If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   Fark's favorite pepper-spraying cop is seeking new opportunities, targets   (sacbee.com) divider line 194
    More: Followup, University of California  
•       •       •

9618 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2012 at 5:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 09:51:34 AM

TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?


This. WTF is a cop doing making six figures?
 
2012-08-01 09:53:26 AM

BeesNuts: But the moment their jobs get difficult or complicated it's straight to "easy mode".


That "easy mode" is easier on the peopel who otherwise would be on the opther end of a baton.

BeesNuts: But the actions of police all over the country in response to those protests spoke volumes about what police in this country are actually here to do.


It spoke much more to me about how stupid OWS understanding of what protected speech and protest is.
 
2012-08-01 09:53:27 AM

liam76: enderthexenocide: i understand that you can't just suspend them without pay based on nothing but an allegation. but how long does it take for the police to do an investigation? according to the article, "he has been on paid leave since the debacle unfolded last year." that's ten months! it takes the cops ten months to investigate whether or not the guy broke the rules? they have the whole incident on video

What rule do you think he broke?


He sprayed students who were sitting on the ground with a chemical weapon - I dare you to try that on some non-violent citizens at some pt and see what laws get thrown at you.

Just because he is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. The fact that people are defending his actions (oh you were not there, you don't understand) really scares me - jack boot brown shirts are not who we want having authority in the community, esp. when they are meant to be just citizens with the job of protecting the community (at a measly :p $110k a year ... still cannot believe that, none of my cop mates earn anywhere near that).
 
2012-08-01 09:53:40 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

Police are unionized. And it may upset you to know that, depending on the circumstances of him leaving, which weren't revealed in the article, he will probably be collecting that salary, or a significant percent of it, as a pension for the rest of his life. No I don't like the public "servant" pension system either.


And people say teachers are overpaid? I mean, cops should be paid more for a dangerous job, but there should be higher standards, too.
 
2012-08-01 09:54:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?

Well, if he was a Lieutenant, that's not all that surprising, they are pretty high up, being above detectives, sergeants and officers, respectively.


So he was displaying his professionalism AND seniority when he used excessive force on a group of seated pacifists. Good leadership, Lou.
 
2012-08-01 09:57:20 AM
"Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

The fark? I am a sys admin for a government fiscal office for all of VA. I handle both UNIX and Windows. I maintain the state's servers.
I make less than half of that.

/but I do screw around on Fark all day, so I guess it's a wash?
 
2012-08-01 09:58:39 AM

Langdon_777: I dare you to try that on some non-violent citizens at some pt and see what laws get thrown at you.


Why don't you dare me to arrest people too?

Cops are allowed to do things citizens aren't. I am looking forward to you coming up with some form of law enfocrment where we don't empower certain people, but until then grow, up and try an understand that when you surround cops who have arrested someone, link arms and refuse to move until they let them go there will be force used against you.
 
2012-08-01 09:59:24 AM

liam76: Blocking a walk way in an attempt to prevent people from using it is by nature not "peaceful" non-violent, peaceful, no.


You have an odd perspective of what violence is.
 
2012-08-01 10:02:06 AM
No wonder the state of California is bankrupt.
 
2012-08-01 10:02:24 AM

indylaw: liam76: If they are refusing to leave and you have to use force sombody is going to get hurt. The police have two questions at this point.

1 - is using batons and wrestling people away is going to cause more long term damage then pepper spray. Given that only two went to the hospital and they were released with no damage that required follow up I am sayingt hey made a good choice.

2 - what is going to cause it to escalate. Wrestling away peopel one at a time won't stop others from filling in the circle, a cloud of pepper spray will. Once again looks liek the right choice to me.

I'm sorry, no. I understand that's the cop-apologist line. There was no reason to believe that the sitting protesters were violent in any way. If you could justify pepper spraying nonviolent protesters in order to arrest them, then you can justify the use of pepper spray in every single contact that the police have with "civilians."

Pulled some guy over for failing to signal? Better get out the pepper spray, because maybe things will get out of hand and he'll put up a fight and it would be a shame if someone got REALLY hurt.


