What is the proper method of dealing with crowd control ...

[Caroljo]

Unlike you, Immanuel, I think the vast majority of the OWS protestors are decent, law-abiding, sincere citizens who are fed up. People are tired of being misrepresented, abused, and dismissed as a mere statistic, young, unemployed*, A minority are immature morons.

Nonetheless, the police action at UC Davis was overkill. The hate directed toward OWS protestors is off base.

I'm sure there are some decent people in there too and that they know what they're protesting for. Then if they're against what the "infiltrators" are doing and making them the laughing stock of the nation....they need to break it all up, re-group and make a new plan....as long as the so called sincere citizens sit on their ass and do nothing about the bums that joined them, then they're ALL guilty of any crimes that are committed.

 

[Ringel05]

You're reminding me of some folks after the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King. They claimed that there must have been "powerful evidence" that the rest of us had not seen. As if there was some legal justification for beating a minor offender who is down on the ground and subdued already.

The cop walks up to people seated on the ground, and sprays them repeatedly with chemicals. There is no lead up that would justify that. Pepper spray is supposed to be a non-lethal method of getting a situation under control. The protestors were under control. There is no justification for the cop's actions.

You're an expert in police procedures, protester tactics and crowd dynamics, you were there and are intimately aware of every minute detail that may or may not have contributed to the incident in question........
Sure thing there Skippy.

And of course, all of that matters in a situation where people are seated passively and being sprayed. We cannot form an opinion without being police officers, there on the scene. A classic conservative defense.

If there were a chaotic scene, you absolutely would have a point.

There wasn't, you don't.

Again, sure thing there Skippy.
Oh and I just love the classic "A classic conservative defense" deflection. How....... trite.

 

[paulitician]

Standing up to the Police State isn't easy but someone's gotta do it. Many on this Board sure aint gonna fight for your rights. So who if not you?

 

[Immanuel]

You make a decent point, but I wasn't taking about the police. I was talking about the Administrator who was whining that she was sorry for what happened and that she didn't authorize it.

I can agree with your point that that there were laws being broken. I ask though, did that justify the use of pepper spray?

You and I may have differing answers to that. I'm cool with that.

Immie

if we are to retain the freedom to protest and express oursleves we must view wanton breaking of laws and taunting of the authority by anyone in a protest situation as a severe violation

those students were told to protest but no camping

they set up camp...because the night before they were ran off of UC Berekley by the law

so they were going to show the authority

set up camp

asked not to and given a time to tear down camp

came back

tents still up ....defiant protesters

told to take down or face arrest

nope

form circle around camp and lock arms

asked repeatedly to comply

nope

locked arms.... active resistance

warned

nope

spray tan and hooked up

legal and warranted less than lethal force

watch

I did watch. I still question whether or not they used excessive force.

What I base that on is whether or not there was any threat posed on the police. I didn't see any at all. So, the question is whether or not the force used was justified.

I spent six years in the Coast Guard Reserves. I'm no expert and don't pretend to be. We received the bare minimum of "law enforcement training", thank the good Lord, I never had to use it! What I remember most was being told that we were only allowed to use sufficient force to neutralize the threat against us or other civilians. I look at the video and wonder where was the threat.

The cop that I see doing the spraying was acting like he had a water hose and was rinsing something off the protesters. I didn't see any threat against him, other officers or civilians.

Now, I am not saying they did not have the right to enforce the laws. What I am wondering is if they used what could be termed... "excessive force". And I wasn't there, I don't know the answer to that question. I can only go on what I have seen.

Immie

 

[OODA_Loop]

Standing up to the Police State isn't easy but someone's gotta do it. Many on this Board sure aint gonna fight for your rights. So who if not you?

yes many here arent gonna fight for your rights to break the law

 

[Immanuel]

Unlike you, Immanuel, I think the vast majority of the OWS protestors are decent, law-abiding, sincere citizens who are fed up. People are tired of being misrepresented, abused, and dismissed as a mere statistic, young, unemployed*, A minority are immature morons.

Nonetheless, the police action at UC Davis was overkill. The hate directed toward OWS protestors is off base.

Morons can be decent law-abiding people.

What I see from OWS is people that don't have a clue about what this country stood for, for over two hundred years and they want to destroy the very foundation of our economy without even thinking about the consequences.

Those evil banks! How dare they charge us to use their money!!!!

Immie

 

[Ropey]

See post number #198 but does that justify it? I don't know I wasn't there so you're asking the wrong person.

Reading through the remainder of the thread now and have watched the video.

I don't think it was justified force, but as you said, I was not there. From the reports I have seen, it appears that the police went overboard.

Y'all know that police officers don't take kindly to us peons not asking "How high?" when they tell us to jump, don't you?

