Where's the legal code to back this up? Because willfully obstructing a police officer from ensuring the detention of a suspect does fall under the acceptable use of force rules for pepper spray in California. And that's exactly what the protesters were doing here.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Police at UC Davis pepper spray faces/mouths of peaceful student protesters
- Thread starter bob page
- Start date
- Status
Where's the legal code to back this up? Because willfully obstructing a police officer from ensuring the detention of a suspect does fall under the acceptable use of force rules for pepper spray in California. And that's exactly what the protesters were doing here.
That's why they have a minimum distance, right? Who you do you think knows more about that pepper spray: you or the people who manufacture it? It's still the same chemicals, but at a lower parts-per-million. You can actually get some air if there's some air in the stream. If it's only pepper spray, you can't breathe in addition to the chemical burn, making it even worse. And it appears like I was off on the 15 feet, but 6 feet is still more than what they used.
The minimum distance is there to prevent you from spraying yourself when it hits the person and gets in the air. Let's also note the name used in this paragraph - "stream canister".
Who wrote that?
Leona Lewis
Banned
Yum, I'd pepper my spray on the hottie to the left.
Anyway, after watching the new video, I don't know how anyone can malign the cops' actions. The students totally disregarded repeated verbal warnings, and actually took actions to escalate the situation (such as blocking the police as a reaction to the earlier arrests).
They were not peaceful, they were a mob. In that situation, any rational person would assume that physical apprehension would only heighten the tension and potentially get a cop or a student hurt. Once the students acted to prevent the cops from doing their jobs, they invited police force.
thezerofire
Banned
I'm advocating that unless there is a very real or serious threat of danger, Police shouldn't come near me with any kind of intention of violence, aggression etc. Especially not with a fucking can of mace.
Peacefully protesting whilst locking arms (historically symbolic of submissive and non-violent protests) they not only shouldn't have resorted to violence, they should have let them be. The principle, Dean or Baron/Baroness that called for the Police on to campus needs to be fired and replaced immediately. To say she has the safety of her students and faculty members (who were among those protesting) at best interest or heart is clearly inaccurate, and if not, she or he is clearly incompetent at managing the task.
I thought you were leaving? Temporary means "not permanent".Temporary doesn't mean "several hours."
I don't know about that. What if the effects lasted 20 years? That's still technically 'temporary' in your books. I wouldn't call several hours temporary personally, not when it came to describing the effects of mace in this instance. Temporary to me here would be 15-20 minutes or something. I'd call several hours something closer to prolonged.
Temporary simply means it isn't permanent. It makes no claim as to actual duration.
Locking arms and singing Kumbaya is historically symbolic of submissive and non-violent protest.
Stalking the cops, surrounding them and their vehicles, and threatening to not let them leave unless they free the people they legally arrested all while chanting "From Davis to Greece fuck the police!" is not historically symbolic of submissive and non-violent protesting. And you better believe that the police will respond with some show of force (which some people seem to be forgetting used to mean the use of batons, which was a whole hell of a lot worse than pepper spray).
Temporary, in this case, means 20 minutes. You can both go ahead and assign any time period you like to the length of the effects, but I'll do what I can to stick to reality.
Sorry, but of the video I've seen of the meme Police pepper spraying guy, he was walking down spraying people doing fuck all and literally just sitting with arms locked. I think you're just trying to find excuses to defend acts of violence against your fellow man now, worse still, fellow Americans. I just hope you're not letting your opinion of these protests and the movement in general affect your take on this, one that imo is detrimental to our very rights and freedoms and a supremely toxic and dangerous way to think.
I'd argue that it is because of people who think like you that Police CAN and DO get away with acts of undue, un-justified, un-warranted or un-necessary aggression/violence.
Leona Lewis
Banned
See the new video posted a page back. It adds some context.
thezerofire
Banned
There was actually a newer video that shows the students provoking the police, but still it was pretty far away from actual violence.
You're looking at the wrong section (what you are highlighting isn't relevant here).
On Chemical Agents specifically:
812. Only authorized personnel may possess and maintain department issued oleoresin capsicum spray. Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should be used only in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.
On reasonable force:
901. When it becomes necessary to take police action, officers shall give consideration to the rights of all persons, including alleged law violators, and to the manner in which they exercise their powers as peace officers. Without compromising their primary mission, which is the protection of life and property, officers may use such reasonable force as is necessary to affect an arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
UCD policy (which I've highlighted above) falls right in line with normal California code that obstructing an officer for carrying out their duty is illegal and under some circumstances subject to a possible escalation in the use of force guidelines.
