Police mace the hell out of peaceful OWS protesters

[MotionMan]

MM, the threat was illegal.

Just because it has not been to court yet does not absolve guilt.

The act, as compared to legal precedent, was illegal. An exaggeration would be offering them to disperse or die.

"Well, they chose to die".

The spray was substantially more "humane" than death. But it was also more humane than being skinned alive, whipped, set on fire, or beaten to a bloody pulp. ALL of which are illegal as well.

It is NOT more humane than gradually pulling them apart (no yanking, breaking bones, etc). Are there risks? Yes, there are for every act. but the same cameras that showed him nonchalantly dusting the crops would have also shown the cops slowly dissembling the human chain, reading their rights, and taking them away. Something any judge would have ruled in their favor.

This, however, they will not.

The ONLY hope they have is if they say that the vid is technically inadmissible because it disobeyed some law (copyright or on-property filming) or some other technicality.

The order to disperse was legal (proper in cases of trespassing and other similar situations not requiring a judicial determination).

The threat to use pepper spray has not been determined to be illegal, yet. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? not all uses of pepper spray are illegal, accordingly, as far at the protesters were concerned, they were given a legal order with the threat of legal consequences.

MotionMan

 

[Away]

Wow, Phokus is an douchebag!

ftfy

 

[MotionMan]

The legal instruction was to disperse. Attaching an illegal threat is a no-no, according to you.

The instruction was and remains legal.
The threat has yet to be determined illegal, but does not make the instruction any less legal.

Haha, then shut your pie hole.

Why? The threat has not been determined to be illegal.

Following through on the threat sure was illegal. As the legal precedent showed.

To be determined.

I hope you're talking to yourself, because the only one who's been wrong is you.

Nope. You have been wrong from the get-go.

What more video do you need? Seems like the facts are pretty laid bare. The officers made an order, the protestors didn't follow it, the protestors SURELY weren't violent or threatening (being seated down and not moving), and the officers spray them at really close range.

Just like someone like you to not want to see the whole picture. Typical.

MotionMan

 

[Phokus]

The instruction was and remains legal.
The threat has yet to be determined illegal, but does not make the instruction any less legal.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.



Why? The threat has not been determined to be illegal.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.


To be determined.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.


Nope. You have been wrong from the get-go.

Sure thing. Hey, remember when you were wrong about the students winning the lawsuit? And also wrong about being right? And then you even HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE that i was right? L...O...L


Just like someone like you to not want to see the whole picture. Typical.

Just like someone who doesn't want to admit he's wrong because he's too prideful. Why don't you put another -esq at the end of your post, as if that means anything other than you being an embarrassingly awful lawyer

MotionMan

Char

 

[sandorski]

Picked up with what, a crane?

These Cops Armless? 😵

 

[sandorski]

Have a couple people lock arms and then try to pull them apart without hurting them. It's very hard and no matter how careful you are you're going to bang the person up a bit, people don't have handles.

Far less likely to harm them then hosing their faces with Pepper.

Cops used to deal with these situations before Pepper Spray. I don't recall any furor over people being hurt.

 

[twinrider1]

What is the statute for this federal law I keep reading about.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally Posted by MotionMan
The instruction was and remains legal.
The threat has yet to be determined illegal, but does not make the instruction any less legal.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.

Federal law says that the actions of the cops have been found to be illegal in a trial of those cops?

Are you sure you have any idea how our legal system works?

Why? The threat has not been determined to be illegal.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.

I missed the trial?

To be determined.

Sorry, federal law says you're wrong.

When was the trial?

Nope. You have been wrong from the get-go.

Sure thing. Hey, remember when you were wrong about the students winning the lawsuit? And also wrong about being right? L...O...L

Nope. I have been right all along.

Just like someone like you to not want to see the whole picture. Typical.

Just like someone who doesn't want to admit he's wrong because he's too prideful. Why don't you put another -esq at the end of your post, as if that means anything other than you being an embarrassingly awful lawyer

I am not wrong. You are wrong. Nothing has been determined. There is no Federal Law that says these actions were illegal. None. There has been no trial so, under the law, the cops are guilty of NOTHING. You may have an opinion, but you are wrong if you think that anything has been determined.

And you can try to insult my ability as an attorney, but, again, you would be wrong.

MotionMan, Esq.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is a question for Phokus and Ninjahedge primarily: At what point does the use of pepper spray become justified with non-violent offenders who refuse a legal order to leave? You've mentioned that police can physically remove protestors one at a time, arrest them and jail them, which is presumably going to be less painful for the protestors than being pepper sprayed. But at a certain point, that ceases to be reasonable; what if you have a limited number of police officers available? Say you have a crowd of hundreds and can only remove 20 or so an hour. Is it reasonable that the protestors be allowed to remain for days while you slowly remove them? At what point, if any, do you feel that the use of less-than-lethal means (like pepper spray, beanbag shotguns, rubber bullets, tasers and the like) are reasonable to use on people who refuse to obey a lawful order to disperse?

