What is the point of this.

[Buckshot]

Would you rather they get thier A$$e$ kicked for not doing as they were told? If you do not do as ordered you should expect something to happen to you... But that is just the way I see it...

 

[atvdave]

Well in this particular instance they were in violation of the law, trespassing I think. They were asked to leave and if you watch the unedited video you see them provoking the police so the police do this ^^^ and then they get to post these very misleading pictures on the internet.

Agree 100%

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't agree that sitting on the ground is a form of force.

I do agree that the university was within their rights to clear the area.

As far as 'property owners', UC Davis is a public university, owned by the people of California. The students, who pay for the university with both taxes and tuition, are as much the 'owners' of the property as the administration.

In retrospect, I feel it would have been more appropriate to detain and charge the suspected offenders, not assault them.

I can't help but think that if these people had been protesting abortion, or had been at a 2A rally, that the INGO community would much less favor this pointless use of force, but since they are kids from the left coast somehow they 'Got what they deserved' from the cops?

I have to disagree. It may be legally justifiable to allow the police to assault citizens, but I cannot justify it morally. Violent force has to be a 'Last Resort', especially when used in an official capacity.

Like I wrote in my first post, and repeated in this one:

The correct action would have been to order the crowd to disperse. Next, arrest and charge those that do not comply. Anything else is a misuse of police power, and opens both groups to un-necessary risks. Look at the way the protesters are treated at anti-choice rallies, G8 Summit meetings, Repub/Demo National conventions, etc...

Had the UC Davis police arrived, arrested the suspected troublemakers and moved on, this whole incident might have been a throw-away...forgotten in a few hours.

The use of violence when none is necessary is wrong. Wrong from the police, wrong from the rabble, wrong from me or you.

It seems to me, in this situation, there is plenty of 'wrong' to go around. I am not defending the actions of the 'protestors' as appropriate, I am simply saying the actions of the police were also inappropriate.

None of it 'needed' to happen at all.

-Paul

You are right. The University is owned by the "people" of California - not the individual inhabitants of California. The State owns the property, and as the property owner they had every right to ask these people to leave, then have them removed for failing to do so.

It's obvious when you say "just arrest them" that you don't understand the risks involved with that statement. Had the police gone in and arrested them they would have had to put hands on these people, exposing themselves as well as the protesters to potential bodily injury. The police resolved the situation with the least amount of force necessary. The real crime was the University not standing behind their police force after directing the police to remove the protesters.

A broken bone is painful for months. Pepper spray is painful for minutes. Sometimes pain can be avoided by simply doing what you are asked to do.

 

[ATM]

...Sometimes pain can be avoided by simply doing what you are asked to do.

But... according to the old axiom, doing so would never lead to a gain.


BRING THE HEAT!

 

[hornadylnl]

These people were ordered to dispersed and refused. The law is the law.

 

[atvdave]

these protesters can stay..

 

[rambone]

Sitting on the ground is force? Really?

Is today Opposite Day?

 

[Fedempl]

these protesters can stay..

I'll take a 10 piece bucket with 4 thighs...

 

[rambone]

They edited the video to make it look like a bunch of "statist pigs" assaulted them.

Any way you present that video, the people on the ground did nothing. Justify the assault however you need to.

 

[gvsugod]

Any way you present that video, the people on the ground did nothing. Justify the assault however you need to.

They were trespassing and told that if they resisted to leave forcibly, or peacefully they would be arrested. Then were warned several times. These hippies got what was coming to them.

 

[ItIsWhatItIs]

For every action, there is a result - be it consequence or benefit. choose wisely.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They were trespassing and told that if they resisted to leave forcibly, or peacefully they would be arrested. Then were warned several times. These hippies got what was coming to them.

Not that I support or encourage these people, but if they are tuition-paying students (as they have been presented), how can they be trespassing on campus?

 

[88GT]

Sitting on the ground is force? Really?

Is today Opposite Day?

And there it is. Rambone's duplicitous straw man argument. Again.

Compelling someone to do something against his will by any means is the use of force. But you already know this since you complain about it daily.

 

[rambone]

And there it is. Rambone's duplicitous straw man argument. Again.

Compelling someone to do something against his will by any means is the use of force. But you already know this since you complain about it daily.

If the JBT was justified in attacking the seated protesters, then it stands to reason that any passerby would be justified in attacking them. Their sitting is "forceful" on everyone equally -- or no one at all -- as with any victimless crime.

So, for the next guy you find sitting on a public sidewalk, try assaulting with your weapon of choice and see how the "responding to force" argument works out. His existence on the sidewalk forced you to read his sign and be annoyed; therefore, let the bodies hit the floor!

 

[88GT]

If the JBT was justified in attacking the seated protesters, then it stands to reason that any passerby would be justified in attacking them.

You either think I am extremely stupid, or you want me to think you are. Let's break this down.

It was not the act of sitting on the sidewalk that warranted the response. It was the refusal to obey a lawful order and LE's rightful authority to enforce property rights at the request of the property owner that warranted it.

If the act of sitting on the ground met certain other criteria, then, yes, all other passersby have as much authority to respond in kind as LE did.

Their sitting is "forceful" on everyone equally -- or no one at all -- as with any victimless crime.

Once again, it wasn't the mere act of sitting on the ground.

So, for the next guy you find sitting on a public sidewalk, try assaulting with your weapon of choice and see how the "responding to force" argument works out. His existence on the sidewalk forced you to read his sign and be annoyed; therefore, let the bodies hit the floor!

Do I have to say it a third time? It's not about just sitting on the sidewalk.

 

[rambone]

It was not the act of sitting on the sidewalk that warranted the response. It was the refusal to obey a lawful order and LE's rightful authority to enforce property rights at the request of the property owner that warranted it.

We disagree at this point. I don't see how you can trespass on a public sidewalk. Since the owner of the sidewalk is "the taxpayers", then some of the property owners themselves were present on the sidewalk. Where else should they go? To the next sidewalk? You can't kick someone out of "public."

 

[hooky]

I believe it was when the crowd was chanting that they wouldn't let them leave and the idiot on the bull horn that tried to negotiate with the police for their "release" that may have been the justification for bringing out the pepper spray.

Right to protest? Check
Right to detain police? not so much

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like the peacefully assembled protestors are going to get their payday, thanks to the thin blue line and their violation of policy. The payout shouldn't be coming from the university. It should come directly out of the cops budget.

A report on the incident released in April found that UC campus police used poor judgment and violated policy during the incident.

UC to pay damages in UC Davis pepper-spraying incident - latimes.com

 

[poptab]

Wait what is an "unlawful assembly"? Because that was what the cop said.

I'm sorry but that seems like a violation of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It seemed peaceful to me. Was it about to turn violent? I don't care what they were protesting I think the cops were wrong to even be there. Except to make sure it didnt get violent.

 

[LEaSH]

The tuition protests from students will be coming soon.

Nice cycle.