Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

[CatBuilder]

And... the reaction of the University...

http://news.yahoo.com/campus-police-...202222886.html

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Why would you say a woman with her face orange from pepper spray, and dripping whatever milky liquid she'd been drenched with in an effort to counteract it, looks like a homeless person who had just barfed?
That isn't even a rational interpretation of the scene, much less a likely one.

That's what the picture looked like to me. Since in real life I've seen a homeless woman being badly sick on the sidewalk, I think I'm in a better position to say than you are.

I believe you should do at least a modicum of checking, before you jump the gun and start casting doubt on the honesty of a fellow member's post.

Yes, I probably jumped the gun on that post. Catbuilder got under my skin with his ridiculous anti-American slogans, and these pictures reminded me of politically motivated photoshops that I've seen before. I thought it was highly unlikely that a police officer would walk down a line of sitting people pepper-spraying them in front of dozens of cameras. Frankly, I'm still a little baffled by that decision-making process, unless it was their intention to give the protesters a good media story. But if I had it to do over again, I would not have posted that. Still, this doesn't mean that I was mocking an old woman in pain.

Which is what any reasonable reader knew you were doing, no matter what you're claiming now.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You meant no such thing, you were just digging for the truth, you have nothing but love in your heart, I'm prejudiced against you and twisting your words, etc....

No, that's exactly what I was doing, questioning Catbuilder's honesty, or the honesty of whoever he got the photos from. He has never shown good judgment in this thread.

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by CatBuilder

And... the reaction of the University...

http://news.yahoo.com/campus-police-...202222886.html

So where is your apology to America for the slanders you wrote, Catbuilder?

[Boston]

can't we all just get along

[Dave Gudeman]

Originally Posted by CatBuilder

Dave: since you are against the first amendment, I would have to argue that you are anti-American.

Well, first, it's crude and dishonest to accuse someone of being "against" the First Amendment just because they see a particular application of it differently from the way that you do.

Second, you are confusing "anti-American" with "un-American". A lot of people do. "Un-American" is a vague term used to refer to someone that doesn't meet your ideal of what a TRUE AMERICAN ought to be. For example, "It's un-American not to believe in the First Amendment!" or "It's un-American to criticize the president during an economic crisis!" This is just political posturing, trying to use patriotism to create reflexive, irrational prejudice against someone.

"Anti-American" is different. It means "against America" or something similar, just like anti-smoking would mean "opposed to smoking". You can be strongly pro-American and still want to change the Constitution (otherwise every change to the Constitution would be by definition anti-American). Therefore, there is nothing anti-American about being opposed to the First Amendment.

What you meant to say is that since I see these protests differently from the way that you do, I'm un-American because I don't live up to your ideal of what a True American should be. If I cared about your ideal of what a True American should be, this might be relevant. As it is, not so much.

On the other hand, I wasn't accusing you of being un-American because it never occurred to me that you or anyone else would be interested in how well you meet my ideal of what a True American should be. I said that your post was anti-American, meaning that you are against America. You despise America. You want to tear it down, make it less than it is, destroy people's confidence in it. Furthermore, if you really believe the things that you say about America, then you ought to be against America. If I believed those things, I would be against America. But I don't believe them and neither would you if you weren't predisposed in that direction.

I have no political agenda. Democrats and Republicans are all sheep, especially the extremist ones.

The second sentence shows that you do have a political agenda.

Daquiri's most recent post is another example of why I've always found myself to identity more closely with people from Europe than from the USA. Notice his careful, independent thinking process that seeks truth. He doesn't enter the discussion with some preconceived notion then try to warp reality to fit his opinion. He looks at fact and reality, then arrives at a logical conclusion. The problem with many of my fellow Americans is they don't think. They just emote.

I don't think there is any point to refuting this ridiculous sentiment, but I'll point out that believing that there is something inherently inferior about Americans is an anti-American sentiment.

Also, see that his conclusion seeks a productive solution to the problem through understanding and reason.

"just spray those commies, they deserve it." does not further any helpful solution or improvement.

Nor does the belligerent, arrogant trouble-making of the Occupy protesters further any helpful solution or improvement. Nor does your contemptuous disregard of your fellow citizens.

This is where Americans, as a people have failed badly. There is no common goal of further improvement to the society (or roads, or bridges, or education, or health care, or business climate, etc).

Another ridiculous, anti-American slander. We disagree on how to achieve those goals, but it is ridiculous to say that we don't agree on the goals.

Before you jump in, please note I also favor smaller government.

Really? That surprises me because your rhetoric sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric of people who want the government to solve all of our problems. What does government do now that you think it should stop doing? Meddling with social norms? Building roads and bridges? Education? Health care? Meddling with the business climate?

Many Americans have been indoctrinated into a pair of political ideologies and have lost the ability to think. That is crippling the country.

