By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - OWS UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

osamanobama on 06 December 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:


Anywhere else?

I come from NZ. That would not have happened here.

 

What the police should have done if they had to arrest/move the protestors (and what they did after pepper spraying) is simply to arrest/move the protestors. There was no reason for the pepper spray to be used against protestors who were not a threat to the police. Pepper sprays only purpose is to subdue through pain - to use it on a non-threatening person is in itself police brutality.

 

Edit: I also have to wonder if the people who support the police in this would have been so supportive of the same thing against a movement whose ideals they agreed with. (Also for the record, I think the occupy protests are kind of stupid)

People who tend to share my ideals wouldn't have forced the police into a position where they had to react ... Essentially, if you believe in personal responsibility you tend to act in a responsible and respectful manner to other people and their property.

very well put, my thoughts exactly



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 December 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Violence should only be met with violence?   If that was the case then there would be no way to remove peaceful protestors, no matter where they are, be it blocking traffic, or a hospital or whatever.

Dragging the protestors from their illegal spaces afterall is inherently violent and can cause some pain and even possibe longterm damage.  Which is what makes the pepperspray incidient even more confusing.  Sure it hurts like a bitch, but the possible permament after affects are less likely or prevelent then what's used already.

Additionally, whether they intentionally block the way of the police due to theif, murderer, protestor or tax cheat... they are committing the same crime.  Resisitng Arrest. (You can be charged with it by trying to prevent soemone elses arrest.)

Resisting Arrest is listed under Active Resistance.

Once they decided to try and block the arrests they technically weren't passive resisters anymore, but active ones.  Regardless of not trying to physically attack anyone.

I am speaking not in legal terms, but in moral ones in this case. Those who have the conviction to protest in a purely non-violent way should never be put down by nonviolent means, even if it is for the good of the society to remove said persons from the scene to restore normal working order in the short term

So in otherwords, if protestors are blocking the streets to anywhere be it Denny's or a hospital.  Nobody should force them to move.

The other difference i have from your definition of things is that bodily removal is nonviolent, and then if they resist bodily removal, that is violence, so you're on a stronger platform to do what you need to remove them

By no means are we under moral obligation to concede to a nonviolent mob, but to do anything more than is needed to restore normal working order is going to be counterproductive and/or amoral

Have you ever been removed while nonviolently protesting?  Or moved someone who doesn't want to move but doesn't resisist?

It's far from non violent, it hurts like hell, and very often, even when done correctly can deal longterm damage.  Espiecally if your flailing around like an idiot.



Kasz216 on 06 December 2011
Rath said:
Areym said:
Rath 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.

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


Come on, they were clearly telling the police to fuck off. Anywhere else, you'd get your ass handed to you in a split second but cause those little pricks had enough people, they felt empowered. People are blocking your way, telling you to fuck off, (from what I understood) twisting words and just being little entitled babies. In another country, this would have gone way way way way worse. They should be glad they got pepper sprayed and not worse. They provoked the police, saw them take out the pepper spray, they walked around the goddamn circle and this is police brutality? The students were being stubborned babies, not complying to reasoning like "hey we're about to get pepper sprayed in the face at point blank range...let's stay." And what I find like a slap in the face is that from that video, you can see people laughing it up and giggling like it's cool to fuck with the police.

I will stay by my believe that was not police brutality. The police was extremely patient, well behaved and from what I can at least derive from the videos I watched, well organized. Until undeniable proof of actual police brutality comes to light, I stand by the police. These "children" didn't learn you don't always get what you want the hard way.

and I ask you, If I came up to you, asking for something and telling you to fuck off and give me what I want and blocking your way, is that not aggresive behaviour? I am aggresively demanding my needs/wants to be satisfied with strong language and physically preventing you from being on your way. "Oh no, I can't hit him cause he hasn't touched me first, whatever shall I do?" 


Anywhere else?

I come from NZ. That would not have happened here.

 

What the police should have done if they had to arrest/move the protestors (and what they did after pepper spraying) is simply to arrest/move the protestors. There was no reason for the pepper spray to be used against protestors who were not a threat to the police. Pepper sprays only purpose is to subdue through pain - to use it on a non-threatening person is in itself police brutality.

 

Edit: I also have to wonder if the people who support the police in this would have been so supportive of the same thing against a movement whose ideals they agreed with. (Also for the record, I think the occupy protests are kind of stupid)

I would.  I'd actually be really pissed at the protestors for getting in the way of the police for arresting people... because they are TOTALLY missing the point of passive protest... and are activily resisting, and no longer really passivly protesting.

To use an example, the Occupy Prostesters in Nevada planned to intentionally block trafic to vital areas.  They in fact told the police this beforehand.  They told them they planned to do this, and would do this, and then would except the punishment given to them and not resist being arrested.

Like Occupy Las Vegas,

This is what a responsible protest looks likehttp://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R35UEO0.htm