+1

Liam76's willingness to allow stormtroopers to do what they want is scary. Ghandi and many others used the sit down, don't be violent, but don't just roll over and take it up the butt approach to protesting - I think we need a photoshopped pic of this wanker spray Ghandi. If no violence is offered just non-resistence, then violence is NEVER a reasonable response. I wonder if Liam76 recons what the Syrian govt is doing to its protesters is totally justified, moral and lawful (the later because they write the laws of course).
 
2012-08-01 10:02:38 AM

muldoon: liam76: Blocking a walk way in an attempt to prevent people from using it is by nature not "peaceful" non-violent, peaceful, no.

You have an odd perspective of what violence is.


I was saying it was non-violent, not peaceful. For soemthing to accurately be described as peaceful it has to be more than non-violent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful
peace·ful adjective
1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a state or time of peace.
3. peaceable; not argumentative, quarrelsome, or hostile: a peaceful disposition.
 
2012-08-01 10:09:25 AM

Langdon_777: Liam76's willingness to allow stormtroopers to do what they want is scary.


Langdon_777 willingenss to ignore what I wrote and make shiat up because he is too stupid/lazy to follow the thread is scary.

Langdon_777: Ghandi and many others used the sit down, don't be violent, but don't just roll over and take it up the butt approach to protesting - I think we need a photoshopped pic of this wanker spray Ghandi. If no violence is offered just non-resistence, then violence is NEVER a reasonable response.


You do realize they weren't just having a sit in, right?

You do realize they deliberatly circled the cops, linked arms, and were actively resisting them, right? "Non resistance" (and I thinkyou mean passive resistance) would be sitting there, and not resisting if they dragged you out of the way.

Langdon_777: I wonder if Liam76 recons what the Syrian govt is doing to its protesters is totally justified, moral and lawful (the later because they write the laws of course).


I wonder if Langdon_777 recons there is a difference between a mob of people unilaterally occupying public land and actively resisting the law in a democracy than protesting against a form of govt where you have no voice.
 
2012-08-01 10:10:35 AM
Go be (slightly) fat (and trigger happy with the mace) somewhere else.

/No one yet
//Really?
 
2012-08-01 10:13:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?

Well, if he was a Lieutenant, that's not all that surprising, they are pretty high up, being above detectives, sergeants and officers, respectively.


Holy crap, there's some reading fail in this thread. Second post, guys - a lieutenant earning $110K isn't that abnormal. This wasn't some traffic cop who just happened to wander through campus with his big ole can o' pepper spray. This guy is probably at least a shift commander and depending on the size of the force, would be supervising 20-30 people including a couple of sergeants. Cop ranks don't really work like army ranks where LTs are the brand new officers who are fresh out of school - you don't skip the "enlisted" ranks in a police department.

Now, you can biatch about him being a jackass who isn't worth it all you want, but $110,000 for supervising 20-30 people isn't that out of line.
 
2012-08-01 10:16:28 AM

indylaw: BeesNuts: the Occupy movement.

A movement which really attracted more ire than I could have ever imagined...

It doesn't take much of an imagination. I agreed with some of the things they were saying, but the ways that they "expressed" themselves were generally and unnecessarily unlawful. You can't squat in a public park for months creating little disease infested communes, yet that was what happened in cities like New York and New Haven. You can't ignore trespassing laws and not expect to get prosecuted. You can't protest anywhere at any time that you want without complying with reasonable permitting ordinances.

I even agree that the sitting protesters were probably violating public disturbance laws by refusing to disperse after a lawful police order, although I dispute that pepper spray was a reasonable use of force in the circumstances. In the end, I think for every person they inspired by their bold and unorthodox tactics, they alienated two people who felt, perhaps rightly, that the protesters had no respect for even reasonable laws.

Part of the problem was that they didn't have a well defined message and couldn't police themselves. So you got pacifists, animal rights people, communists, anarchists and vagrants all in one uncontrollable mass of people, sometimes with really bad results. See, e.g., Oakland.


Welcome to the reality of protesting a message that nobody with money wanted to have out there.

50 teabaggers gather in a park and demand lower taxes for millionaires, the media crowns them as a new political movement in the making.

OWS starts in cities across the country, the media spent the first week saying "NOBODY SHOWED UP FOR OWS", if they reported it at all. Then they spent the next week saying "silly hippies drumming with no message". And the week after that, and that...