 

[Phokus]

What is the statute for this federal law I keep reading about.

Non-violent protesters do not surrender their Fourth Amendment Rights to be free from excessive force by police. Specifically, non-violent protesters may sue police and the municipality of county that employs them under this Federal law, 42 United States Code Section 1983 if they have been pepper sprayed while peacefully protesting, whether or not the protesters were arrested.

This includes police officers. Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over any cases brought against the police for their actions in Seattle and Oakland.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/11/16/211132/23

TLDR Translation: The case is cut and dry and motionman is the worst fucking lawyer in the world.

 

[Phokus]

Federal law says that the actions of the cops have been found to be illegal in a trial of those cops?

Are you sure you have any idea how our legal system works?

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit



I missed the trial?

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit


When was the trial?

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit


Nope. I have been right all along.

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit


I am not wrong. You are wrong. Nothing has been determined. There is no Federal Law that says these actions were illegal. None. There has been no trial so, under the law, the cops are guilty of NOTHING. You may have an opinion, but you are wrong if you think that anything has been determined.

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit


And you can try to insult my ability as an attorney, but, again, you would be wrong.

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit


MotionMan, Esq.

Char. take a seat.

 

[SandEagle]

The involved officers should be tried for treason.

 

[Phokus]

This is a question for Phokus and Ninjahedge primarily: At what point does the use of pepper spray become justified with non-violent offenders who refuse a legal order to leave? You've mentioned that police can physically remove protestors one at a time, arrest them and jail them, which is presumably going to be less painful for the protestors than being pepper sprayed. But at a certain point, that ceases to be reasonable; what if you have a limited number of police officers available? Say you have a crowd of hundreds and can only remove 20 or so an hour. Is it reasonable that the protestors be allowed to remain for days while you slowly remove them? At what point, if any, do you feel that the use of less-than-lethal means (like pepper spray, beanbag shotguns, rubber bullets, tasers and the like) are reasonable to use on people who refuse to obey a lawful order to disperse?

Legally speaking? If they're being non-violent, then they can't use pepper spray on them, see above. Stop being lazy and physically detain them. I would MUCh rather have them do that than spray 2 million scoville units into my eyes.

Let me rephrase your question: "At what point does the use of live ammuniation become justified with non-violent offenders who refuse a legal order to leave?"

 

[Printer Bandit]

rest your case, counselor.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Legally speaking? If they're being non-violent, then they can't use pepper spray on them, see above. Stop being lazy and physically detain them. I would MUCh rather have them do that than spray 2 million scoville units into my eyes.

Let me rephrase your question: "At what point does the use of live ammuniation become justified with non-violent offenders who refuse a legal order to leave?"

So you feel that less-than-lethal alternatives are the same as live ammunition when discussing non-violent offenders. What if the police force is not large enough to force a dispersal of a crowd that has gathered illegally? You feel that if they are unable to disperse the crowd through physically moving them, they have no other options and the illegal crowd should simply be allowed to remain?

 

[DayLaPaul]

Finally 440 posts later you guys finally are starting to argue Lundberg vs Humbolt. All that shit in between was just useless babble. Since that case seems to be the backbone of Phokus' argument, it would make sense that if you disagree with him, you'd attack that case and show how it doesn't apply to this incident.

Motionman did suggest that the application of the pepper spray with Q-tips in Lundberg was what made it illegal, but that was just a one sentence response. I'm interested to see what more he has to say about it.

 

[Phokus]

So you feel that less-than-lethal alternatives are the same as live ammunition when discussing non-violent offenders. What if the police force is not large enough to force a dispersal of a crowd that has gathered illegally? You feel that if they are unable to disperse the crowd through physically moving them, they have no other options and the illegal crowd should simply be allowed to remain?

Like i said, use the standard 5 on 1 technique to detain them.

Call for backup

Just because it's 'annoying' and 'time consuming' doesn't give the cops a legal justification to use an illegal means of dispersing/arresting the crowd, as long as the protestors are being peaceful.

 

[jlee]

Char. take a seat.

Perhaps you should've read more carefully.

Specifically, the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters in the case of Lundberg v. Humboldt, which is the controlling precedent in the 9th Circuit

Court rulings are not traditionally overwhelmingly broad in scope, and are specific to unique circumstances. Until a court determines that this case should fall under the scope of Lundberg v. Humboldt, you cannot conclusively assume that it does.

 

[Phokus]

Perhaps you should've read more carefully.



Court rulings are not traditionally overwhelmingly broad in scope, and are specific to unique circumstances. Until a court determines that this case should fall under the scope of Lundberg v. Humboldt, you cannot conclusively assume that it does.

Sure, don't bold the other parts (you know, the relevant ones):

"the use of pepper spay by law enforcement against non-violent protestors has been found to be a violation of of the 4th amendment rights of the protesters"


We've established

a) A legal order to move was made

b) The protestors didn't

c) The protestors were seated and locked their arms

d) The protestors showed no sign of violence/aggression (you know, because they were seated and not really moving, and not making verbal threats).

e) The officer followed through on his threat to use pepper spray.

