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

Obviously the officers' employer thought their use of pepper spray was excessive, since both officers have been suspended.

Originally Posted by soot

That said, your insistance on harping on this "free speech zone" issue is nonsense.

What is the difference between a free speech zone and a free camping zone?

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Obviously the officers' employer thought their use of pepper spray was excessive, since both officers have been suspended.

Three campus police officers were placed on administrative leave. That means they keep getting paid without showing up to work and being present to be harangued by students and stalked by the press while the university administration figures out how to avoid as many law suits as possible. It being obviously excessive is clearly not the case as they aren't facing criminal charges are they?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Three campus police officers were placed on administrative leave. That means they keep getting paid without showing up to work and being present to be harangued by students and stalked by the press while the university administration figures out how to avoid as many law suits as possible. It being obviously excessive is clearly not the case as they aren't facing criminal charges are they?

And neither are the students.

The university administrators know that having a criminal record will hurt their students' job prospects after they graduate. And since successful job placement after graduation is one of a their selling points it is against their best interests to go forward with criminal charges. Usually job applications have a question asking if you have ever been convicted of a crime. And let's face it, if you check the yes box many potential employers will simply toss your application and resume in the trash without reading any further.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What is the difference between a free speech zone and a free camping zone?

Speech is Constitutionally protected. Camping is not.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Speech is Constitutionally protected. Camping is not.

They said the camp was taken down for security reasons.

Anyone who watches slasher type horror movies knows that any time a bunch of college kids pitch tents some infamous psychotic serial killer inevitably escapes from the nearest hospital for the criminally insane, infiltrates the encampment in the middle of the night and starts killing them one by one, or sometimes in pairs if he catches them in a pup tent fucking.

But seriously, it is bound to attract a lot of non-students looking to take advantage of young naive students, whether it's to steal a laptop or i-pad or perhaps rape a co-ed.

So I can understand why there would be some security concerns regarding the students playing camp out.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Again with the deflection....how predicatable.

I firmly believe in propert rights.

I do not believe in the power of the police to use excess force to enforce those rights.

Perhaps in the future you can discuss members' posts without the need to deflect. Of course when that's all you have, I suppose I can see why you employ the strategy.

Pepper spray is not excessive force for non-compliant law breakers. The worst long-term symptom you'll have is hurt feelings. I don't think there are any laws to keep people from having hurt feelings.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

It doesn't have to be one of the other, you know.

Lol...you should have experience with combatives and how to subdue someone. These kids were resisting so it would have gotten pretty violent with escalation of force. You're simply being willfully ignorant of the real situation.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I can assure you, I'd be saying the same thing if it had been Tea Party protesters who had been undeservedly pepper sprayed for shouting & disturbing the peace at a town hall meeting. I don't necessarily support everyting that the OWS protesters stand for, nor do I support everything that the Tea Party stands for, but I do agree with both of them on certain issues, and I would defend both sides' freedom of speech and their right to protest.. and I sure as hell would be defending either side if I felt that the police had overstepped their authority. Furthermore, I'd defend the cops if I thought they had acted appropriately. If some dummy thinks it's a wise idea to take a swing at a cop, I'd have no problem with the cop pepper spraying him, or "smashing his face into the ground" (thanks, fishjoel).

Now, can you honestly say that you would be in favor of the police treating Tea Party protesters in the same manner that these OWS protesters have been treated? Now go ahead and and "feign support" of the cops in either case, so I can call you a bullshitter. I highly doubt you're as consistent as you'd like to think you are.. and I'd appreciate it if you quit saying I'm dishonest, because it's really starting to piss me off. You're fairly new here, and you don't know jack shit about me, okay? I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not part of your little black and white partisan world, where only liberals and conservatives exist.

BTW, do you know why the cops never pepper sprayed any of those annoying Tea Party protesters at town hall meetings and other public events? Because Tea Party protesters have guns, and the cops know it.

I don't need to know all that much about you to spot an obvious fictitious argument. All I need to see is:

(1) You're taking a completely unreasonable stance. No on in their right mind opposes pepper spray because it is too violent while advocating dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls. It just doesn't make sense. You would be infinitely more believable if you opposed pepper spray in favor of dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls because you want to see more mayhem.

(2) You've stated numerous times that violence should never be used against non-violent lawbreakers. No one in their right mind believes violence should never be used against a sit in but supports dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls. It's just not reasonable, Jefe.

(3) You continuously misrepresent the actual situation despite being told numerous times that your version of events didn't take place. The stormtroopers coming in with guns blazing against defenseless students who had no idea they were doing something wrong did not happen. The police didn't go from 0 to 60 on the violence scale out of no where. None of this actually happened. The students were on private property and asked to leave by the administration. The police were called when they refused then the police attempted to non-violently remove them. The police moved on to more violent solutions when the students resisted non-violent attempts.

Who are you really kidding at this point?

You're very welcome to feign indignation but you would probably be better served by getting more control over your emotions and looking at the actual facts. The Tea Partiers has been treated differently than the OWS'ers because they have behaved differently. There were no reports of the former being pepper sprayed or arrested not because law enforcement sided with their ideology but rather they weren't violating the law. Perhaps if you stepped back and looked at the situation with less partisan eyes you would recognize that the big reason OWS'ers are having such financial difficulties is because they continuously make terrible decisions and accept no responsibility for those decisions.

