Thread: An interesting twist in the UC Davis pepper spray incident

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Well, no offense, but your opinion here really doesn't matter. You are not a subject matter expert in this field and are basing your opinion off of your emotions and not experience.

Actually, there are numerous police departments that only use pepper spray as a defensive weapon.

And what makes you such a "subject matter expert" on this particular topic?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

If you are on private property (which this was) and the person responsible for the property asked for the people to be removed (which they were) AND you refused to move THEN you get maced for being stupid.

You should never "get maced for being stupid", e.g. engaging in non-violent civil disobedience in this particular case. That smacks of fascist police states. It is never the prerogative of the police to punish those they think are violating the law in a free and open society. To suggest it is is patently absurd.

lol.. playing catch up, joel? We'll wait for you.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Well, no offense, but your opinion here really doesn't matter. You are not a subject matter expert in this field and are basing your opinion off of your emotions and not experience.

What are you basing your opinions on? And do they matter more than mine? Just curious. I wasn't aware that only expert testimony was allowed here.

If you are on private property (which this was) and the person responsible for the property asked for the people to be removed (which they were) AND you refused to move THEN you get maced for being stupid.

Stupidity? Was that the official reason for pepper spraying those students? Or just your expert opinion?

Originally Posted by Jefe

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not necessarily saying that the cops weren't within their rights, or that they weren't following procedures.. I'm saying that if procedures tell the cops to pepper spray non-violent protesters, then we need new procedures.

That said, I don't think they were exactly following "standard procedures", if the first three steps are
1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray (A K-9 unit would fall here)
then why did they skip right from 1 to 3? Did they even try step 2? The videos that I've seen don't show it. And now they look like jack-booted thugs.

I did see them use what could be called "soft hands" after the pepper spray and there was still resistance. Judging from that, I'm sure they probably used it before, as well.

*chews heartily on his popcorn*

imma just enjoyin' the prolific use 'o the term "soft hands"

- MeadHallPirate

Again, I think the way it was applied is much more controversial than the general use of pepperspray itself.

That's the very simple fact of the matter.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Again, I think the way it was applied is much more controversial than the general use of pepperspray itself.

That's the very simple fact of the matter.

The way it was applied here reminds me of someone casually watering their flower garden. Quite peaceful to watch, actually..lol..

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Fishjoel me friend,

i've already said me piece, matey. no one, at least not me, disputes that they were breakin' the law. i see that as unrelated to the fact that the UC Davis police were not complyin' wiht the request the chancellor made that no violent force be used to remove them tents.

- MeadHallPirate

Eh, I don't consider peppers spray as really that violent. It is certainly less violent then your suggestion of manhandling the students. I've participated in combatives and I've had to go through CS chambers during my army career and it's not really that big of a deal. Does it hurt? Yes. Am I going to be a big baby about it and cry? No.

I'm just glad I'm smart and have a baby face so I can shave the night before and not have my skin opened up for the gas to seep in.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

*chews heartily on his popcorn*

imma just enjoyin' the prolific use 'o the term "soft hands"

- MeadHallPirate

You're a dirty 'ol pirate. Want me to come over for a visit and we could play "who has the softest hands"? LOL

Originally Posted by Jefe

lol.. playing catch up, joel? We'll wait for you.

Lol...yes! Now gimme a few to get more caught up so I can taunt you a second time!

Originally Posted by fishjoel

You're a dirty 'ol pirate. Want me to come over for a visit and we could play "who has the softest hands"? LOL

hehehe...avast ye!

that term kinda brings a mirthful smile to me face.

if any police officer came at me with the threat to use "soft hands", without knowin' anythin' 'bout the actual meanin' 'o the term, i'd lift anchor and run fer me life.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Jefe

That's a bit of a stretch, though, no? I mean, I know some of those cops were probably on the short side, but I'm rather tall and long legged, and I could have litteraly stepped over that "imprisonment" of protesters. The shorter cops could probably have jumped over. And none of those protesters would have tried to stop them. Of course, this is also assuming there was an unbroken "ring" of seated protesters surrounding the police, which I'm not sure has been confirmed (maybe it has, I don't know), and the police coundn't have simply walked around the protesters. Blocking the right of way, yes, but False Imprisonment.. I dunno..

What are you going to accuse them of next, kidnapping?

Nah...you're right that it's a stretch. I guess it depends on how the law is applied in relation to how much the person tried to leave. I have to sit through a lot of training for this type of thing because the Army is filled with a bunch of testosterone fueled control freaks. These classes are given by local civilians that work in the field and something as simple as blocking your spouse from going by, when they asked, has been used as an example of false imprisonment. It's not really up to the courts to say, "Well, did you try and push through and see if (s)he would actually block your way?". That's not really how it works from what I've been instructed.

Originally Posted by Jefe

That's not necessarily true. There can be long lasting affects from pepper spray, and there have even been reported deaths.

Yes, there are people who are allergic to such things. I don't think that's particularly pertinent as pepper spray is an accepted tool in non-lethal force.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Actually, there are numerous police departments that only use pepper spray as a defensive weapon.

And what makes you such a "subject matter expert" on this particular topic?

Nothing particular makes me a SME, on this topic aside from time spent in the Army and participating in gas chamber training and combatives. The gas chamber has no risk (aside from a freak allergic reaction) injury while combatives actually does hold a chance of incurring injury.

You should never "get maced for being stupid", e.g. engaging in non-violent civil disobedience in this particular case. That smacks of fascist police states. It is never the prerogative of the police to punish those they think are violating the law in a free and open society. To suggest it is is patently absurd.

You're are mace for what amounts to trespassing. Being stupid is simply something that coincides with this scenario.