Another anti-American fantasy.

[IMP-ish]

It's a right to speak out. But I don't agree for example with 'occupy protesters' shutting down a port. What does stopping goods from being delivered or truck drivers from doing their job accomplish except costing honest businesses? To me that is the 1% who apparently can afford to camp out for weeks on someone's dime hurting the 70% of us who actually have to work every day for a living. That's not cool. Rally for everyone's right to have the opportunity to work to earn an honest living. Don't block that right for the rest of us.
Same if they get to the point of stopping other students from being able to get to classes they've paid for (no excuse for a few bad officers who showed bad judgement if there was no reason for them to use pepper spray there.)

[michael pierzga]

They are not " one percent" . The occupy activists speak for millions of Americans.

Universities are the seed stock for new ideas and innovation. Protest is part of this cycle.

The police officers involved in the pepper spraying didnt understand this and as a result were sent back for further education.

[IMP-ish]

They claim to speak for me, but I reject their claim that they speak for me as part of the 99% when they cause damage that I have to pay for as a taxpayer. Or when they infringe on my right to earn a living by an honest day's work. That 1% of their movement does the rest of us a disservice.

It sounds like the campus occupation was not stopping students from learning what they paid to learn, so it does seem poor policing. Hopefully the officers will be reassigned or retrained.

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by IMP-ish

It's a right to speak out. But I don't agree for example with 'occupy protesters' shutting down a port. What does stopping goods from being delivered or truck drivers from doing their job accomplish except costing honest businesses? To me that is the 1% who apparently can afford to camp out for weeks on someone's dime hurting the 70% of us who actually have to work every day for a living. That's not cool. Rally for everyone's right to have the opportunity to work to earn an honest living. Don't block that right for the rest of us.

I agree 100%. That port occupation was wrong and should have definitely been broken up. It was a lousy idea for them to begin with. The port is your enemy? What were they thinking?

Plus, I think your right to protest ends on someone's private property. Just like Hoyt said about having a right to swing your fist, until it touches his nose. If a mob of protesters enters the private property of, say, that port in Oakland they shut down, they should rightfully be dispersed and if they resist, arrested and/or pepper sprayed for non-compliance.

"It sounds like the campus occupation was not stopping students from learning what they paid to learn, so it does seem poor policing. Hopefully the officers will be reassigned or retrained." - or prosecuted for assault. Police shouldn't have a free ticket to assault people, kill people, etc.., just because they are police. There should be accountability.

[bntii]

OK cat...

Where were we


Point number one:

My point: I don't find the 'right of assembly' being violated in these cases

Your rebuttal: IMO, the right of assembly is violated when someone is prevented from peaceable protest.


This is what I have observed on this specific case-

There are two bylines which could be in the press for this story:

The first - Peaceful Student Protestors at UC Davis Assaulted by Police.

The second- Occupy Protestors at Davis Confront Police, Arrests Were Made.

Given the first byline I believe at face value one could believe the the right of student to assemble (presumably in a peaceful sit in) were violated by the police.
The photo provided in the press seems to support this conclusion as well ( a picture tells a .....)


From everything I have been able to gather this first description is inaccurate in that it provides only one small part of a several day long event which came to a conclusion in that pepper spray incident.


The second byline is the truth.
The student were not simply exercising their right to free speech/assembly, they were confronting the police.

What I gather as the events-

1) Students set up tent camp on campus
2) School administrator Linda Katehi makes the decision that the students can not be permitted to camp on the school grounds- assemble yes, camp no.
3) Several days of clear requests to students to break camp are met with refusal
4) Police are requested to come in and remove tents.

And this is where it gets interesting:

The police come onto campus, when they start to break down the tent camp they are confronted by students. Arrests are made.

At this point there are 35 police and 50 students.
The crowd rapidly swells to some two hundred students who surround the police and begin taunting them. The also close their circle and begin demanding that the police free the arrested students.

At this point the students are acting as a mob.
Carefully review the videos- the police look visibly uneasy- they crowd together and draw batons.
At some point in this a number of students form a blockade to prevent the police from moving forward down the path and out of there.
This is the sitting students. (The audio of them chanting "Fu0k the police" is not shown in the reporting....)
The police finally act to break up that blockade by pepper spraying the members and bodily removing them.

The police then exit down that path.

I provided this earlier as background on the use of police action in these kind of occurrences:

"When it becomes necessary to control the actions of a crowd that constitutes an unlawful assembly, the commitment and responsibility of law enforcement is to control lawfully, efficiently, and with minimal impact upon the community. A variety of techniques and tactics may be necessary to resolve a civil disobedience incident. Only that force which is objectively reasonable may be used to arrest violators and restore order."
http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/...Guidelines.pdf

I suggested that one force level was used over simple arrest.
I listened to a police expert who says the police skipped over "applying pain producing techniques"
Did the police first try to move the students by pinching them?
I don't know- it will come out in the hearings.

