WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.

HeartlineTwist: Video of the wiretapping

He calls up and asks if the officer had seen the video or was aware of the charges being leveled by a site the cop had never heard of. The officer says he couldn't comment as he had not seen the video but does offer to check both the video and the site before hanging up (as there probably wasn't much else to add to the conversation).

Commentator goes on a rant about how the police are refusing to discuss the issue then attempts a call to the school, who in my opinion, allowed the conversation with this guy to last about 1 minute too long. Did he actually believe being an identified caller with an attitude get him an online confession. Would it be possible that the school had instructions not to discuss the issue until resolved- especially with unidentified callers?

He actually violated the wire tapping law several times as he probably did not get consent to use their voices in a public forum. It is for this very reason that many businesses that record phone calls warn you up front that your call may be used as "training" (in a public format) and that you have the option to not have the call recorded.

For someone who seems to know what the police can and can't legally do, he certainly overlooked a few of the details when airing this interview.

Some would argue he was talking to public officials so anything they say would be public information. This does not negate the fact that he used their personal opinions and voice with permission in a public forum. Freedome of speech? He has the right to say as he pleases, just not the right to use others voices without their consent first.

Had he have just read a transcript of the conversation instead of using recordings, he probably would not be in that courtroom facing the charges of wiretapping.

Even after several repeats and blowing up the accompanying video of the arrest, it was hard to make out exactly what was going on. I tend to be a bit of a skeptic when a poster tells me what I'm supposed to be seeing.

Still not swayed about why this kid with authority issues should not be prosecuted for violating wire tapping violations.

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: of a disruptive protest.

Except it wasn't disruptive.

It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

IIRC they were near a building with classes being held and it was a disruption to those as well.

Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

Whether the original tents were disruptive was up for discussion then, and the independent investigation concluded that the tent people were not violating any university rules. So the police were sent in without cause, meaning that the sit-in protest that happened in response to the police action was a valid protest of an unjust action. The pepperspraying happened in response to the sit-in protest. This is not my opinion, but that of the external review panel. The bottom line is that the admins farked up, which is why the police chief, and the officer doing the pepper-spraying, are not with the police force anymore.

It's not against any sort of university policy for people to block thoroughfares? Strange.

Also, as to your last sentence...not necessarily the case. Officials resign all the time when they did nothing wrong. Create enough of an uproar over something and the heads at the top will roll just to save face...whether the did anything wrong or not.

ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

consider this: WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.

So that justifies any maximal Use of Force response? I was at Seattle in 99. I watched cops using pepper spray through the windows of passing cars just driving through the area. I watched them throw CS gas grenades into restaurants full of people. I watched them issue an order of dispersal and leaving no way for the people to disperse, and anyone who approached a cop was beaten down and arrested.

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.

BarkingUnicorn: HeartlineTwist: BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?

From the article, sounds like the interviews he recorded were phone interviews with the police officials. So, I'm guessing most likely not in a public place.

Not sure which article you mean. The CNN article refers only to "recordings of public officials," without specifying who they are or where they were or what kind of recording.

The defendant's article includes a video that shows him recording two phone conversations: first with a police captain, and then the school's principal. Those are the "public officials."

He called both people at their offices. He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission. At least, he did not video himself doing either of those things. A phone call carries an expectation of privacy, even if any of the parties is a public official. One's office is not a public area, even if it's in a building that has areas open to the public. You can't just stroll into the office of a cop or a principal without permission.

That's two counts that I can see. IDK where the third comes from. It can't be the video that the student provided to him. He didn't intercept or record that.

He won't get 21 years, of course. But he seems to be convicted by his own camera on two counts.

You are forgetting the voice of the receptionist at the police station- i don't think she wanted her voice in the interview either.

stevarooni: tomWright: Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

At least for me, though, that's not what I was talking about. My impression is that the wiretapping isn't for taping what was going on in the school (as you said, public place), but that he recorded a telephone conversation with a cop about said beating. Now if you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, yes, I'll disagree with you. I could see a reasonable prohibition against recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties...though I disagree with such a prohibition.

agreed

This douche is just digging his hole deeper by representing himself and being a smart ass towards the judge. Here's his last court appearance.

Link

Silly Jesus: Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

now say that like Patsy Kline

Deathfrogg: consider this: WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.

So that justifies any maximal Use of Force response? I was at Seattle in 99. I watched cops using pepper spray through the windows of passing cars just driving through the area. I watched them throw CS gas grenades into restaurants full of people. I watched them issue an order of dispersal and leaving no way for the people to disperse, and anyone who approached a cop was beaten down and arrested.