Reality has hit this group like a brick wall because all their lives they were babied and now they're being asked to take a small bit of responsibility for themselves. These kids weren't pepper sprayed because the police are repressive anymore than the people protesting in NYC are out of work because corporations want to keep them down. At some point these assholes are going to have to take responsibility for their own lives and kicking this can down the road doesn't really do much to alleviate this very real problem.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Obviously the officers' employer thought their use of pepper spray was excessive, since both officers have been suspended.

This is a completely ignorant statement, devoid of anything factual to support it. There are many reasons why people are put on administrative leave one of them being for PR reasons. I have a close friend who was a Baltimore City police officer and they are required to take administrative leave any time they employ their firearm. It has nothing to do with whether they did so excessively or not.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I don't need to know all that much about you to spot an obvious fictitious argument. All I need to see is:

(1) You're taking a completely unreasonable stance. No on in their right mind opposes pepper spray because it is inhuman while advocating dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls. It just doesn't make sense. You would be infinitely more believable if you opposed pepper spray in favor of dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls because you want to see more mayhem.

(2) You've stated numerous times that violence should never be used against non-violent lawbreakers. No one in their right mind believes violence should never be used against a sit in but supports dislocating shoulders and batons to the balls. It's just not reasonable, Jefe.

(3) You continuously misrepresent the actual situation despite being told numerous times that your version of events didn't take place. The stormtroopers coming in with guns blazing against defenseless students who had no idea they were doing something wrong did not happen. The police didn't go from 0 to 60 on the violence scale out of no where. None of this actually happened. The students were on private property and asked to leave by the administration. The police were called when they refused then the police attempted to non-violently remove them. The police moved on to more violent solutions when the students resisted non-violent attempts.

Who are you really kidding at this point?

Violence wasn't used against the Tea Party because they broke no laws. It is a very simple concept.

Holy crap, I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes: I don't advocate beating up on non-violent protesters in any way, shape or form, unless they turn violent. Premptively spraying them with pepper spray, before they've done anything violent, is fucking retarded. Pepper spray should only be used for subduing violent offenders, not for incapacitating non-violent protesters. I realize that this is OK to some of you, because it is considered "standard police procedure", but I think the procedure is wrong. I think it would be far better to grab the protesters one by one (three or four cops to a protester if necessary), handcuff them, and arrest them. If they refuse to unlink their arms, then pry them appart with batons - I'm sure there are police procedures for proper application at pressure points to achieve this goal. IF the protester turns violent (and that's a big if, you'll note I made it in all caps to emphasize the point), THEN you peppper spray them, or take a baton to them, or whatever, I don't really give a shit at that point. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to repeat my position in this thread, and I hope I've made it clear enough for you this time around.

I'll take your non-response to my question as to whether or not you would feel the same way about Tea Party protesters being pepper sprayed as an obvious "no". IOW, you don't mind if someone is treated badly by the police, so long as it's someone whose politics you disagree with, which just shows how disingenuous you are.

Now, if you're done misrepresenting my position, and basically calling me a liar, I've got better things to do, okay?

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What is the difference between a free speech zone and a free camping zone?

Honestly, none.

The UC Davis free speech zone was private property set aside for a specific purpose which was then revoked. Use of campus grounds to protest, camp, play volleyball, or organize a Playstation 3 tournament is a privilege that can be taken away as the university sees fit. The university saw fit to take away campus grounds to the protesters - period, end of story.

That they were once allowed to protest there doesn't give them the authority to protest indefinitely anymore than my inviting you over to watch a football game gives you the authority to watch my television whenever you want.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Holy crap, I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes: I don't advocate beating up on non-violent protesters in any way, shape or form, unless they turn violent. Premptively spraying them with pepper spray, before they've done anything violent, is fucking retarded. Pepper spray should only be used for subduing violent offenders, not for incapacitating non-violent protesters. I realize that this is OK to some of you, because it is considered "standard police procedure", but I think the procedure is wrong. I think it would be far better to grab the protesters one by one (three or four cops to a protester if necessary), handcuff them, and arrest them. If they refuse to unlink their arms, then pry them appart with batons - I'm sure there are police procedures for proper application at pressure points to achieve this goal. IF the protester turns violent (and that's a big if, you'll note I made it in all caps to emphasize the point), THEN you peppper spray them, or take a baton to them, or whatever, I don't really give a shit at that point. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to repeat my position in this thread, and I hope I've made it clear enough for you this time around.

The issue is is that you are supporting a more violent method to be used over a less violent method. Hell, use of pepper spray hardly even qualifies as violent, by definition, but applying hands to and prying with batons definitely qualifies as violent.

I'll take your non-response to my question as to whether or not you would feel the same way about Tea Party protesters being pepper sprayed as an obvious "no". IOW, you don't mind if someone is treated badly by the police, so long as it's someone whose politics you disagree with, which just shows how disingenuous you are.

Well, the TEA party protesters have a pretty good track record of obeying the laws so your comparison falls flat of what happens in reality. If a TEA party protester was breaking the law and did not comply to requests made by officers and they got pepper sprayed I wouldn't feel sorry for them.