Edit - Furthermore, here's the full Use of Force Policy that details what I'm talking about above in relations to the guidelines you've posted:
http://info.publicintelligence.net/UCD-Use_of_Force.pdf
A snippet:
Given that no policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter in the field, it is recognized that each officer must be entrusted with well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate use of force in each incident. While it is the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter to minimize injury to everyone involved, nothing in this policy requires an officer to actually sustain physical injury before applying reasonable force.
Read again. The squatters were suspects for (albeit peaceful) criminal activity and subject to protocol.
As such, the police were not in fact authorized to use force.
It's pretty much exactly what I expect to happen if Police come trouncing in armed up because of peaceful protesting. Of course they would ask them to leave, of course they'd want their friends free'd, of course they would tell them they don't need to be there. Despite the "let you leave" comments, I'm almost certain the Police could have left any moment, and the fact that the actual people the Police officer sprayed (the one's he specially sprayed) were simply sitting down peacefully (they literally posed NO threat at all) makes it that much worse.
The few tools that did say a few antagonistic things were shot down by the crowd pretty sharpish, so I see nothing of clout to justify violence here.
Also can someone explain this "prohibiting a remaining presence of an unlawful assembly" rule? What is this Unlawful assembly bullshit they speak of, and why is it even illegal? Could that not make all peaceful protests potentially illegal? Does this same rule apply to the Tea party marches, the crazy Church goers who amass to grate on the funerals of soldiers and so on. What's the deciding factor on what is or ins't an 'Unlawful assembly' exactly?
People are misquoting this so many times in the last two pages, that it really needs to be addressed. What you are quoting is not the UCD use of force guidelines. And it does not cover the acceptable use of chemical agents. It is not relevant to the discussion of what happened with the students.
See my post above for the link to the actual use of force guidelines and why the use of chemical agents fell under part of those guidelines in this circumstance... Especially when dealing with the obstruction of an officer to fulfill his task of detaining an arrested suspect.
And of course the police would use force.
Seriously, I wish people would stop applying ignorance as sound logic here. Just because YOU think the group of adult students weren't possible of violence and just because YOU'RE certain (though I have absolutely no idea how you could be) they would have moved if the police persisted doesn't make that reality, nor does it remove the chance that they won't move and that they would get violent. It's those risks that police have to prepare for, for their safety and ours.
These protesters were given numerous verbal warnings that they were unlawfully assembling on private property and they only allowed themselves to be provoked further. You'd be kidding yourself if you thought these students were going to do anything peacefully before the cops pulled out the pepper spray.
Unlawful assembly largely prevents people for gathering in a manner that might infringe on other people's rights. In this case, taking over private property with your "peaceful protest".
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It's funny how I was randomly pepper sprayed by a kid I didn't know, walking late at night this summer.... really gives me a lot of context for what this really means.
Yes, it's an awful sensation. No, it's not the end of the world for that person... the next day they won't mind. But in terms of stamping out a peaceful demonstration? Hilariously overboard. Freedom infringing, even.
Ever hear of civil disobedience? Surely you have. There is a long precedent of peaceful, non-reactive protest. Its certainly not the case that student violence was inevitable.
Yes, it's an awful sensation. No, it's not the end of the world for that person... the next day they won't mind. But in terms of stamping out a peaceful demonstration? Hilariously overboard. Freedom infringing, even.
Ever hear of civil disobedience? Surely you have. There is a long precedent of peaceful, non-reactive protest. Its certainly not the case that student violence was inevitable.
I find your opinions on this matter deeply disturbing and anti freedom of rights. Kidding myself if I think they were going to continue being peaceful as they were all along?
What a joke. There is no reason what-so-ever to think they would be anything but peaceful. Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't turn unruly after the students were sprayed.
The UC Davis police are subject to university-wide police procedure. Your rules for UC Davis are from 2004, superceding rules put in place in 2003. It's likely they've been revised since then.
The rules I quote for the University of California are not only effective January 2011, but supersede any conflicting local rules that any campus's police might issue:
"Local regulations, including General and Special Orders, Procedural Memoranda and instructions may be written more restrictively than Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures, however they may not be written to supplant or diminish the Policies and Procedures contained within this Universitywide document."
And chemical agents are definitely a use of force. So I'm not exactly sure what your argument is...
You still haven't explained to me how stalking the cops, surrounding them and yelling "fuck the police!" is a peaceful protest. You haven't explained to me how threatening to inhibit the cops' ability to leave the area is a peaceful protest. You haven't explained how absolute refusal to vacate private property is a peaceful protest. Here's a hint: at that point it's NOT a peaceful protest.