When your protest is actually against the establishment and not a puppet of a large corporate interest/political party you don't get noticed for showing up in the park at 3 and leaving at 6. I'll agree with you that yes, the extra hangers on for various unrelated causes weren't helping in the slightest, but the only way a protest that isn't astroturf can actually be seen is by, well, protesting.

The history of actual grassroots political change is littered with arrests, threats, smear campaigns and violent police action for a reason. The teabaggers getting national prominence from such a small number of people at the outset just showed OWS exactly how slanted it was against them, and what measures they'd need to be noticed.
 
2012-08-01 10:19:22 AM

phyrkrakr: cameroncrazy1984: TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?

Well, if he was a Lieutenant, that's not all that surprising, they are pretty high up, being above detectives, sergeants and officers, respectively.

Holy crap, there's some reading fail in this thread. Second post, guys - a lieutenant earning $110K isn't that abnormal. This wasn't some traffic cop who just happened to wander through campus with his big ole can o' pepper spray. This guy is probably at least a shift commander and depending on the size of the force, would be supervising 20-30 people including a couple of sergeants. Cop ranks don't really work like army ranks where LTs are the brand new officers who are fresh out of school - you don't skip the "enlisted" ranks in a police department.

Now, you can biatch about him being a jackass who isn't worth it all you want, but $110,000 for supervising 20-30 people isn't that out of line.


Army Sgts, Lts, Cpts, supervise more people than that in more dangerous conditions, and unless they're really high ranking with time in grade, don't get paid that much. So yeah, it kind of is.
 
2012-08-01 10:22:06 AM

bigbadideasinaction: OWS starts in cities across the country, the media spent the first week saying "NOBODY SHOWED UP FOR OWS", if they reported it at all. Then they spent the next week saying "silly hippies drumming with no message". And the week after that, and that...

When your protest is actually against the establishment and not a puppet of a large corporate interest/political party you don't get noticed for showing up in the park at 3 and leaving at 6. I'll agree with you that yes, the extra hangers on for various unrelated causes weren't helping in the slightest, but the only way a protest that isn't astroturf can actually be seen is by, well, protesting.


When OWS (at least the one in NYC) came up with a "message" it was all overt he place from free education to 20 dollar an hour min wage with complete healthcare. It was too "egalitarian" and afraid to have real leaders. As a result the media is going to carryt he more headline grabbing demands, not becasue media is "bad" or becasue it is corporate controlled, but because more peopela re going to watch that.
 
2012-08-01 10:22:50 AM

Smoking GNU: Oznog: I'm still not convinced this was "horrific". The students got unruly and did surround the cops. The full video shows that they weren't letting the cops leave. They demanded straight out that the cops they weren't going to let them leave unless they released the people they'd already arrested. On what planet can you do that WITHOUT getting your ass kicked, even if you sit down?

The part where Pike stepped over them isn't indicative of the situation. They wouldn't let the group of officers leave, not with the people they'd arrested. Essentially they were holding the group hostage.

I'm not saying pepper spray is always the best response, but it's a legitimate option.


Yes, because surrounding them all peacefully and sitting down is holding someone "hostage"


It's EXACTLY like 9/11!
 
2012-08-01 10:28:31 AM

liam76: Langdon_777: I dare you to try that on some non-violent citizens at some pt and see what laws get thrown at you.

Why don't you dare me to arrest people too?

Cops are allowed to do things citizens aren't. I am looking forward to you coming up with some form of law enfocrment where we don't empower certain people, but until then grow, up and try an understand that when you surround cops who have arrested someone, link arms and refuse to move until they let them go there will be force used against you.


I think you are mistaking (as do many these days) the military with the police - it was once called Community Policing. When the UK first made a police force they acknowledged that they had no more powers than ordinary citizens (when I was an MP I was not allowed to do anything but a 'citizens arrest' if we were outside of the barracks or the soldier was off duty), hence why up until the post 9-11 militarization of the police, UK bobbies were unarmed.

I do not want my Community Police to be acting like soldiers - they are two totally different beasts.

I sooooo hope you are trolling....
 
2012-08-01 10:29:55 AM

TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?


