Cop: "We're gonna shot you with pepper spray if you won't move."
Protester: Okay. If you're dumb enough to pepper spray us in front of hundreds of cameras proving you weren't in any danger, thereby proving you assaulted us. Knock yourselves out."
Cop:"OK"

I'm glad the truth has finally come out. The cops were totally surrounded and cut off from their support just like they said. They had no choice but to pepper spray well season those students

Now if they only tenderized them

Of course they wanted sprayed, it's great publicity for them and bad for the po-po.

This video just proves that the cops were even bigger assclowns than I thought. it shows that they not only sprayed the kids in the walk way who they claim were blocking their movement, they also sprayed the kids sitting in the GRASS! not blocking anything. Kids sit on the college lawns all the time. WTF!

We live in an age where everyone has a camera. You can't hide now.

/Chancellor needs to be fired

Question to those who feel the cops used excessive force ...

Assuming we all agree that:

1. The university has the right to pass ordinances prohibiting the blocking of walkways, etc, and

2. That the police informed the protesters with interlocked arms that if they did not move, they'd be pepper sprayed and arrested, and

QUESTION: What action would you have had the police take?

You can clearly see protesters kicking and fighting (resisting arrest) even after being sprayed. Are the cops expected to have at least one fist fight with an arrestee prior to using pepper spray? Do the cops have to subject themselves to physical resistance prior to using non-lethal force? How about if the cops have been specifically told by the arrestee that if the cops try to arrest him/her, that it will be met with a violent physical resistance?

Second QUESTION: What is considered to be more force? Pepper spray, followed by grabbing the arrestee by the arm, handcuffing him and then washing his eyes out? Or having 6 cops jump on the person, wrestle them to the ground, pin him on his stomach while he's cuffed then dragged to a squad car?

The reason I ask is because, just prior to the spraying, you can clearly see a cop try to reach in and pull a woman out of the chain of people and he was met with resistance and (for lack of a better phrase) pulling away. At that point, I can tell you in 99% of police departments in the country, one of the two options I asked above is going to be the next step for the people about to be arrested.

DIFFICULTY: You can't say "the cops shouldn't have done anything".

/Former cop interested in knowing what the "pepper spray was excessive force" crowd suggests as an alternative

SunsetLament: Question to those who feel the cops used excessive force ...

Assuming we all agree that:

1. The university has the right to pass ordinances prohibiting the blocking of walkways, etc, and

2. That the police informed the protesters with interlocked arms that if they did not move, they'd be pepper sprayed and arrested, and

QUESTION: What action would you have had the police take?

You can clearly see protesters kicking and fighting (resisting arrest) even after being sprayed. Are the cops expected to have at least one fist fight with an arrestee prior to using pepper spray? Do the cops have to subject themselves to physical resistance prior to using non-lethal force? How about if the cops have been specifically told by the arrestee that if the cops try to arrest him/her, that it will be met with a violent physical resistance?

Second QUESTION: What is considered to be more force? Pepper spray, followed by grabbing the arrestee by the arm, handcuffing him and then washing his eyes out? Or having 6 cops jump on the person, wrestle them to the ground, pin him on his stomach while he's cuffed then dragged to a squad car?

The reason I ask is because, just prior to the spraying, you can clearly see a cop try to reach in and pull a woman out of the chain of people and he was met with resistance and (for lack of a better phrase) pulling away. At that point, I can tell you in 99% of police departments in the country, one of the two options I asked above is going to be the next step for the people about to be arrested.

DIFFICULTY: You can't say "the cops shouldn't have done anything".

/Former cop interested in knowing what the "pepper spray was excessive force" crowd suggests as an alternative

Why Can't you say "the cops shouldn't have done anything?"

Haven't you ever hung around a campus before? College kids protest all the time. Just ignore them and they will go home.

/although as a cop the though of just shrugging at anyone breaking any rule probably keeps you up at night.

SunsetLament: 1. The university has the right to pass ordinances prohibiting the blocking of walkways, etc, and

The students didn't sit and block the walkway until the cops showed up dressed in riot gear.

QUESTION: What action would you have had the police take?

