A little while ago there was a thread about OWS where people were posting a bunch of videos as proof of police brutality and over use of power.  Some people in that thread (myself included) pointed out that the videos always started after the police needed to take action, and we never saw what happened before hand to set the police off.  Fast forward and this incident at UC Davis was on youtube and got a lot of press because the cop was out of line and very nonchalantly pepper sprayed some sitting students.  It became pretty popular and even started a meme.

Anyway I just saw this video today, which shows what happened before the pepper spray came out.  Its long but worth the watch.

The police warned the protestors of what was going to happen if they didn't move about 4 times, and then they formed a circle around the police and wouldn't let them leave until they got what they wanted (They're prevously arrested friends released)

Anyway just wanted to make sure this was seen (Sorry if there was already a thread about it) because I think it throws the whole incident into another light.  Anyone have thoughts or opinions with the new(ish) info?

Not new info, really. We knew that the protestors had surrounded the police

At the end of the day, the police were in a no-win situation and took a huge PR blow. That's the key to truly effective passive-resistance, is that you force the authorities to acknowledge you but make it such that any response of theirs looks reprehensible.

A brilliant shot, really

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.

There is a case of excessive force. The line of arguing in the original post is that excessive force is justified if it is warned about first. So, using this reasoning, law enforcement could then say they will shoot people with bullets if they fail to comply. Hey, they failed to comply, so they were shot with bullets.

Is it possible for people ONE time, just ONE time to be able to agree on SOMETHING that is shockingly wrong? Even the shooting of the congresswoman got turned into a political football.

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.

Public Relations should be part of the consideration for how police are trained, i would contend. If your department has become a national disgrace, even if you had no options as far as you knew, you're doing something wrong. Yes, if they had waited for backup, there was the potential for a riot to break out, but you gain the initiative as far as public will is concerned

Granted, i would say PR considerations should only factor in when dealing with peaceful protests, because the only way to make sure you come out of a peaceful protest unscathed is to defeat it peacefully, otherwise your ass is going to be on the line every time.

No, aggressive police behaviour against passive protests is how riots happen.

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.

we already knew this, just some media outlets and individuals decided to ignore it.
the police acted appropriately.