I know people with PhDs who are paid less.
 
2012-08-01 10:29:56 AM

Carousel Beast: So...3 versus 300 will just let them take out the agitators one by one and there will be no escalation from the crowd?

I swear you're representative of the willful stupidity arguing against liam76 for no other reason than you're incapable of rational thought through your emotional derp.


You mean the crowd that "escalated" by SITTING DOWN?!

You're incapable of realising that you're making the same error that I said liam76 made, aren't you? I have to be honest and say that I'm not very surprised, your opening gambit doesn't really signify much in the way of intelligence. With that in mind, I'll say it again for you: You are ASSUMING that the crowd would have reacted violently to the attempted removal of the arrested individual and believe that assumption to be suitable justification for the forcible response. If you have concrete, incontrovertible proof that violence was imminent then we'd all love to see it. I for one would condone the policeman's actions if you could prove they were in danger.

As it stands, up to, during and even after the point of the pepper-spraying there was no escalation to violence on the part of the crowd. You're advocating doing something "just in case". If you can't see what a terrible idea that is then you're not only unaware of the works of Philip K. Dick, you're also a monumental cretin.
 
2012-08-01 10:37:08 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: As for the lifetime pension system, I agree it shouldn't exist in the first place.


In a general sense? So you think that pensions should last less than a lifetime?

Or last just until the appointment at the Soylent Green factory?
 
2012-08-01 10:37:54 AM

Langdon_777: When the UK first made a police force they acknowledged that they had no more powers than ordinary citizens


this may come as a shock to you but UIS law today is not exactly the same as it was inthe UK hundreds fo years ago.

Langdon_777: I do not want my Community Police to be acting like soldiers - they are two totally different beasts.


I get from your posts thus far that you aren't the smartest peanut in the drawer but simply saying police have the authority to use force to arrest people who are breakingt he law or refusing lawful orders doesn't mean they are acting like soilders.



The Envoy: You mean the crowd that "escalated" by SITTING DOWN?!


Sitting down wasn't he escalation. Are you being obtuse or are you actually this stupid?

Locking arms, encircling the cops, refusing tomove, and chanting you won't move until the people who were arrested are let go is what escalated ther situation.

The Envoy: You are ASSUMING that the crowd would have reacted violently to the attempted removal of the arrested individual and believe that assumption to be suitable justification for the forcible response.


No the refusal to disperse (which was a lawful order) justified the use of force.
 
2012-08-01 10:49:40 AM
I give up - Liam just remember when the military is called out, we treat the local cops just like ordinary citizens - we round them up and put them in camps.

The dude abused not only his position but his authority - he was a uni cop (most of whom I met were the most relaxed casual nice guys I could ever expect to meet), this guy was an authoritarian wanker, who got away with hurting the exact peeps he is paid to protect - just because you cannot walk North doesn't mean you take up arms, you walk around.
 
2012-08-01 10:56:17 AM

liam76: Sitting down wasn't he escalation. Are you being obtuse or are you actually this stupid?

Locking arms, encircling the cops, refusing tomove, and chanting you won't move until the people who were arrested are let go is what escalated ther situation.



Speaking of obtuse...

This is the whole point which is currently whizzing over your head. Chanting is not illegal. Refusing to obey a lawful order is, but I'll refer you back to the lawyer and the use of the term "reasonable force". Pepper-spraying people sitting down immediately is not "reasonable", a contention you rail against by bleating on about people encircling the cops, which brings me to a very simple question for you: Why did the cop not pepper spray people allegedly encircling him instead of the ones POSING NO THREAT WHILE SITTING ON THE GROUND?

He was not under threat from them. That's a fact. Look at the pictures. Those are NOT officers under threat. The old guy is practically asleep and the one holding the baying crowd back is doing so with one arm while standing still. However, according to you he was under threat from people encircling him, so why spray the ones who weren't, at the point of the action, a threat? They may have been in a circle, but any able-bodied adult could step over the line with ease.

You're again trying to emotive by repeating your little mantra that they were "encircling the cops!" but in reality they sat down in a circle. Wow, what an escalation.
 
2012-08-01 10:57:15 AM

Langdon_777: I give up - Liam just remember when the military is called out, we treat the local cops just like ordinary citizens - we round them up and put them in camps.