None. There was no reason to do anything. The students were well within what's permitted by the school's policies regarding expression of which protest is one form. They also weren't in a part of the campus where they could cause any problems with people going about. There was absolutely no reason to call the cops in. Except the dipstick chancellor gave the students a 3PM deadline, which per the school's rules, she can't do. Also there's a larger legal issue at play involving the first amendment.

Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

So, cops everywhere an always enforce every single law? If you could have enough cops you would pull over every single person going 1 mph over the speed limit?

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

Have you ever seen the movie war games?

BiffDangler: So, cops everywhere an always enforce every single law?

Assuming you meant can instead of an, nope. Cops can only enforce the laws they are authorized to by some governing body (typically through legislation, be it state or federal). However, we can all safely assume the university police are authorized to enforce university regulations.

If you could have enough cops you would pull over every single person going 1 mph over the speed limit?

Certainly. (1) It is the best way to promote the will of the legislative (or governing) body, which in turn, is the best way to promote the will of the governed, and (2) It is the only way to completely remove issues like police bias or profiling or unfair application and/or selective enforcement of the law (favoring one individual over another).

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

Your asking everyone what two plus two would equal if they couldn't answer 4.

're not engaging in an intelligent debate with your above posts, you're asking loaded questions with stipulations on answers as if you were a farking game show host.

Weak troll or fascist apologist?
YOU DECIDE!

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

But of course, the only choice besides "do nothing" is a sweet blast of weaponized food seasoning.

BiffDangler: If you could have enough cops you would pull over every single person going 1 mph over the speed limit?

And addendum to my previous answer ...

And, of course, the proper mechanism to deal with a law that nobody likes being enforced (in your example, the speed limit being too low) is to get the legislature to change it. Not to nullify it by having the cops just ignore it; that's as anti-democratic as you can get ("We don't like the law or rule that was put in place by the legislature, so we'll just ignore it").

This is Civics 101.

SunsetLament: , a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken

The walkway wasn't being blocked until the cops showed up.

(not-enforce-the-law),

And the cops weren't enforcing any law, they were allegedly enforcing a school policy. Problem is, no school policy was being broken.

SunsetLament: So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

How about "Follow orders"?

UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi: "We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment. We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it. And then we told them we also do not want to have another Berkeley."

Link

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

You presume that the police necessarily should have done something. That is incorrect.

Someone was harrassing me on the bus. Telling him to stop didn't work, so I smashed his face in with a cane. What else should I have done? By the way, "nothing" is the wrong answer because I said so.

WhyteRaven74:
The walkway wasn't being blocked until the cops showed up.


Was the walkway being blocked when the arrests began? Or is your argument that they had to break laws once the cops showed up because ... um ... ?

SunsetLament: Or is your argument that they had to break laws once the cops showed up because ... um ... ?

It's a walkway on a campus, so the law argument is right out the window. And the reason for sitting down and linking arms was to show they police they weren't just going to leave. And there was no just cause to tell them to leave in the first place.

Folks, there is no arguing with this guy, although instead of being an ex-cop, I suspect that he is really mall security. Sure, cops think like this, but they are generally not out doing that on message boards. This is a mall cop trying to act bigger than he is.

Hey SunsetLament -- I've come up with the solution for you!!!!

Lemon Squirter - Plutonium grade lemon juice shot out of a Super Soaker. Makes unruly protestor's face slowly implode.

Habanero Assault Apparatus - Pepper explodes upon impact creating a stinging sensation across abdomen. Includes laser scope for shooting directly into the anus.

Plastic Spork Trebuchet - Can launch hundreds of sporks simultaneously. Bonus - spent cartridges can be used to scoop up brain matter or for delicious post-assault yogurt treats.

Walnut Railgun - 'nuff said!

BiffDangler: Folks, there is no arguing with this guy, although instead of being an ex-cop, I suspect that he is really mall security. Sure, cops think like this, but they are generally not out doing that on message boards. This is a mall cop trying to act bigger than he is.

Try again.

SunsetLament: /Former cop interested in knowing what the "pepper spray was excessive force" crowd suggests as an alternative

Why does pepper spray need to be involved? Why can't they just arrest them without the infliction of pain? If the students didn't want to be arrested, it's not like pepper spray would make them writhe less.