You would describe this scene as non-reactive?
If you think that was a threat then I don't know. Sounded like a bunch of students who were peacefully protesting before tooled up Police showed up to break up an otherwise innocent party. Of course the students were were going to react as they did when their friends were getting arrested for basically bullshit. And not moving from a spot is not an act of aggression or violence. The fact that you think it is, is absolutely mind numbing.
Stalking the cops lol. Unbelievable.
Leona Lewis
Banned
It's pointless to even bother with him anyore. No matter what you say, he'll respond that the police shouldn't do anything until after the danger has already presented itself. Because the police shouldn't prevent the danger from presenting itself, they should idly wait.
And then he'll give some brilliant aside on "freedom of rights", as if the students aren't already infringing on those by forming a mob on private property.
Slurpy2k20
Member
There's something hilarious about how casually that guy is walking while pepperspraying.
Aaaanndd.. as expected, sensationalist headline and photo without the actual full story, same as last time with the infamous 'pregnant' woman being 'kicked in the stomach' and miscarrying. I'm assuming the past 15 pages are misplaced outrage.
Aaaanndd.. as expected, sensationalist headline and photo without the actual full story, same as last time with the infamous 'pregnant' woman being 'kicked in the stomach' and miscarrying. I'm assuming the past 15 pages are misplaced outrage.
That "basically bullshit" is called the law, and you'll be glad it's there one day.
And I love how the police are "tooled up." They're not, you know, doing their jobs or anything.
It ultimately doesn't matter what "I" think, it's what these cops are trained to react to. You seeing something as "harmless" doesn't mean it actually. Nor are the police bound by what YOU want to consider acceptable resistance or violence.
Nor is it up to you to determine the value of upholding private property.
Gurl, I should have stuck to my Wendy Williams gif...
The problem is, you are selectively quoting from the rules and taking its meaning out of context (ie, striking = all methods of force). The first two paragraphs that I posted in my post (dealing with the use of chemical agents and the reasonable use of force) are pulled directly from the PDF you are linking to and authorizes force in circumstances outside of what you are trying to define. Look in your PDF and do a search for Chemical agents and you will see I quoted directly from your document.
The second PDF that I linked to was in addition as supporting material and it is the PDF that is being passed around by news outlets as being the current UC Davis use of force policy. If you have a newer version of the policy please let me know. Because your document specifically calls on UC Davis to maintain a reasonable use of force policy which is what the document I linked to is.
This entire scenario is kind of like a macro version of a BIG problem I see with America and that is the action it justifies based on a culture of fear mongering, corruption and overt, un-deserved aggression. Kind of like how the government destroyed an innocent country to hell and back based on fabricated BS or a threat of violence that we were fortunate enough to see never actually existed. Still didn't stop them from acting with pre-meditated violence of wildly disproportionate nature though.
Also can I ask, who did the private property belong to, the University? Please for the love of all that is good tell me it wasn't University grounds...
Also can I ask, who did the private property belong to, the University? Please for the love of all that is good tell me it wasn't University grounds...
Dude, I'm all for exercising your right to protest. But protesting does NOT always mean looking for an excuse to get into it with the cops. And the video clearly illustrates that to be the case. These kids didn't give a shit about what they were actually protesting, or the legality of it. They saw an opportunity to act out their contempt for police, and this is the result. The purpose of the protest has been completely lost. Hell, most people watching the videos weren't even sure of what they were protesting.
And yes, that private property belonged to the university.
badcrumble
Member
i like how literally every single argument in this thread in favor of pepper spraying the protesters could also be used to justify shooting them execution-style because that's the sort of cop-fellating reasoning being employed in said arguments
And the real reasons finally come out!
That is absolutely bullshit. Just because you don't have a clue what people are protesting about, don't try and malign the opinions and causes of others.
Fact that this was University property pretty much throws that "private land" thing out the window and not a valid reason for any sort of aggression despite there never even being one in the first place. These were mainly university students protesting. Disgusting on all accounts.
Add fighting for civil liberties and the right to be able to protest peacefully without aggressive Police intervention on the list of things the movement is fighting for.
No.
Not at all.
Not even close.
Like, at all.
1) I know what they're protesting. I'm saying most people watching the scene on tv have absolutely no idea what they were protesting because the dialogue has been diverted from the real issues and placed firmly on debating the actions of the police officer and students. You can make it about that now all you want.
2) Attending a university does not grant you co-ownership of university property.
