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

It's funny that all the people on here talking about going along with second-amendment remedies and combatting Obama's "civil militias" are now the people who are in favor of the civil militias.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Fuck, here's another one.

It was not a lawful order, since the Quad is a designated free-speech zone where peaceful protest is allowed, encouraged (well, at least in writing it is), and a guaranteed right.

Can you explain the logic you used to come to the conclusion that the incident had anything to do with free speech?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

It's funny that all the people on here talking about going along with second-amendment remedies and combatting Obama's "civil militias" are now the people who are in favor of the civil militias.

From what I've read, these students were blocking the ROW and had pitched tents and some refused to dismantle tents and clear a path. If this is the truth, then I have no problem with the police using force on those students.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

If the shoplifter did not obey the police's command and resisted, then they could be pepper spray or, baring that, tazered or face smashed into the ground. Apparently, that's what you prefer because that's probably what would have happened if they had not been pepper sprayed.

If the shoplifter goes quietly, he just gets handcuffed and arrested. He doesn't get pepper sprayed first, does he? And what's with this face-smashing-in-to-the-ground stuff? What ever happened to the arm being twisted behind the back? A baton to the nuts is also quite effective - it doesn't take much, just a light-to-medium tap will shut most guys right the fuck up.

Listen to yourself, man. "obey the police's command"? I'm a bit disappointed in you, Joel. Aren't you the same guy who has started threads speaking out against how "the government is slowly stripping away our dignity and freedoms" and "how our rights are being stripped away and the government has no intention of being honest or upfront about what they are doing"
, etc? Those are your words & your threads, Joel. We are becoming a police state, and you know it - and you don't like it. Yet you're perfectly fine with the development of chemical agents being used on peaceful protesters.. peaceful Americans, Joel. Are you really OK with it, or are you just against the protester's politics, and therefore willing to make an acception?

OBEY!

*shakes head*

Originally Posted by Jefe

If the shoplifter goes quietly, he just gets handcuffed and arrested. He doesn't get pepper sprayed first, does he? And what's with this face-smashing-in-to-the-ground stuff? What ever happened to the arm being twisted behind the back? A baton to the nuts is also quite effective - it doesn't take much, just a light-to-medium tap will shut most guys right the fuck up.

I'll take the pepper spray. It really doesn't take much to cause permanent damage to the family jewels.

Co-operate with sensible legal requests. Provide as little information as possible. Do as little as possible to expose yourself to the possibly misplaced attentions of a tired, scared civil servant with a stick, gun, and chemical weapon; unless of course you have a point to make.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I'll take the pepper spray. It really doesn't take much to cause permanent damage to the family jewels.

We can quibble about what the most preferable way to be roughed up by a cop is, but that's not the point. If you deserve to be roughed up, you get roughed up. If you don't deserve to be roughed up, and they rough you up, that's police brutality. The mere refusal to obey a cop's orders doesn't necesarily mean you deserve to get roughed up.

Co-operate with sensible legal requests. Provide as little information as possible. Do as little as possible to expose yourself to the possibly misplaced attentions of a tired, scared civil servant with a stick, gun, and chemical weapon; unless of course you have a point to make.

I generally agree with this, but that cop had better know he's right, and that there aren't any video cameras pointing at him.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Can you explain the logic you used to come to the conclusion that the incident had anything to do with free speech?

Any incident involving protest and excessive use of police force to combat that protest obviously has to do with free speech.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

From what I've read, these students were blocking the ROW and had pitched tents and some refused to dismantle tents and clear a path. If this is the truth, then I have no problem with the police using force on those students.

They were actually protesting the dismantling of the tents the day before of other protesters.

Either way, the only force that should have been used was the normal amount necessary to arrest peaceful demonstrators, in other words hardly any at all.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I'll take the pepper spray. It really doesn't take much to cause permanent damage to the family jewels.

Co-operate with sensible legal requests. Provide as little information as possible. Do as little as possible to expose yourself to the possibly misplaced attentions of a tired, scared civil servant with a stick, gun, and chemical weapon; unless of course you have a point to make.

That is exactly what civil disobedience is all about. It is not about always obeying your masters no matter what they say.

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

And pepper spray can be lethal if you have respiratory problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray#Effects

For those with asthma, taking other drugs, or subject to restraining techniques which restrict the breathing passages, there is a risk of death. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1995 at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA.[7] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented 27 people in police custody who died after exposure to pepper spray in California since 1993.[3][8][9] However, the ACLU report counts any death occurring within hours of exposure to pepper spray. In all 27 cases, the coroners' report listed other factors as the primary cause of death, though in some cases the use of pepper spray may have been a contributing factor.[3]

The US Army concluded in a 1993 Aberdeen Proving Ground study that pepper spray could cause "[m]utagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities. There is a risk in using this product on a large and varied population".[10] However, the pepper spray was widely approved in the US despite the reservations of the US military scientists after it passed FBI tests in 1991. As of 1999, it was in use by more than 2000 public safety agencies.[11]

So, hypothetically, at what point does the intrusion of civil disobedience into the rights of others become a problem?

If someone punches you in the face because they are 'protesting', is it 'free speech'?

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Either way, the only force that should have been used was the normal amount necessary to arrest peaceful demonstrators, in other words hardly any at all.

So what is the normal amount of force required to arrest demonstrators? Hardly any at all isn't much of a distinction. Many have stated the pepper spraying cop sure wasn't using much in the way of effort in the force applied.

That is exactly what civil disobedience is all about. It is not about always obeying your masters no matter what they say.

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't think I'd choose to compare legal finical practices with uneven, constitutionally wrong-minded, morally corrupt and unethical treatment of African Americans. The requests of property owners to remove unlawful habitation of their property is a far cry form evil as well. In public space there is greater ambiguity but in most municipalities people simply aren't allowed to establish residence wherever they wish in whatever manner they wish so again disallowing such behavior is hardly evil.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

So, hypothetically, at what point does the intrusion of civil disobedience into the rights of others become a problem?

If someone punches you in the face because they are 'protesting', is it 'free speech'?

It's no different than in any other situation in life. Your rights end where mine being, etc.

And punching someone in the face in not a part of peaceful protesting. Some forms of civil disobedience aren't peaceful, but they generally don't involve punching someone in the face. I'd have to say no, that's not free speech.

Originally Posted by Jefe

It's no different than in any other situation in life. Your rights end where mine being, etc.

And punching someone in the face in not a part of peaceful protesting. Some forms of civil disobedience aren't peaceful, but they generally don't involve punching someone in the face. No, that's not free speech.

Fair enough. It blocking a street and telling you that you 'have no power here' and preventing you from going home 'peaceful'? (this happened to a man with a child in his car in DC courtesy of the 'occupiers')

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Fair enough. It blocking a street and telling you that you 'have no power here' and preventing you from going home 'peaceful'? (this happened to a man with a child in his car in DC courtesy of the 'occupiers')

That doesn't sound very 'peacful', but it's not exactly violent, either. It's against the law, though, and the protester should (and probably does) expect to be arrested for it. I'm not sure what point he was trying to make, and that sounds pretty retarded, but that's beside the point I guess.

The question is (to try and keep this on topic), when he refused to move, did the cops grab his arms and force them behind his back, place him in handcuffs, and arrest him? Or did they pepper spray him first?

Originally Posted by Jefe

You seem to think that anyone commiting a crime should have violence inflicted upon them by the police.

So you've figured out the MO of big government authoritarians when dealing with people they disagree with.

This is essentially the crux of the issue.