You don't think that legal precedent would be cited and directly applicable here? You don't think the legal precedent was based on established law (like, say, oh i don't know, the constitution?). I guess technically speaking, the world might end tomorrow too. Hey there's always a chance!

 

[Phokus]

Waste of time today, i'm taking a break.

 

[jlee]

The sentence requires the whole of itself to have proper context. You can't pick and choose parts and say they conclusively apply without regard to the entirety of the statement.

 

[DayLaPaul]

Perhaps you should've read more carefully.



Court rulings are not traditionally overwhelmingly broad in scope, and are specific to unique circumstances. Until a court determines that this case should fall under the scope of Lundberg v. Humboldt, you cannot conclusively assume that it does.

Exactly. This is what they should have been arguing from the start, as soon as it was presented back in post #228. I don't understand why it's taken them so long to finally get down to brass tacks.

At face value, it appears that the cases are similar. Both were non-violent protesters. Both were given lawful orders to disperse. The Lundberg case seems to be even worse in that they were clearly trespassing on private property and even had "bear claws" mechanically connecting them.

Of course there are some glaring differences as well. In Lundberg, we have the Q-Tip application method, we had police pepper spraying at point blank range when the directions on the bottle stated 3+ feet, we had police giving protesters a 5 minute warning and then blasting them after 2 only minutes.

 

[MotionMan]

Finally 440 posts later you guys finally are starting to argue Lundberg vs Humbolt. All that shit in between was just useless babble. Since that case seems to be the backbone of Phokus' argument, it would make sense that if you disagree with him, you'd attack that case and show how it doesn't apply to this incident.

Motionman did suggest that the application of the pepper spray with Q-tips in Lundberg was what made it illegal, but that was just a one sentence response. I'm interested to see what more he has to say about it.

With my ADD, reading comprehension problems and lacking legal skills, I was only able to find the following from the Lundberg cases:

"The facts reflect that: (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors; (2) the officers could safely and quickly remove the protestors, while in “black bears,” from protest sites; and (3) the officers could remove the “black bears” with electric grinders in a matter of minutes and without causing pain or injury to the protestors."

"The three other protesters, including one who announced that she had asthma, then voluntarily released."

"Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” "

"t would have been clear to any reasonable officer that defendants' refusal to wash out the protestors' eyes with water constituted excessive force under the circumstances....In two of the protests, officers threatened that they would not provide the protestors with water to wash out their eyes until they released themselves from the “black bears,” and in one of the protests, the officers did not provide the protestors with water for over twenty minutes. Spraying the protestors with pepper spray and then allowing them to suffer without providing them water is clearly excessive under the circumstances."

"As we have repeatedly said, whether the force used to effect an arrest is reasonable “is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” ... Although excessive force cases can be decided as a matter of law, they rarely are because the Fourth Amendment test for reasonableness is inherently fact-specific. ... It is a test that escapes “mechanical application” and “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” ... and thus naturally favors jury resolution."


These cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis and are very fact specific. They are determined by juries, not public opinion. Nothing has been determined and the result of any trial is not a sure thing for either side. However, the facts of the present cases differ enough from Lundberg that Lundberg may not apply at all.

BTW, in Jackson v. City of Bremerton (2001) 268 F.3d 646, 625 FN3, the Court said the following:

"We did not decide whether the use of pepper spray constituted excessive force in that case (Lundberg). Instead, we considered whether the district court erred in directing a verdict for the municipal defendants in light of the evidence in the record. Because the record in that case contained “vigorously disputed” facts and raised substantial questions regarding the reasonableness of using pepper spray against a small group of passive demonstrators, we held that on the record the district court erred."

MotionMan, Esq.

 

[wkabel23]

I've enjoyed the contrast between Phokus and MotionMan's posts. One person's post is filled with childish insults, CAPS, and even BOLD CAPS (LOUD NOISES), conclusory statements, and a complete lack of understand of case law and precedent.

I respect MotionMan's continued effort to respond reasonably to Phokus. The childish nature of Phokus' posts undermines his ability to effectively convey a point (but hasn't stopped him yet!).

I am not a licensed attorney in CA, but will look over the Humbolt case and resulting interpretations of that case. I believe someone earlier mentioned that Humbolt does not stand for the proposition that use of pepper spray on peaceful protesters is per se unreasonable. Since Phokus has concluded the LEOs are clearly guilty this case likely won't be tried 😉

 

[OrByte]

why are you guys arguing legality?

the problem isn't the legality of police to use force to remove the protesters.

The problem is the procedures that the school thinks are obviously flawed, when dealing with peaceful protesters. Even the President of the UC Chancellors is saying that the policies need to be reviewed.

"did the punishment fit the crime" that is what the UC school system is asking itself. That is why 3 police employees are on administrative leave.