The dude abused not only his position but his authority - he was a uni cop (most of whom I met were the most relaxed casual nice guys I could ever expect to meet), this guy was an authoritarian wanker, who got away with hurting the exact peeps he is paid to protect - just because you cannot walk North doesn't mean you take up arms, you walk around.


But..but...but...THEY WERE SITTING IN A CIRCLE!!!!
 
2012-08-01 11:03:17 AM
Why does nobody care that those protestors did that deliberately just to provoke the cops and get them to react in a way that makes then look like authoritarian jerks? Also, as I recall, the protestors were repeatedly told to move and were warned they would be sprayed if they didn't move. That didn't work to get them to move, so what should the cops have done?
 
2012-08-01 11:07:44 AM

liam76: BeesNuts: But the moment their jobs get difficult or complicated it's straight to "easy mode".

That "easy mode" is easier on the peopel who otherwise would be on the opther end of a baton.

BeesNuts: But the actions of police all over the country in response to those protests spoke volumes about what police in this country are actually here to do.

It spoke much more to me about how stupid OWS understanding of what protected speech and protest is.


Ah, the "It's for your own good" AND a dose of "Dirty, Stupid, Young, Protesters should've known better."

Truly, we got farked sideways over the OWS thing and I don't understand it. That shiat was American as apple pie, and apparently we're supposed to loath and punish the perpetrators. And then we're supposed to loath and punish their message.
 
2012-08-01 11:10:20 AM

The Envoy: liam76: Sitting down wasn't he escalation. Are you being obtuse or are you actually this stupid?

Locking arms, encircling the cops, refusing tomove, and chanting you won't move until the people who were arrested are let go is what escalated ther situation.


Speaking of obtuse...

This is the whole point which is currently whizzing over your head. Chanting is not illegal. Refusing to obey a lawful order is, but I'll refer you back to the lawyer and the use of the term "reasonable force". Pepper-spraying people sitting down immediately is not "reasonable", a contention you rail against by bleating on about people encircling the cops, which brings me to a very simple question for you: Why did the cop not pepper spray people allegedly encircling him instead of the ones POSING NO THREAT WHILE SITTING ON THE GROUND?

He was not under threat from them. That's a fact. Look at the pictures. Those are NOT officers under threat. The old guy is practically asleep and the one holding the baying crowd back is doing so with one arm while standing still. However, according to you he was under threat from people encircling him, so why spray the ones who weren't, at the point of the action, a threat? They may have been in a circle, but any able-bodied adult could step over the line with ease.

You're again trying to emotive by repeating your little mantra that they were "encircling the cops!" but in reality they sat down in a circle. Wow, what an escalation.


You just don't get it. It doesn't matter if they are sitting or standing, it's the circle that matters.

From childhood we are raised to know that when "the cheese stands alone" - action must be taken. Farmer, Wife, and all the animals should be aware that they cannot run willy-nilly over the Dell and not expect consequences.
 
2012-08-01 11:18:08 AM
FTA: "UC Davis officials have said that because the internal affairs probes are confidential, they cannot not disclose their findings."
So... they CAN?
 
2012-08-01 11:20:46 AM

Hankie Fest: FTA: "UC Davis officials have said that because the internal affairs probes are confidential, they cannot not disclose their findings."
So... they CAN?


The English department has taken some cuts recently...
 
2012-08-01 11:22:24 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Why does nobody care that those protestors did that deliberately just to provoke the cops and get them to react in a way that makes then look like authoritarian jerks? Also, as I recall, the protestors were repeatedly told to move and were warned they would be sprayed if they didn't move. That didn't work to get them to move, so what should the cops have done?


When I was a uni student I would have taken offense if told to move from a path in MY uni!!! When I protested we just sat there and waited till we were forcefully picked up and moved (never got charged), you just go limp - You want to move me, then move me!!!!! The cops moved us - they didn't assault us or treat us like some sort of pond scum - its the whole point of non-violent protests, just go limp.

"Told to move" - LOL I am protesting, you HAVE to move me - you want the world to be exactly want you want, then just remember some peeps might have a problem with that....
 
