Galaki said:
Kasz216 said:
Galaki said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Walking down a line of passive protestors and spraying them is clearly wrong. Pepper spray, along with other less than lethal weapons, should only be used to subdue aggresive people who are causing danger to themselves or others.
If they were breaking the law with their sit in then the officer could have arrested them, if they aggresively resisted arrest then he could have pepper sprayed them. What he did however, spray them when they were not aggresive, was reprehensible. |
You seem to have missed the part where they already arrested people.
They arrested as many people as they could handle. Which gave them the options of pepperspray or waiting for backup. The second option is how dangerous riots happen.
Pepperspraying was by far the best option available.
|
Wait. Isn't that a thought crime? You're assuming the worse could happen used chemical weapon to prevent something that may or may not happen.
|
No?
Aside from which, prior bad acts. Occupy Oakland was supposed to go down and support Occupy UC Davis.... and they very specifically started a violent riot while the cops waited for backup.
|
Didn't the police also the agressors in that case? Regardless, just because 1 group did something, you justified the police action on another group?
Sure, they did something you don't agree with, but surely, they don't deserve the chemical weapons used on them.
|
It was the same group more or less?
Also, calling pepper spray a chemcial wepaon is technically true but highly misleading.
Activly impeding the police is a pretty big deal which generally does result in the use of Pepperspray. When you intentionally impede an officers movement during an arest you cross the line into "Active resistance".
I mean, what if instead of protesters, this was a guy who had just stolen something or even murdered someone, and as the police officer runs after him, a big wall of people intentionally get in his way? Or prevents him from getting the criminal to jail.