Skail: If the students didn't want to be arrested, i

And the whole argument misses the point that there was no reason for the cops to be there in the first place. And certainly no need for them to show up in riot gear.

Skail: SunsetLament: /Former cop interested in knowing what the "pepper spray was excessive force" crowd suggests as an alternative

Why does pepper spray need to be involved? Why can't they just arrest them without the infliction of pain? If the students didn't want to be arrested, it's not like pepper spray would make them writhe less.

I guess because it wasn't easy and they didn't want to act the part of the immediate interface between populace and government.

Look, I get it. You don't like the law/regulation/ordinance. You don't like any law that infringes on a person's right to protest or assemble. That's fine; like I said ... I get it.

But regardless of whether or not you (or even I) like a particular law like this, the courts have said that governments can put reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner by which a group can protest (or assemble).

In other words, the courts don't give a shiat what you think the law should be, they've deemed it that a local or state government can require you to get a permit to protest ... or alternatively, can "reasonably" restrict when, where and how a person (or a group) can exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

Cops are implements for enforcing law. They enforce laws decided upon by governing bodies. Much like the courts, they don't give a shiat what you think the law should be. They care about a two step process: (1) Is a law being broken? and (2) What is the safest way for me to enforce that law? Again, if you don't like the law - that's between you and the legislature and the courts.

So when I ask (paraphrase), "Assuming an arrest is going to be made, how do you think the cops should have gone about making the arrests" and your answer is "They shouldn't make any arrests" then, sorry, you're beat (literally and figuratively). Your complaint is with a Supreme Court decision from the early 1960s, not the cops.

Skail:
Why does pepper spray need to be involved? Why can't they just arrest them without the infliction of pain? If the students didn't want to be arrested, it's not like pepper spray would make them writhe less.

Because the pepper spray is being used to make the person being arrested compliant. When you're arresting someone who isn't being compliant, the risk of physical injury (both to the cop and the arrestee) goes up. You (typically several cops) are trying to physically make a person do something they don't want to do - violent contact is going to be made and it is often painful (to both the arrestee and the cop).

On the other hand, when that same non-compliant arrestee gets pepper spray in their eyes, nose and mouth, rather than physically resist the arresting officers, typically the arrestee will immediately become compliant. Essentially, the arrestee trades compliance for assistance in getting the chemical out of their eyes. The risk of physical injury goes way down. There is still pain involved, but now the burden of the pain shifts away from the officers and towards the arrestee who had chosen not to comply.

They tried to arrest them "without infliction of physical pain" and the seated protesters chose not to comply and instead to resist. They literally got what they were asking for.

SunsetLament: So when I ask (paraphrase), "Assuming an arrest is going to be made, how do you think the cops should have gone about making the arrests" and your answer is "They shouldn't make any arrests" then, sorry, you're beat (literally and figuratively). Your complaint is with a Supreme Court decision from the early 1960s, not the cops.

In your time watching cops while being a mall cop, you never once saw a policeman use discretion and just let something minor slide?

SunsetLament: the courts have said that governments can put reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner by which a group can protest (or assemble).

Which is lovely, except we're dealing with a protest on a college campus and the police in question were campus police. And no one can point to one single school policy being violated that would justify police presences, let alone what they ended up doing.

SunsetLament: Like it or not, the cops are there for one reason and one reason only ... to enforce the law. In this instance, a conclusion was made that this ordinance (blocking the walkways) was being broken. It's not really a hard conclusion to make, since it was clearly being done in an act of civil disobedience to force the police's hand.

So, I ask: What action, other than "do nothing" (not-enforce-the-law), would you have the police take?

And the first two responses are, predictably, "they should have done nothing."

Since you're obviously an idiot and a sadist (I'm sure being a cop was a lot of fun for you), let me give a quote from one of the guys that helped develop pepper spray for the FBI (an agency that has real problems to deal with).

Even Kamran Loghman, one of the men who developed pepper spray as a weapon with the FBI in the 1980s, had a hard time reconciling it. "I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents," Loghman told the New York Times.

That guy developed pepper spray to *protect* cops, and then assholes turned it into something they can use to punish people. And then other assholes came along to defend them.

You may as well just do away with the justice system altogether at this point and let the police dole out whatever punishment they feel fit. Think of all the time that would save.