. To engage in civil disobedience is fine. It's OK. It's even healthy. People should protest when they feel strongly about something, and even risk being arrested, going to jail, being convicted of crimes. This is part of the process; it is the act of being willing to take what comes that makes it a powerful statement.

However, one does not enter a protected status when one protests. Do people have the right to speak freely? Yes. Do they have the right to peaceably assemble? Yes. Do demand redress? Yes. And if the laws they violate to do those things are in fact unconstitutional limits on those civil rights, then that is the question to be answered. In court. After the arrest.

It does *not* convey a status whereby the police must stand back and not enforce the law because the person or people are engaging in 'official protest'. The entire concept of civil disobedience is that the people engaging in it intend to violate the law and take what comes. That can and does include being pepper sprayed and arrested. In fact, they *must* be arrested to challenge the law; without the arrest, there is no court case. Without the court case, there are no judges getting involved in Constitutional questions. The arrest is absolutely required.

As to the pepper spray, I think that has been argued to death. It's pretty clear that the demonstrators knew they were about to be pepper sprayed and accepted that role. They absolutely had the opportunity to get up and leave and avoid being pepper sprayed. I realize they wanted to demonstrate their right to not leave; that's cool. That means they also accepted what came next. And why did the police pepper spray them? Simple. Any other solution (prying them apart by hand) would have exposed both the students and the police to injury. Pepper spray, as un-fun as it is, is not permanently damaging. It is just persuasion.

As I've stated before, the entire event was role-playing. The protesters played their part, the police played theirs, the media played theirs. The tableau unfolded for the public, and then we reacted. There is no part of this that was unscripted.

If I were to be angry at anything, I'd be angry at being manipulated this way. Obviously, my role was to get angry at the heartless evil police. That is how the story was portrayed. I am not a tool, and I resent being treated like one. Others don't seem to recognize that they are being manipulated in this way.

As to revolution, I don't think this incident is the straw that broke the camel's back. That's not to say we could not end up in a similar situation as the waning days of the Students for a Democratic Society / Weather Underground days. I think that could happen; I've said so.

What the overall OWS movement does is bring many disaffected individuals together at the same time; it puts them in close contact. Many will find common ground, many will discover they don't find other protesters very much in tune with their beliefs at all. The groups will splinter and divide based on their beliefs; some will be less dangerous and some more dangerous. This is what happened in the SDS. The SDS was peaceful and remained so for a number of years. But there were those who disagreed with their methods if not their aims; and they formed the Weathermen and started building bombs.

I realize that no one seems to want to talk about this; people want to pretend that this never happened in the USA, or that it this is somehow different, or that it could never happen again, and etc. But the fact is that history repeats itself. If the OWS is enough like the SDS, a group like the Weathermen will arise; it's a matter of time. You can turn your head if you like; it won't change what happens.

What the OWS lacks at the moment are leaders. I get that they are priding themselves on being both leaderless and objectiveless, but I do not believe that this condition will remain the case indefinitely. When charismatic leaders arise, when OWS starts to develop a platform, then we may begin to see real danger of rebellion or revolution of a kind.

I doubt that this will become serious, if the economy eventually recovers. If the economy tanks again, then things will change.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Thanks for coming on, Bill. I appreciate your comments. stay tuned, because my next post will be a write-up of Lt. John Pike, his exemplary record, how he is getting raked over the coals, etc.

And I agree that this was a big role play.

My request, however is we keep comments focused on UC Davis, rather than the Occupy Movement as a whole. While I agree that the Occupy movement as a whole lacks leadership, I honestly don't think this is the case at UC Davis. I plan to make my case later today after I have enough research to back me up.

But before that I wanted to focus on John Pike. Write up soon to come.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...ing-officer-previously-honored_n_1108865.html

So I want to spend some time on Lt. John Pike. He has been, in my opinion, unfairly raked over the coals. Here is a man who served his country honorably in the USMC, who continued his service the police force, earning not one but two Meritorious Service Awards from the police force, both times showing a judicious use of force and a concern for safety.

I think it is likely that he was one of the police responding to protests in 2010 and in 2009, though I cannot prove that for sure. But likely, he had experience in dealing with UC Davis Protests prior to 2011.

Now keep in mind, escalation of force was required in 2010, and to a greater deal than we saw just over a week ago. Yet that time no names of any officers were released.

So what is different about this time?

Well, this time, there's a massive outcry. This time there was a media frenzy. This time the rhetoric is being tossed around like to the degree that even attempts at unbiased reporting fall into the trap of non-neutral language.

This time, the chancellor's job is on the line.

I want to make clear that John Pike administered pepper spray under a lawful order to do so, from his proper chain of command. He did his job, and the videos show that he did it with a high degree of professionalism, especially in an emotionally tense situation.

And for doing his job, he was placed on suspension. He is facing an investigation, and his job is in jeopardy.

And that's not the worst of it. Linda Katehi did something that in my mind was unconscionable. She released John Pike's name to the press. The effect of this: Pike became a target for harassment, vandalism, fraud, etc. Hacker group Anonymous released his information on YouTube.

