Why would it be so hard to wait for back up? It was not an unruly mob, they were all sitting non violently. They could have simply waited them out. They had officers on both sides of the circle. No one was physically assaulting the cops. I fail to the the only choice of the cops as pepperspraying them. It was a bad move on their part and made them look bad. They could of handled it better, and they should learn from this event on how to handle it better. Not close their eyes to what they did wrong and justify it. It happens learn from it.

It is an interest world now. People go and see if someone is on some side opposed to them, then they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize conduct used against the group they are opposed to. So now, don't like Occupy, so ANY conduct used against them is justified, include a Kent State style shooting. Because they have a message you disagree with. The officer that did the pepperspraying was put on suspension, and the police force thought he was out of line. But, what the heck does the police force know.

I am sure people here who disagree with Occupy feel police officer Bologna who peppersprayed the two women who were penned up in NYC was also justified in doing it.

And of course the goal was to generate bad PR for the authorities.  Why does one expect protesters to try to make the system they are opposed to look good?

I'm still trying to figure out why school authorities were intending to prevent college students from congregating on their own college campus.  I'm sure when the local vendors show up and set up booths on those same sidewalks, nobody cares.

What is especially ironic in all of this is that the initial rally that lead to protests was organized by a faculty member, and they rally was intended to speak out against the use of violence against protesters at UC Berkley.

That faculty member wrote an Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, explaining the intent of the protests and calling for the Chancellor to step down:

I'm not saying they should. What i meant is that while the police had to do something, they (or whoever was ordering them, as makingmusic's post discusses) should have been aware that protests are primarily a battle of PR, and that reacting (especially with force) is going to play right into their hands.

A firm but peaceful protest needs to be dealt with in kind (peacefully and firmly dismantle it), or else you are going to be totally screwed in the public eye.

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.

You kidding?  You set up a vendors booth on a college campus without paying for the proper permits and they'll hit you with a massive fine.  Colleges gotta make their money.

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.

See the Occupy Oakland.  Or the London student riots.  Where things got out of hand because the police showed they had lost control of the situation.

From a PR standpoint sure... but i'm sure a police officer would rather keep the peace through non-dangerous means and keep everyone alive rather then risking serious injury and possible death of the protestors.