2012-08-01 11:30:56 AM

liam76: I wonder if Langdon_777 recons there is a difference between a mob of people unilaterally occupying public land and actively resisting the law in a democracy than protesting against a form of govt where you have no voice.


The public...on public land? Better send in the riot squad, right, Der Furher?
 
2012-08-01 11:33:25 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Also, as I recall, the protestors were repeatedly told to move and were warned they would be sprayed if they didn't move. That didn't work to get them to move, so what should the cops have done?


By what authority did the cops have to make them move? It was a public area. Here, let me help you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
2012-08-01 11:41:16 AM

Dr. Whoof: liam76: I wonder if Langdon_777 recons there is a difference between a mob of people unilaterally occupying public land and actively resisting the law in a democracy than protesting against a form of govt where you have no voice.

The public...on public land? Better send in the riot squad, right, Der Furher?


Its worse. Its students on university commons at a university they are paying to attend.
 
2012-08-01 11:41:41 AM

pxlboy: TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

This. WTF is a cop doing making six figures?


I got kicked off another thread for posting something similar, but that's not very high for a Police Officer in California. Their salaries are public record, look around at the the San Joe Mercury News or the State Controller's Office web sites.
 
2012-08-01 11:47:58 AM

TommyymmoT: "Pike's 2010 salary was listed as $110,243.12."

Holy crap! I know people who, actually know how to do stuff that make half that much.
This unskilled buffoon was making more than many medical professionals?

I wonder what the rest of that goon squad is pulling in?
And people have the balls to say that welfare is the reason taxes are too high?


And yet people wonder why tuition keeps going through the roof
 
2012-08-01 11:50:57 AM
There is going to be a time, and I fear it is going to be soon, that with the over-militarization of the police and the enmity that is earning with the populace will create an explosive situation.

People protest in a large number.
Police in riot gear show up.
Police tell people to disperse.
People refuse, since it is non-violent, legal protesting.
Something happens to escalate to violence.
People collectively snap, turning on the police instead of trying to escape.
Since the people outnumber the police, police force gets brutalized, maybe even murdered.

Then what?

I shudder to think that this could all be prevented by the police backing down off the militarization route they are on, and actually learn to do REAL police work, talk to the people they are supposed to protect.
 
2012-08-01 11:53:16 AM

The Envoy: This is the whole point which is currently whizzing over your head. Chanting is not illegal.


I never said it was. I pointed out the chanting because of the message. They were making it clear they were hostile tot he actions of th epolice and they were actively trying to stop them from doing their job.

Refusing to obey a lawful order is, but I'll refer you back to the lawyer and the use of the term "reasonable force". Pepper-spraying people sitting down immediately is not "reasonable", a contention you rail against by bleating on about people encircling the cops, which brings me to a very simple question for you:

What lawyer? The DA who didn't press charges? Great, we agree it was reasonable.


Why did the cop not pepper spray people allegedly encircling him instead of the ones POSING NO THREAT WHILE SITTING ON THE GROUND?

How stupid are you? What don't you farking understand about the situation?

The people sitting on the ground that were pepper sprayed were part of the group encircling them.

The Envoy:
He was not under threat from them.

Who said he was?

I have made this point to you in one form or another about 5 times in this thread and you keep harping on force.

No the refusal to disperse (which was a lawful order) justified the use of force

If you want to stick to your fantasy land where cops can only use pepper spray when under threat, great, but don't bother peopel who don't live in that fantasy land.


Dr. Whoof: liam76: I wonder if Langdon_777 recons there is a difference between a mob of people unilaterally occupying public land and actively resisting the law in a democracy than protesting against a form of govt where you have no voice.

The public...on public land? Better send in the riot squad, right, Der Furher?


You see, in a democracy people get together to decide on how they will use public land. The rules for the land use are called laws. When people get together and break those rules it is against the law.


Dr. Whoof: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


Yeah, unilaterally occupying public land, encircling police with linked arms and refusing lawful order to disperse isn't "peaceable".

Here is the defintion of peaceful (witht he problem portiosn bolded), since you seem to have trouble with the concept.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful
peace·ful adjective
1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a state or time of peace.
3. peaceable; not argumentative, quarrelsome, or hostile: a peaceful disposition
 
2012-08-01 11:58:40 AM

tgambitg: People refuse, since it is non-violent, legal protesting.


