Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

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.

More sanity! Phew. Great post by the way.

Of course, according to some, First Amendment rights go out the window when you're A.) On private land and B.) when it comes to dealing with Police. Smh.

 

[BocoDragon]

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.

I agree with the sentiment of the post... but I'm not sure if I agree with the bolded....

Weren't they prevented from leaving?

 

[nib95]

I agree with the sentiment of those post... but I'm not sure if I agree with the bolded....

Weren't they prevented from leaving?

There was a very dispersed crowd around them and a single line of (very passive) students in-front. If they could arrest them, they could most certainly walk over, or through them.

 

[BocoDragon]

There was a very dispersed crowd around them and a single line of (very passive) students in-front. If they could arrest them, they could most certainly walk over, or through them.

I think the situation was that the students were preventing them from leaving if they wanted to....... They were encircled, and the protesters declared just that.

 

[nib95]

I think the situation was that the students were preventing them from leaving if they wanted to....... They were encircled, and the protesters declared just that.

I don't know. Didn't seem like it carried any weight based on the video. Sounded like a baseless chant from the students to just try and get them to release their friends (with good reason of course). In a way, the camaraderie the students showed towards their other fellow students was quite commendable. Heck, honestly felt like the Police could have tore through them any moment. Even hearing the officers talk to the students on the ground in the line, they sounded, the least aggressive you could possibly get. Almost, geeky really.

There was zero violence from the students, even the one's that were arrested. It was a real shame what happened, that the police were even called in, but yea, I don't think the aggression was justified myself.

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't know. Didn't seem like it carried any weight based on the video. Sounded like a baseless chant from the students to just try and get them to release their friends (with good reason of course). Heck, honestly felt like they could have tore through them any moment. Even hearing the officers talk to the students on the ground in the line, they sounded, the least aggressive you could possibly get. Almost, geeky really.

There was zero violence from the students, even the one's that were arrested. It was a real shame what happened, that the police were even called in, but yea, I don't think the aggression was justified myself.

Well, what do you think would have happened if the police officers tried to leave the protest encirclement with the arrested students at that moment? Just be let go? The protesters indicated otherwise.

If they had been allowed to leave peacefully, then I think the pepper spraying was unjustified.

If they were blocked, essentially detaining them unless they release prisoners (something a cop could NEVER do or lose authority), then I think the pepper spraying was, let's not say "justified", but fully expected...

 

[royalan]

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.

That is all hogwash, and you're backing it up with nothing but your own personal belief of how the law should work.

-the right to protest does not include the right to seize private property. Regardless of how much that looks like wide open space to you it was university property, and it is the university's legal right to govern it how they see fit.

-The police announce to the students (multiple times) that the protest is an unlawful assembly on private property. The police cleared tents, as was their right and job to do at the request of the owners of said property (the university). Again, this was all announced to the protesters, several times, over a bullhorn.

-Any student who impeded their ability to do their job was detained. The police have every right to do this. It's called "Obstruction of Justice."

-The police, their vehicles, and the protesters they lawfully detained were actively surrounded by protesters with the intent of blocking their path unless their unlawful demands were met. The police will not be intimated. It is their jobs to not be intimated. The protesters are now obstructing the police and implying threatening action (as is implied by the "we'll let you leave if you do what we say." Unless you think they planned on using magical fairy dust to restrain the police should they have attempted to leave with those they detained). As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the GOAL of the students, as stated by them was to block the police from passing. It is thus reasonable to assume that had they tried to go around them they would have been further prohibited. At this point, this is no longer a peaceful protest, but a coordinated effort to restrict and threaten the police.

-The police then warned each student individually what the consequences would be if they were further obstructed. The protesters did not relent. In fact, they were egged on by onlookers to hold their ground.

-This obstruction, combined with threatening action, as stated by the protesters, as captured on camera from multiple angles, is more than just cause for police to apply force or dispersion measures.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand. Claiming "protest" does not grant one carte blanche to just do whatever the fuck they want with no respect for the law...except of course when you feel that your rights have been legally violated, ironically.