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.

Care to elaborate why cops were randomly pepper spraying innocent passerbys through their car windows or tossing CS grenades into resturants full of people? I'm sure there's more telling to the tale than "that's just what cops do out in our neck of the woods".

By the way, you lost my interest as soon as you starting bleating out "You authoritarian submissives". Not that it would matter much to you what the rest of the sheeple here on fark think, but now may be a chance to redeem your good name by filling in the blanks of your Summer of '99 in Seattle.

" I saw my first real beating
outside the Five and Dime.
Cops tossing grenades at diners
they have hurt a friend of mine"

Excerpt from from "The Summer of 99"

consider this: This douche is just digging his hole deeper by representing himself and being a smart ass towards the judge. Here's his last court appearance.

Link

Jesus...godspeed to him....He's not doing himself any favors. My favorite part was around the 9:30 mark through the end. I'd love to hear his excuse for not showing up to his first "trial". I also love the fact that Ademo and the camera man(?) both find it laughable that someone representing themselves is bound by the rules that attorneys are.

clowncar on fire: Deathfrogg: consider this: WhyteRaven74:

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.

Care to elaborate why cops were randomly pepper spraying innocent passerbys through their car windows or tossing CS grenades into resturants full of people? I'm sure there's more telling to the tale than "that's just what cops do out in our neck of the woods".

By the way, you lost my interest as soon as you starting bleating out "You authoritarian submissives". Not that it would matter much to you what the rest of the sheeple here on fark think, but now may be a chance to redeem your good name by filling in the blanks of your Summer of '99 in Seattle.

" I saw my first real beating
outside the Five and Dime.
Cops tossing grenades at diners
and pepper sprayed friend of mine"

Excerpt from from "The Summer of 99"

FTFM

BarkingUnicorn: WhyteRaven74: BarkingUnicorn: He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission

There are states where that's not a problem.

New Hampshire is not one of them. NH's wiretapping law is quoted somewhere upthread.

Defendant was a party to the recorded conversations, so he can't be convicted of a felony under NH's law. But unless all parties consent to the recording, it's a misdemeanor. Like I said, he won't get 21 years, but he sure seems guilty based on his own evidence.

The Prosecutor says in the video that they are Class B Felonies. The Judge acknowledges this. Is there something that you know that they don't?

HeartlineTwist: . I'd love to hear his excuse for not showing up to his first "trial".

The court sent the court material (the date, etc) to an address that does not exist. He did not submit a change of address. He's had previous mail from the court to his address (which IS on file). When he was arraigned and brought in the proof that he was not informed of the court date, they refused to look at it. The state attorney even brought up case precedence that there is NO requirement for the state to inform you of a changed court date!

So they can change your court date at their whim, send it to a made up address and put you jail...

I'm not one for violent protests, but if he is found guilty, the people of New Hampshire needs to riot LA style.

ongbok: You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him.

Judging by what happened after I left for a bit -- you called it!

Silly Jesus: IIRC they were near a building with classes being held and it was a disruption to those as well.

They weren't.

FYI - they are talking about this now on the radio at lrn.fm

Also, here is the video explaining the returned envelope sent to the wrong address, with the letter inside addressed to the correct one. Video

Bit'O'Gristle: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.
I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.
///my 2cents.

I got pulled over last year and the first thing the officer said to me was that he was video and audio recording the encounter.

Umm, OK?

He proceeded to give me some grief, run my license, etc and let me go with a warning. He also took time to pet my dogs. Irrelevant but whatever.

The issue here(TFA) may be that they are recording without consent but the fine line is being in a public place with no real expectations of privacy.
This case will set a precedent for others.
Also, if the police aren't being abusive dicks why would they care if they are being filmed?

This is one of the reasons that 2nd amendment supporters are so passionate about their rights. A police state can only be combated by an armed opposition. Hopefully the realization that the population has the ability to repel unwarranted assaults is enough to dissuade certain behavior. Few actually want to have it come down to a real battle but all should be ready.

AbbeySomeone: This should be interesting.

What will be interesting is how cops will cope with Google and the g+ app for their phones since you have an option to automatically upload pics instantly. They can delete all they want but its too late since its already online for the world to see and you know Google will not take anything down until they have a warrant.

tomWright: LowbrowDeluxe: karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.

This guy isn't exactly a journalist, and this isn't as clear cut as his supporters want to make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure it's actually guys like the quoted saying things like this that stirs society up.

Should journalists have special rights the rest of us do not? Are they special somehow?