I think there is nothing to see here.
It's not a test case for police interference of 'right to assemble'
It's not a case of police brutality.

If anything it is a unfortunate (and predictable) case of putting police in a volatile crowd control situation.

If you believe the students are faultless- one is saying that no control over their actions is permitted on the campus grounds.
Either by the school administrators or the police who were needed to effect the school policy decisions.

So anarchy- but for the press lets just call it "free speech"..

Just how I see it- lets call this installment #1

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by michael pierzga

They are not " one percent" . The occupy activists speak for millions of Americans.

Universities are the seed stock for new ideas and innovation. Protest is part of this cycle.

The police officers involved in the pepper spraying didnt understand this and as a result were sent back for further education.

Yeah, 3 million. U.S population is 312,648,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Universities are the seed stock of chaos and subversion.

Protest is one thing. Civil disturbance is another.

Protest means to voice disagreement. It may progress to civil disobedience but it is not the same.

[Boston]

as usual Hoyt, yur numbers are miles off.

where in the world did you get the idea that only 1% of americans agree with the efforts of the Occupy movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_...Public_opinion

tional polls over October and November 2011 were mixed, with agreement/approval ratings for Occupy Wall Street varying from 59% to 22%, but approval was fairly consistently larger than disapproval, with large numbers often not giving an opinion. A November 3 poll done by Quinnipiac University found that just 30 percent of American voters have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not. The same poll found that among independent voters, 29 percent have a favorable view opposed to 42 percent who have an unfavorable view.[101][102]

An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released October 12th found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the occupy movement, while 18 percent "tend to oppose" it.[103] An October 13 survey by TIME magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23 percent have a negative impression. An October 18 Gallup poll found that 22 percent of Americans agree with the protest's goals, while 15 percent disapprove and the remaining 61% say they don't know enough to decide. Gallup found that Democrats, Independents and Republicans all follow the news about OWS in equal numbers, and those who closely followed OWS were more likely to approve of its goals and methods.[104] An October CBS News/New York Times polls found 43% of Americans agree with Occupy Wall Street while 27% disagree.[105] An October Rasmussen poll found an almost even split, shows that 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view, while 27 percent are unfavorable and 40 percent have no opinion.[106] An October United Technologies/National Journal Congressional poll found that 59 percent of Americans agree with the movement while 31 percent disagree.[107]

An October Quinnipiac University poll of New York City voters found that 67 percent of New Yorkers approved of the movement with 23 percent disapproving. The results also found 87 percent of New Yorkers find it OK that they are protesting.[108] Despite media criticism that the protesters views are incoherent, the poll also found that 72 percent of New York City voters understand their views.[109] A NY1-Marist Poll released November 1st showed 44 percent of New York voters supported the Occupy Wall Street movement, while only 21 percent supported the Tea Party.[110]

thats a lot of polls none of which mention anything about 1% other than to shame the ultra wealthy for there basic greed in destroying the middle class. ( Ok I added that last bit about other than )

we want an end to corporate involvement or influence in all aspects of the political process.

just as there is a separation of church and state we want a separation of corporation and state

Obviously the corporate economy isn't working out to well for the middle class. Obviously the tax burden of both small business and the individual worker is ludicrously out of balance with that of the multinationals and the financial elite. Obviously if the corporations are allowed to continue in the manor they have, there won't be much left but a peasant and an elite class.

Our present political situation which at one time might have been best described as a corporate oligarchy has deteriorated into what was best described by a rather unsavory chap went by the name of Benito Mussolini

[GTO]

to wit:

The philosopher and lover of man have much harm to say of trade; but the historian will see that trade was the principle of Liberty; that trade planted America and destroyed Feudalism; that it makes peace and keeps peace, and it will abolish slavery. We complain of its oppression of the poor, and of its building up a new aristocracy on the ruins of the aristocracy it destroyed. But the aristocracy of trade has no permanence, is not entailed, was the result of toil and talent, the result of merit of some kind, and is continually falling, like the waves of the sea, before new claims of the same sort.

Ralph W. Emerson

Does mankind ever come up with any new reasons to hate another? The history of man just seems to be repetitive cycles of the old arguments repackaged in the latest fashions.

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by GTO

Does mankind ever come up with any new reasons to hate another? The history of man just seems to be repetitive cycles of the old arguments repackaged in the latest fashions.

It's the 70th year since the publication of my favourite US novel: "The Grapes of Wrath", and the issues are not far different today

And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Boston

we want an end to corporate involvement or influence in all aspects of the political process.

just as there is a separation of church and state we want a separation of corporation and state

Beautiful motives, with some ugly ramifications of late.

I like that Mussolini quote, fits the situation well.