I think people aren't grasping this because this all happened on a university campus, and people like to think that universities are all big hippy institutions where students can do whatever they want and own the campus because they pay tuition.

Well, let's remove the campus from the equation. Lets say this is your home. You own a house with a nice big yard that happens to be adjacent to a government/corporate building that a large group of people are protesting. Lets say that they intend to stay there protesting the government/corporation for however long it takes until their demands are met. In the meantime, however, when they're not actively protesting, they're setting up camp in your yard. They're setting up tents, using your water, taking dumps in your bushes and pissing in your daisies. They're ruining your lawn and obstructing your ability to get your car out of the driveway. They smell like coffee grounds and dog shit and they scare away the mailman.

You ask them to leave, but they don't budge. After all, they're exercising their right to protest, and they need your space to do it. You call the police, but they do nothing -- I mean, they're protesting and, besides, it's not like you're using your lawn or anything.

In that event I bet anybody would be glad that laws protecting private property exist.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

That is all hogwash, and you're backing it up with nothing but your own personal belief of how the law should work.

-the right to protest does not include the right to seize private property. Regardless of how much that looks like wide open space to you it was university property, and it is the university's legal right to govern it how they see fit.

-The police announce to the students (multiple times) that the protest is an unlawful assembly on private property. The police cleared tents, as was their right and job to do at the request of the owners of said property (the university). Again, this was all announced to the protesters, several times, over a bullhorn.

-Any student who impeded their ability to do their job was detained. The police have every right to do this. It's called "Obstruction of Justice."

-The police, their vehicles, and the protesters they lawfully detained were actively surrounded by protesters with the intent of blocking their path unless their unlawful demands were met. The police will not be intimated. It is their jobs to not be intimated. The protesters are now obstructing the police and implying threatening action (as is implied by the "we'll let you leave if you do what we say." Unless you think they planned on using magical fairy dust to restrain the police should they have attempted to leave with those they detained). As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the GOAL of the students, as stated by them was to block the police from passing. It is thus reasonable to assume that had they tried to go around them they would have been further prohibited. At this point, this is no longer a peaceful protest, but a coordinated effort to restrict and threaten the police.

-The police then warned each student individually what the consequences would be if they were further obstructed. The protesters did not relent. In fact, they were egged on by onlookers to hold their ground.

-This obstruction, combined with threatening action, as stated by the protesters, as captured on camera from multiple angles, is more than just cause for police to apply force or dispersion measures.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand. Claiming "protest" does not grant one carte blanche to just do whatever the fuck they want with no respect for the law...except of course when you feel that your rights have been legally violated, ironically.

I think people aren't grasping this because this all happened on a university campus, and people like to think that universities are all big hippy institutions where students can do whatever they want and own the campus because they pay tuition.

Well, let's remove the campus from the equation. Lets say this is your home. You own a house with a nice big yard that happens to be adjacent to a government/corporate building that a large group of people are protesting. Lets say that they intend to stay there protesting the government/corporation for however long it takes into their demands are met. In the meantime, however, when they're not actively protesting, they're setting up camp in your yard. They're setting up tents, using your water, taking dumps in your bushes and pissing in your daisies. They're ruining your lawn and obstructing your ability to get your car out of the driveway. They smell like coffee grounds and dog shit and they scare away the mailman.

You ask them to leave, but they don't budge. After all, they're exercising their right to protest, and they need your space to do it. You call the police, but they do nothing -- I mean, they're protesting and, besides, it's not like you're using your lawn or anything.

In that event I bet anybody would be glad that laws protecting private property exist.

Hey you darn hippys doin' that thurrr learnins, git orff myyyy lawn.

 

[Wazzim]

Bullshit defence force is part of the problem, it's never going to change like this.

 

[weekend_warrior]

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.