They're not 'special rights' but they do receive certain legal protections almost specifically designed to prevent the government from stifling unpopular opinion. I'm going to assume you're trolling, since it's not very difficult at all to figure out why someone felt the need to set the system up that way, nor why it would be troubling although not completely germane to the issue at hand if he was just slightly less of a wingnut about his cause. As it is, he crossed over the line from 'gotcha' journalism to wiretapping, whether he understood that or meant to or not.

Cpl.D: If the guy loses this case, I will take it to mean that yet another nail has been driven into the coffin lid of freedom. And there's enough of those in there already.

Yes we have already passed a law forcing people to get health insurance which will do nothing towards lowering health costs or making people healthier. They should mandate gym memberships and force people to attend 3 days a week.

AbbeySomeone: Bit'O'Gristle: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.
I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.
///my 2cents.

I got pulled over last year and the first thing the officer said to me was that he was video and audio recording the encounter.

Umm, OK?

He proceeded to give me some grief, run my license, etc and let me go with a warning. He also took time to pet my dogs. Irrelevant but whatever.

The issue here ...

He recorded you without consent but did this video show up on an episode of cops without your consent?

The issue here was not that the interviewer recorded the conversation but that he chose to broadcast it without consent of the recorded parties.

Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into the State Bar Association and the US Attorney's office (Dept of Justice) for an investigation into the attempt to deprive him of his civil rights. Nifong ended up in prison for doing something no worse than what this DA is doing in this case.

I can't believe that the DA and the Judge who is allowing this case to move forward has not read, or apparently are too stupid to understand the very clear ruling in Glik. Perhaps the Judge can get his ass handed to him at some point as well, for his role in allowing what is clearly an illegal prosecution as outlined in Glik (The 1st Circuit is the Court of Appeals for NH and is the final say in all criminal and civil suits therein, unless appealed to SCOTUS) this is really farking unbelievable!

As an attorney, I am sitting here absolutely stunned after reading the Glik case. All involved here in his prosecution should lose their licenses to practice law and the cops should be fired for gross violations of a citizen's 1st amendment and 4th amendment rights.

lawboy87: Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into t ...

Research this story beyond the article linked to. The guy arrested was not the guy who filmed the police. It was a high school student who filmed the police. The guy who was arrested is some blogger who decided to make an issue of this incident. So, he called up the police and recorded his conversation without the consent of the police. And in the state he lives in that is a crime (both parties being recorded must consent to being recorded). That is why he was arrested. So, Glik v Cunniff does not apply in this case.

I feel like I just watched Emily Litella.

Never talk to a cop; nothing good will ever come of it. And, always, spit in their food.

/That is all

BarkingUnicorn: lawboy87: Good Grief!

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public.

You're an attorney? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Ademo didn't photograph anyone but himself. He's not charged with photographing anyone. He's charged with making audio recordings of phone conversations with three people, without their knowledge or consent.

All of that information is available through links that I and others have dropped in this thread.

You fail, counselor.

"Oh snap" x10!

Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

Another 'not a lawyer' here, but the video shown leads me to believe he was using a speakerphone. I know there was a guy that was arrested for wiretapping because he recorded his arrest on a motorcycle (Anthony Graber, Garber, something like that? Too lazy to look it up). In any case the judge ruled something to the effect of "anywhere you can ordinarily hear a conversation isn't covered by wiretap laws". This was in response to an objecting talking about gang violence and police questioning subjects.


It seems a stretch, but could the fact that he used a speakerphone be seen as putting it into the "could ordinarily be heard" category?

INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

lawboy87: Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into t ...

Wow, that's an awful lot of typing just to prove that you didn't read the article.

consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

Because the quads are 100% concrete and have no sidewalks...

Rug Doctor: tomWright: Doc Ok: GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.

Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or polit ...

...So in other words, both sides are bad because history?

Also, you might get some traction arguing that college professors tend to be libs, but not the top administration and security folks. And they're the ones giving the orders to corral people.

No, in other words, both "sides" have acted in an authoritarian manner in the past.

ongbok: Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

See what I mean about conservatives. The police stuck it to Liberals, good for them, I don't care if they were college kids who weren't causing any type of disruption while exercising their second amendment rights, as long as they were put in their place.

You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him. His arguments are just going to get more and more asinine.

Um, excuse me, I'm a conservative, and I don't believe in that guy's derp, nor the use of force against protesters or whatever, so don't lump all conservatives in with people who are just plain idiots.

I don't get it. Do DAs have to press charges when a cop places an arrest? Don't they get some sort of discretion? State attorneys deserve just as much hate for this, as well as state congressmen, who are unwilling to change a law that was meant to protect the people from being wiretapped by the government.