Unless there is like, some agent, secretly working for the police, who might, you know, provoke something different.
 
2012-08-01 12:00:23 PM
If the use of pepper spray was so "reasonable" then why isn't there a list of articles about uni cops pepper spraying some drunken, overzealous football fans, or dispersing people who congregate camping style (against campus policy) for tickets? Surely if they're so threatened by a single row of sitting students with their heads bowed, they're terrified by a crowd of loud, rowdy, drunk college kids.
 
2012-08-01 12:05:27 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Its worse. Its students on university commons at a university they are paying to attend


If you ever get out of your parents basement and make it to a university, try camping out on the lawn for a few days, and see what happens.
 
2012-08-01 12:06:06 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: tgambitg: People refuse, since it is non-violent, legal protesting.

Unless there is like, some agent, secretly working for the police, who might, you know, provoke something different.


Ok, even with that... the moment the crowd snaps, and believe me, it will happen sooner rather than later, it's going to be horrible for everyone in this country.
 
2012-08-01 12:07:43 PM
The look of satisfaction on that dude's face gets me every time. I hope to have that look while working at my job some day.
 
2012-08-01 12:12:55 PM

liam76: The Envoy: This is the whole point which is currently whizzing over your head. Chanting is not illegal.

I never said it was. I pointed out the chanting because of the message. They were making it clear they were hostile tot he actions of th epolice and they were actively trying to stop them from doing their job.

Refusing to obey a lawful order is, but I'll refer you back to the lawyer and the use of the term "reasonable force". Pepper-spraying people sitting down immediately is not "reasonable", a contention you rail against by bleating on about people encircling the cops, which brings me to a very simple question for you:

What lawyer? The DA who didn't press charges? Great, we agree it was reasonable.


Why did the cop not pepper spray people allegedly encircling him instead of the ones POSING NO THREAT WHILE SITTING ON THE GROUND?

How stupid are you? What don't you farking understand about the situation?

The people sitting on the ground that were pepper sprayed were part of the group encircling them.

The Envoy: He was not under threat from them.

Who said he was?

I have made this point to you in one form or another about 5 times in this thread and you keep harping on force.
No the refusal to disperse (which was a lawful order) justified the use of force

If you want to stick to your fantasy land where cops can only use pepper spray when under threat, great, but don't bother peopel who don't live in that fantasy land.


Dr. Whoof: liam76: I wonder if Langdon_777 recons there is a difference between a mob of people unilaterally occupying public land and actively resisting the law in a democracy than protesting against a form of govt where you have no voice.

The public...on public land? Better send in the riot squad, right, Der Furher?

You see, in a democracy people get together to decide on how they will use public land. The rules for the land use are called laws. When people get together and break those rules it is against the law.


Dr. Whoof: C ...


You are the reason that we can't have nice things. Misspellings, shiatty formatting, nonsensicle points, pedantry, links to dictionary.com in an effort to bolster your point, spraying EVERY SINGLE TALKING POINT FROM THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION at the wall to hope something sticks, and I'm pretty sure you actually don't give a fark about this and just like riling up people that don't like the idea that we're becoming a police state.

Must be really sad being you, cause it sure is sad seeing you work.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:25 PM

BeesNuts: Misspellings, shiatty formatting, nonsensicle points, pedantry, links to dictionary.com in an effort to bolster your point, spraying EVERY SINGLE TALKING POINT FROM THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION at the wall to hope something sticks,


I will take that one, my spelling is shiat.

As for the rest, EABOD.

I am not going to bend over backwards with formatting with people who don't do the same.

No idea what you are on about with nonsensicle points.

As far as pedantry and repeating talking points I am dealing with people who are still pretending that non-violent = peaceful, after I have pointed out that is incorrect about a dozen times, and with people who have continually responded to my points with strawmen. Also nobody has pointed out how any of those "talking points" is wrong.


BeesNuts: just like riling up people that don't like the idea that we're becoming a police state


I like riling up any moron who thinks that people can encircle cops, link arms refuse to move until their demands are met and not have force used against them. I like to rile up morons who like to compare this to using fire hoses or dogs on people who can't get away. I like to rile up peopel who think this is a symptom of "a police state" instead of actual overstepping of police power.

BeesNuts: Must be really sad being you, cause it sure is sad seeing you work


So what does that make you if you feel the need to respond to someone you think is so sad?
 
2012-08-01 12:51:10 PM
Why don't protesters carry their own pepper spray and when the cops spray them, they can spray back! That would be awesome! Goose/Gander, etc.

also, cops are a "buffer" between the wealthy and the middle/lower classes. When the SHTF, cops will protect the wealthy - in return, the wealthy make sure they have weapons and also throw them a bone every now and then. It's funny because the cops don't even see it - they are too blinded by the small amount of authority the wealthy give to them.

also, also, - if you don't like the laws - change them.
 
2012-08-01 12:57:44 PM

The Envoy: But..but...but...THEY WERE SITTING IN A CIRCLE!!!!


Then the cops would have been justified if they Pi'ed them, because pie are round.
 
2012-08-01 01:06:46 PM

liam76: BeesNuts: Misspellings, shiatty formatting, nonsensicle points, pedantry, links to dictionary.com in an effort to bolster your point, spraying EVERY SINGLE TALKING POINT FROM THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION at the wall to hope something sticks,

I will take that one, my spelling is shiat.

As for the rest, EABOD.

I am not going to bend over backwards with formatting with people who don't do the same.

No idea what you are on about with nonsensicle points.

As far as pedantry and repeating talking points I am dealing with people who are still pretending that non-violent = peaceful, after I have pointed out that is incorrect about a dozen times, and with people who have continually responded to my points with strawmen. Also nobody has pointed out how any of those "talking points" is wrong.


BeesNuts: just like riling up people that don't like the idea that we're becoming a police state

I like riling up any moron who thinks that people can encircle cops, link arms refuse to move until their demands are met and not have force used against them. I like to rile up morons who like to compare this to using fire hoses or dogs on people who can't get away. I like to rile up peopel who think this is a symptom of "a police state" instead of actual overstepping of police power.

BeesNuts: Must be really sad being you, cause it sure is sad seeing you work

So what does that make you if you feel the need to respond to someone you think is so sad?


Using a dictionary definition of Peaceful and then using the legal definition for peaceable assembly is... pointless and nonsensical. And violates the terms of your sacrosanct pedantry.

Your points:
1. They were linking arms and preventing police from doing their job.
2.They HAD TO BE DISPERSED
3. The safest way to accomplish this was pepper spray.

My points:
1. Who gives a flying fark, it was wrong, stupid, and an abuse of power, regardless of its technical legality.
2. It was one of about a dozen incidents, all related to the OWS crew, all across the country and thus IS a sign of our police force's willingness to turn inwardly on citizens who were abiding the law up to and until the police showed up and told them that suddenly they weren't by giving a "lawful order to disperse"
3. Repeated, habitual overstepping of police power IS a warning that we're on our way to a police state.

It's sad because you're presenting the same exact story over and over again, ignoring the same facts and opinions every time, and you're actually helping to facilitate the move to more police powers to abuse by blaming kids for doing what they were taught to do when their rights were being violated instead of even bothering to THINK about what it is they might have been tryin to change or say.

The entire OWS debacle was obnoxious because all anybody could pay attention to was the form of the protests and not the function. And to this day, we seem to prefer to be ignorant of it.

Basically, whenever you talk about this incident, I can't help but think that you're an unamerican, pisspants,authoritarian scumbucket.

It's like the same logic an abusive husband would give. "I done told her to clean them dishes before I got home from work. Them dishes was still dirty when I got home so what was I supposed to do? Of course I hit her, I gave her a lawful order and she refused to comply. If I hadn't have hit her she might have continued to disobey me and then I'd REALLY have had to get rough. Really, I did her a favor, when you think about it."

It makes me a little... cranky...
 
2012-08-01 01:10:36 PM
By manufacturer and police policy pepper spray is to be used in the same cases where batons would be used and/or where the officer is in fear of their personal safety.

So citizens not involved in any violent behavior need to be physically assaulted?

They should have been cuffed and carried away one by one.

But no, the lazy fatty cop had to assault them.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report