Why would Katehi release John Pike's name if, as she claims, she accepts full responsibility for the actions that took place on November 18th? She wasn't required to do so. In general, officers' names generally are NOT released in circumstances where there is a pending investigation.

Because what could happen to these officers DID happen to John Pike.

I have really been trying to figure out why she would release his name, and I can only come up with two reasons that make sense to me:
1) She is an idiot.
2) She was trying to distract attention away from herself.

Proposition 1, when looking at her resume, does not seem likely. She holds a doctorate in electrical engineering, has mentored over 70 post-doctoral fellows, holds 19 patents, and has authored or co-authored about 659 journal publications. She was recently elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So I really don't think she is an idiot.

I think what remains is that she released his name to take some heat off herself. In the end, it didn't work for her, but it sure screwed up the life of a good officer.

 

[granfire]

I think that pretty much sums up the situation around the police officer in this case.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My request, however is we keep comments focused on UC Davis, rather than the Occupy Movement as a whole.

I don't think you can talk about 'revolution' without talking about the larger movement. If you want to leave OWS to one side, then that's fine, but in that case I have to reject the idea that this one issue has anything to do with 'revolution'.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I don't think you can talk about 'revolution' without talking about the larger movement. If you want to leave OWS to one side, then that's fine, but in that case I have to reject the idea that this one issue has anything to do with 'revolution'.

Understood, and I will get to that later.

 

[Josh Oakley]

http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/documents/policepol_adminproc.pdf

So this is the University of California Universitywide Police Policies and Procedures manual. I am still reading it, as it is 86 pages long, but I would be interested to hear the insights of anyone willing to tackle this with me.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, I want to spend some time on Lt. John Pike. He has been, in my opinion, unfairly raked over the coals.

When people choose to enforce the rules for the Government, they put themselves in a position that can become extremely unpopular. When one considers the amount of anger out there directed toward the government and all of it's corrupt minions, it doesn't matter what the Officer did before. It's a risk of choosing that line of work.

Is it fair? You tell me. OWS, as a broader protest, stands against the policies and finance of fascism. By enforcing the Law for the State behind all of this stuff, you risk having the label applied.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Seriously, malakumu, if you aren't able to focus it to UC Davis, let's just talk on a different thread altogether.

 

[granfire]

When people choose to enforce the rules for the Government, they put themselves in a position that can become extremely unpopular. When one considers the amount of anger out there directed toward the government and all of it's corrupt minions, it doesn't matter what the Officer did before. It's a risk of choosing that line of work.

Is it fair? You tell me. OWS, as a broader protest, stands against the policies and finance of fascism. By enforcing the Law for the State behind all of this stuff, you risk having the label applied.

While I am strongly against the actions taken at UC Davis, the way the officer was dealt with is rotten.

No, it's not ok, because you chose to be a police officer and to uphold the rules of society that you have to expect to be thrown under the bus to safe some brass.

What he did was not wrong by the letter of the law, not really morally questionable either. he is not at fault.
And yet, he is in trouble.

How can you make excuses for that, honestly!



Now, this is a drift back to the OWS movement, which as above clearly stated, should be avoided as to not mix the issues.
UC Davis is not financing fascism.

I can understand the people in protest. They have been told all their lies that without college degree their lives will be wasted.
Their college savings don't hardly cover the expenses any more, before they are done, it will be much more they will owe all while prospects of receiving jobs that can actually help them pay the dept down are getting slimmer.

 

[Makalakumu]

...you chose to be a police officer and to uphold the rules of society...

This is the key. Choice. The officer chose a profession in which he must uphold the rules of the society no matter what they are. In this case, upholding the rules has a hefty political penalty because of what the larger OWS movement stands for. If he was just enforcing the law on a local protest at UC Davis, I don't think it would have been such a big deal. UC Davis fits into the larger context of a general struggle against fascism and that explains the firestorm, IMO.

Now, this is a drift back to the OWS movement, which as above clearly stated, should be avoided as to not mix the issues.
UC Davis is not financing fascism.

I can understand the people in protest. They have been told all their lies that without college degree their lives will be wasted.
Their college savings don't hardly cover the expenses any more, before they are done, it will be much more they will owe all while prospects of receiving jobs that can actually help them pay the dept down are getting slimmer.

When gigantic financial institutions merge with the government in order to offer low interest loans that cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy and drive up the overall price of education, that's fascism. It's also another tragic bubble because the jobs aren't there to pay this debt off. Students have a right to be pissed.

 

[Josh Oakley]

This is the key. Choice. The officer chose a profession in which he must uphold the rules of the society no matter what they are. In this case, upholding the rules has a hefty political penalty because of what the larger OWS movement stands for. If he was just enforcing the law on a local protest at UC Davis, I don't think it would have been such a big deal. UC Davis fits into the larger context of a general struggle against fascism and that explains the firestorm, IMO.When gigantic financial institutions merge with the government in order to offer low interest loans that cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy and drive up the overall price of education, that's fascism. It's also another tragic bubble because the jobs aren't there to pay this debt off. Students have a right to be pissed.

Makalakumu, I made you a present. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?99993-police-responses-to-occupy-behavior Post there to your heart's content. Please.