3) If the students were protesting within the grounds of the law and not on private property there wouldn't have been aggressive police intervention in the first place.
It's less dangerous for the officers and the students to shoot them? You offer a compelling argument, glad to see you're paying attention.
badcrumble
Member
Those sitting protesters were a clear and obvious danger to the policeman! Therefore, he should have shot every single one of them in the head just to be sure.
Leona Lewis
Banned
So you're equating the use of a restraining mechanism like pepper spray with cold-blooded execution? Please tell me you're joking or at least just being willfully dense.
Oh, you're not joking. I'm...I'm so sorry.
Of course!
...I mean, only if you ignore the rules of escalated force, contradict the acceptable use of force policy, and completely ignore the vast majority of arguments people are making.
But don't let me stop you from essentially categorizing me as a cop-hugging, fascist.
badcrumble
Member
actually that's precisely what the officer did so i figure it's acceptable in this thread as well.
oh and i said 'fellating,' not 'hugging.'
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Ok I just watched the "second video" and now I must admit, I get it. If you put police in the situation where they are being forcefully detained and intimidated into releasing an arrestee, you should probably expect a show of force. *shrugs*
I support OWS, I don't think those students should have been moved from the site, and I'm not certain if those students should have a been arrested.... but aside from that, I see how the reaction from the police was quite rational.... not the freedom-stomping infringement that it so obviously appears to be from edited videos.
I HATE to say it... but it's the truth. Detaining police? SMH.
I support OWS, I don't think those students should have been moved from the site, and I'm not certain if those students should have a been arrested.... but aside from that, I see how the reaction from the police was quite rational.... not the freedom-stomping infringement that it so obviously appears to be from edited videos.
I HATE to say it... but it's the truth. Detaining police? SMH.
You do realize that pepper spray is legally authorized for use by the police force (and civilians) because outside of the initial discomfort, it's relatively harmless for how effective it is as a deterrent? It's not a life-ending bullet.
No, of course not...
All I'll say is thank fuck I don't live in the US. Almost seems like a Police state. Protests such as these (as I mentioned before) happen in the UK on campuses all the bloody time. Especially in London, and more so in some of the more politically poigniant Universities such as SOAS etc (highly reputable establishments at that). Not only are the Police not called in to such protests (by and large), nor usually feel the need to intervene, they certainly don't resort to any sort of violence for the students simply being there to protest. And why the fuck should they. Protests such as this are usually instead promoted, for good reason, by students and faculty alike. I think one of the lecturers at UC already covered it well.
Sorry state of affairs and embarrassing, not only the actions themselves, but so much of the defence from Americans of it.
Sorry state of affairs and embarrassing, not only the actions themselves, but so much of the defence from Americans of it.
Well, as someone who does live in the US, has attended university here, and has been involved in many campus protests, I can tell you that most universities are pretty open to their students exercising their rights.
But there's a difference between exercising your rights and exercising stupid. As this second video clearly shows, these students were exercising stupid. I'm sorry, but you can't just set up camp and occupy private property (regardless of how little you respect it), and then antagonize police when they do their jobs and expect NOTHING to happen. It just doesn't work that way.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Basically.... protesters need to adjust their tactics.
Detaining police = bad idea.... even if they have made wrongful arrests. Let their lawyers argue that it's wrong. Police officers will NEVER give into intimidation to release arrestees... it's part of their training to maintain authority and protesters should be aware of that.
Maybe the protestors would love a good police brutality video... but as this video has shown, the lengthier in-context video will eventually surface.... You want legitimate wins, rather than editing trickery.
Detaining police = bad idea.... even if they have made wrongful arrests. Let their lawyers argue that it's wrong. Police officers will NEVER give into intimidation to release arrestees... it's part of their training to maintain authority and protesters should be aware of that.
Maybe the protestors would love a good police brutality video... but as this video has shown, the lengthier in-context video will eventually surface.... You want legitimate wins, rather than editing trickery.
I don't know, seems with this particular movement a lot of people who are usually 'ok' with protests seem a bit nervous and antsy. Because it tackles some of the very root problems these same people in power profit from by means of corruption.
I would say the students did say a few stupid things, but I wouldn't say them protesting was stupid in itself. End of the day, there's nothing stupid about protesting for a solid cause and showing support for something greater than you. And protesting on University grounds is actually a noble stage to protest, not negative. Truthfully, the Police should not have even been there full stop. There was simply no need, nor a need to move them.
However, one thing that might change my opinion...
You mentioned, set up camp and occupy. Did these students set up camp and occupy the University? To me they all seemed like stand by protestors. I didn't see any camps or anything like that, or any signs they'd been there camping for ages or anything like that.