Immie

Personally I believe the problem (here) is associative experience. Other than myself I doubt anyone here has ever been in the shoes of the officers in that situation. What most people don't see is even in "passive resistant" scenarios frequently there is an undertone of seething anger directed towards the the authority figures who are present and being in the middle of that you never know if or when that anger will explode into action so you do what you have been trained to do and that is attempt to take control of the situation to protect yourself and your fellow officers.
If the officers had tried to extricate themselves by physically breaking the interlocked human chain they would have had to deploy physical measures possibly resulting in serious physical injury to one or more of the protesters not to mention the protestors might have seen this as an violent attack and struck back, potentially causing a riot, it's happened before. Think of the propaganda value the protesters would have had then.
These are all possible scenarios that could have been going on in the cops heads, I don't know, I'm simply speculating based on my knowledge and experience of dealing with strikes and protests and my knowledge of mob dynamics.

Too many variables and 'if's' for my taste. I'll just wait for litigation if it occurs and pass it by if it does not, since there's more than enough money out there for those who are empowering such groups to litigate.

If they don't, then why waste the time? That there are enough cameras around and no real defense response is telling at this point in time imo.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What I base that on is whether or not there was any threat posed on the police. I didn't see any at all. So, the question is whether or not the force used was justified.

Immie

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

 

[SAT2]

See post number #198 but does that justify it? I don't know I wasn't there so you're asking the wrong person.

Reading through the remainder of the thread now and have watched the video.

I don't think it was justified force, but as you said, I was not there. From the reports I have seen, it appears that the police went overboard.

Y'all know that police officers don't take kindly to us peons not asking "How high?" when they tell us to jump, don't you?

Immie

Personally I believe the problem (here) is associative experience. Other than myself I doubt anyone here has ever been in the shoes of the officers in that situation. What most people don't see is even in "passive resistant" scenarios frequently there is an undertone of seething anger directed towards the the authority figures who are present and being in the middle of that you never know if or when that anger will explode into action so you do what you have been trained to do and that is attempt to take control of the situation to protect yourself and your fellow officers.
If the officers had tried to extricate themselves by physically breaking the interlocked human chain they would have had to deploy physical measures possibly resulting in serious physical injury to one or more of the protesters not to mention the protestors might have seen this as an violent attack and struck back, potentially causing a riot, it's happened before. Think of the propaganda value the protesters would have had then.
These are all possible scenarios that could have been going on in the cops heads, I don't know, I'm simply speculating based on my knowledge and experience of dealing with strikes and protests and my knowledge of mob dynamics.

The protestors probably were seething with anger. But when they are passively seated and only feeling their seething anger, the cops can't get by with spraying them like insects.

I understand you're feeling professionally defensive, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to play dumb and claim it's just too complicated to tell.

Standing up to the Police State isn't easy but someone's gotta do it. Many on this Board sure aint gonna fight for your rights. So who if not you?

They aren't driven by anything other than a desire to shut down the opposition, with force if necessary.

 

[SAT2]

What I base that on is whether or not there was any threat posed on the police. I didn't see any at all. So, the question is whether or not the force used was justified.

Immie

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

You use some common sense and keep your eyes on the prize. The prize is not your honor and glory as an officer. The prize is keeping civil order in a democracy.

 

[Immanuel]

See post number #198 but does that justify it? I don't know I wasn't there so you're asking the wrong person.

Reading through the remainder of the thread now and have watched the video.

I don't think it was justified force, but as you said, I was not there. From the reports I have seen, it appears that the police went overboard.

Y'all know that police officers don't take kindly to us peons not asking "How high?" when they tell us to jump, don't you?

Immie

Personally I believe the problem (here) is associative experience. Other than myself I doubt anyone here has ever been in the shoes of the officers in that situation. What most people don't see is even in "passive resistant" scenarios frequently there is an undertone of seething anger directed towards the the authority figures who are present and being in the middle of that you never know if or when that anger will explode into action so you do what you have been trained to do and that is attempt to take control of the situation to protect yourself and your fellow officers.
If the officers had tried to extricate themselves by physically breaking the interlocked human chain they would have had to deploy physical measures possibly resulting in serious physical injury to one or more of the protesters not to mention the protestors might have seen this as an violent attack and struck back, potentially causing a riot, it's happened before. Think of the propaganda value the protesters would have had then.
These are all possible scenarios that could have been going on in the cops heads, I don't know, I'm simply speculating based on my knowledge and experience of dealing with strikes and protests and my knowledge of mob dynamics.

I question whether or not the timing was right. Were the actions that were taken necessary at the time they were taken? Was it possible that a little restraint on the side of the police, might have brought about a more peaceful solution to the event?

The police had the right to break up the protest because the protestors were breaking the law. I hadn't realized that earlier until I read more of the details this evening. They had the right to arrest anyone of those protestors who would not disperse. However, does that justify the force that was used. Maybe it does. I don't know, but if I were on a jury in this case, the police would have to sell me on it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

What I base that on is whether or not there was any threat posed on the police. I didn't see any at all. So, the question is whether or not the force used was justified.

Immie

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

Again, the question is whether or not the force used was excessive.

Immie

 

[OODA_Loop]

You use some common sense and keep your eyes on the prize. The prize is not your honor and glory as an officer. The prize is keeping civil order in a democracy.

the prize is ensuring the actions of the unlawful at protests dont impact the rights of everyone to air thier grievances or support of thier positions

breaking laws, resisting arrest and taunting the authority is the death knell for freedom

 

[OODA_Loop]

What I base that on is whether or not there was any threat posed on the police. I didn't see any at all. So, the question is whether or not the force used was justified.

Immie

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

Again, the question is whether or not the force used was excessive.

Immie

pepper spray is the lowest and safest form of force to use against resistance...there is an almost universal and instant compliance rate

did you want the officers to go hands on and fight the kids ?

night sticks ?

no I think what you really want is them just to able to break the law

thusly the death of free expression

 

[SAT2]

You use some common sense and keep your eyes on the prize. The prize is not your honor and glory as an officer. The prize is keeping civil order in a democracy.

the prize is ensuring the actions of the unlawful at protests dont impact the rights of everyone to air thier grievances or support of thier positions

breaking laws, resisting arrest and taunting the authority is the death knell for freedom

Yes, being free is the death knell for freedom. I believe I heard something similar from Bull Connor.

The actions of these protestors don't impact the rights of others to air their grievances or support their positions.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The actions of these protestors don't impact the rights of others to air their grievances or support their positions.

sure it does

all of the past law breaking actions like this

contributed to what you see at UC Davis

 

[SAT2]

pepper spray is the lowest and safest form of force to use against resistance...there is an almost universal and instant compliance rate

did you want the officers to go hands on and fight the kids ?

night sticks ?

no I think what you really want is them just to able to break the law

thusly the death of free expression

Well, no. It's not low, and it's not safe.

They are inflicting pain for minor acts of civil disobedience.

In other words, the lowest, safest form of law breaking.

I want a country where you can engage in civil disobedience without being attacked by the police.

 

[SAT2]

The actions of these protestors don't impact the rights of others to air their grievances or support their positions.

sure it does

all of the past law breaking actions like this

contributed to what you see at UC Davis

What are you trying to say?

 

[Immanuel]

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

Again, the question is whether or not the force used was excessive.

Immie

pepper spray is the lowest and safest form of force to use against resistance...there is an almost universal and instant compliance rate

did you want the officers to go hands on and fight the kids ?

night sticks ?

no I think what you really want is them just to able to break the law

thusly the death of free expression

Your last statement there doesn't make any sense. The death of free expression comes at the hands of those in authority. It was the police that were ending free expression not those who were protesting.

If we want the right to freely express ourselves, we must be willing to allow those with whom we disagree to express themselves as well.

I break the law all the time. I was driving 68 miles an hour today on the way home from work in a 60 mph zone and to think of it, some nerd had the nerve to put up one of those lighted signs that construction companies use on the side of the road that said, "Slow down. Speed wrecks you day". I'm more than willing to face the consequences of my actions. I am under the assumption that the protestors know that they too are breaking the law and may very well have to face consequences of their own. It seems to me that they are willing to do so.

You're right, I do think they should have the right to risk those consequences.

Come to think of it, the police in the video may also have to face the consequences of their actions, if the courts rule that they used excessive force.

Immie

 

[Cuyo]

you do realize they were effecting arrests, right ?

so if your under arrest and you lock arms with your buddies and resist

let you go ?

Again, the question is whether or not the force used was excessive.

Immie

pepper spray is the lowest and safest form of force to use against resistance...there is an almost universal and instant compliance rate

did you want the officers to go hands on and fight the kids ?

night sticks ?

no I think what you really want is them just to able to break the law

thusly the death of free expression

Again, it's nothing short of ridiculous to hear any of you excuse the police for any reason other than that you perceive OWS as liberals.

But you keep asking if they should have used a pepper spray dousing to the face, or something more aggressive, as though those were the only two options... ... And the answer to your question is that if pepper spray should have been used at all, it should have been sprayed up in the air above the protesters. This is normal protocol for this sort of situation.

But get real, they should have just let them be. They were just kids and they weren't hurting or bothering anyone.