Perhaps you could offer me some more insight on to that particular comment of yours.
It started as an occupy protest. The police were called in initially only to disperse the camp. The protesters at the university were going to allow to continue without the tents. Due to altercations in taking down the tents, the police arrested a few students. The protesters then left their area of protest and went to where the students were being detained encircling the police which set up the confrontation that occurred.
Wait hold up. To clarify (my experience of these sorts of debates is people often cherry picking or making stuff up altogether on both sides).
The students had already set up camp along with tents? Where did you read/hear this? How long had they erected the tents and how long had they been camped on University grounds?
Where are you getting this information that students were arrested for 'altercations in taking down tents'? Do you have a link for this? Based on the video, it seems like the officers were arresting people simply for being there. They actually asked them to disperse, not for setting up camp (a camp was nowhere to be soon, nor were tents), but just for being there protesting in what they refereed to as an 'unlawful assembly'.
Clarification would be cool.
thezerofire
Banned
lol
they were sitting on public university grounds, on a lawn, and one that people don't need to walk through to get anywhere. Hardly "taking over private property," and hardly infringing on anyone's rights. please.
Hopefully RyanDG can answer my questions. Anyway, this was awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCJEomwVMrw&feature=feedu
Huge respect to UC Davis students. Not only was it peaceful, it was completely silent. Absolutely amazing. And I agree this women needs to reign asap. Calling the police on your own students over a peaceful protest. Disgraceful.
EDIT: Also, the Chancellor has apologised and admitted she made a big mistake (not enough imo, she needs to resign) and the police who maced the students have been put on administrative leave. Thank God there is some sanity out there after all. Reading some of GAF's take though....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCJEomwVMrw&feature=feedu
Huge respect to UC Davis students. Not only was it peaceful, it was completely silent. Absolutely amazing. And I agree this women needs to reign asap. Calling the police on your own students over a peaceful protest. Disgraceful.
EDIT: Also, the Chancellor has apologised and admitted she made a big mistake (not enough imo, she needs to resign) and the police who maced the students have been put on administrative leave. Thank God there is some sanity out there after all. Reading some of GAF's take though....
empty vessel
Member
So the new video shows that police attempted to assault (unlawfully arrest) American citizens engaged in the clear exercise of First Amendment rights. The police repeatedly announced to the citizens their intent to assault them if they did not cease exercising their protected political rights. The police subsequently began manhandling some citizens and continued threatening them. The police then cleared the tents and detained some citizens in the course of that (assuming the commentary on the video is accurate--we know at least that some people were detained). The citizens then demanded that the police release the American citizens they had unconstitutionally detained, and blocked a car path.
The police were never prevented from leaving. That is nonsense. They were free to leave any time. They freely chose to stay, and they freely chose to assault more American citizens. Contrary to the implication of the commentary on the video, telling citizens in advance that your intent is to assault them does not give rise to cause for an assault. Even if one believed that force was justified to clear the path for the car (and I don't), the requisite amount of force would be no more than required to clear the path, i.e., human arms to lift up bodies. If the police felt they were outnumbered (and there is no evidence of that), then the appropriate response would have been to call more officers to the scene. The video in no way justifies the pepper spraying.
In the end, it was the police's (and, presumably, the dean's) decision to repress a peaceable assembly of Americans that resulted in the violence. The blame lies squarely on them. The commentary to the video posted takes a decidedly authoritarian slant in which the prerogatives of police are placed above the prerogatives of American citizens. It assumes the legitimacy of the police's presence when the reality is that their presence is the first provocation and threat of violence.
The police were never prevented from leaving. That is nonsense. They were free to leave any time. They freely chose to stay, and they freely chose to assault more American citizens. Contrary to the implication of the commentary on the video, telling citizens in advance that your intent is to assault them does not give rise to cause for an assault. Even if one believed that force was justified to clear the path for the car (and I don't), the requisite amount of force would be no more than required to clear the path, i.e., human arms to lift up bodies. If the police felt they were outnumbered (and there is no evidence of that), then the appropriate response would have been to call more officers to the scene. The video in no way justifies the pepper spraying.
In the end, it was the police's (and, presumably, the dean's) decision to repress a peaceable assembly of Americans that resulted in the violence. The blame lies squarely on them. The commentary to the video posted takes a decidedly authoritarian slant in which the prerogatives of police are placed above the prerogatives of American citizens. It assumes the legitimacy of the police's presence when the reality is that their presence is the first provocation and threat of violence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked