Police mace the hell out of peaceful OWS protesters

[MotionMan]

Why don't you bring it to a logical conclusion you idiot. Nothing you said is something i've argued against.

So, if the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave and/or they would be arrested, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having force applied and to possibly being arrested?

MotionMan

 

[Phokus]

1) Ask
2) Tell
3) Make

Make involves less than lethal measures. In this case the less than lethal measure decided upon was pepper spray.

I'd suggest you and your bum friends spend a little time working on doing what the nice man with the badge tells you to do. You wouldnt act like an petulant child during a traffic stop so dont do it during your protest.

Sorry, federal law says otherwise. There wouldn't be outrage if the officers just physicially unhoooked the students and arrested them.

 

[Phokus]

So, if the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave and/or they would be arrested, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having force applied and to possibly being arrested?

MotionMan

Repeat:

Why don't you bring it to a logical conclusion you idiot. Nothing you said is something i've argued against.

 

[Ichinisan]

Option 1 (spray) leaves you with a clean arrest record and your future prospects are not impacted, but you'll experience VERY temporary discomfort.

Option 2 (arrest) will stick with you for life...even if you're not hurt or injured (and it's likely that you WILL be hurt). You will also probably incur legal expenses.

I choose option # 1. No contest.

Getting Pepper Sprayed in the face doesn't mean you won't get arrested. You're not very good at this.

They were ordered to leave and pepper spray was used to this end. It's clear that no one wanted to make arrests.

You're not very good at this.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-davis-protest-police-pepper-spray.html

[size=+3]You're not very good at this[/size]

Now quick, someone point out how Ichinisan is 'owning' me!

Some people disperse when sprayed. These did not; and they were arrested.

 

[Phokus]

Some people disperse when sprayed. These did not; and they were arrested.

You implied that if you got sprayed (versus having to physically remove me), i wouldn't get arrested/have a record, base on your response to me. Obviously, if you're sitting down and gagging on pepper spray and you're the main target of the pepper spray, the cops are going to arrest you for not moving, no matter what.

If i had the option of a cop torquing my arm versus getting pepper sprayed in the fucking face with 2 million plus scoville units, i know which one i'm going to take (it's not the pepper spray).

Option 1 (spray) leaves you with a clean arrest record and your future prospects are not impacted, but you'll experience VERY temporary discomfort.

Option 2 (arrest) will stick with you for life...even if you're not hurt or injured (and it's likely that you WILL be hurt). You will also probably incur legal expenses.

[size=+5]YOU'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS[/size]

 

[Ninjahedge]

They were ordered to leave and pepper spray was used to this end. It's clear that no one wanted to make arrests.

You're not very good at this.

Actually, that is side stepping the issue.

Pepperspray has been ordered by various statutes and codes of conduct to only be used "when needed". Not "whenever".

The guy was a fat cop with moobs that did not have the upper body strength to pull apart to people with linked arms blocking a sidewalk, so he decided to hurt them as much as he could w/o hitting them.

the argument here is not the right of assembly. It is not trespassing, it is not the arrests. It is the inhumane treatment of PASSIVE protesters by the cops.

Every time the issue gets changed to something else, like the definition of "violent" or "Was what they were doing illegal" it signals that a straitforward proof cannot be achieved by the "yea" sayers.

 

[MotionMan]

Repeat:

Why don't you bring it to a logical conclusion you idiot. Nothing you said is something i've argued against.

I need and answer to the question:

If the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave and/or they would be arrested, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having force applied and to possibly being arrested?

MotionMan

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Out of curiosity, if this were the 60s, wouldnt they just be fire hosed down? And then, who would be in the right?

 

[Phokus]

I need and answer to the question:

If the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave and/or they would be arrested, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having force applied and to possibly being arrested?

MotionMan

Yes, but this line of argumentation is a waste of time.

 

[Phokus]

Out of curiosity, if this were the 60s, wouldnt they just be fire hosed down? And then, who would be in the right?

http://images.google.com/search?tbm...4261l0l4397l28l20l3l8l10l2l313l1379l2-3.2l5l0

Heh. Those were some iconic images. I'm guessing shithead conservatives would certainly say the authorities were in the right (morally).

 

[Red Squirrel]

I'm just going to leave this here. I found it amusing.

 

[MotionMan]

Yes, but this line of argumentation is a waste of time.

So, if the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave, and they were told exactly what kind of force was going to be used, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having that kind of force applied?

MotionMan

 

[Phokus]

So, if the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave, and they were told exactly why kind of force was going to be used, by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having that kind of force applied?

MotionMan

There was a story a while back about how a woman was arrested by an officer and the officer told her that if she didn't perform a sexual act on him, he would take her off to jail. The woman consented.

Guess how that line of argumentation worked?

 

[MotionMan]

There was a story a while back about how a woman was arrested by an officer and the officer told her that if she didn't perform a sexual act on him, he would take her off to jail. The woman consented.

Guess how that line of argumentation worked?

Under those circumstances, she did not "consent" as she had little choice in the situation. Her alternatives were to comply with an illegal order or go to jail.

The protesters had the choices of complying with a legal order or getting pepper-sprayed.

MotionMan

 

[Phokus]

Under those circumstances, she did not "consent" as she had little choice in the situation. Her alternatives were to comply with an illegal order or go to jail.

The protesters had the choices of complying with a legal order or getting pepper-sprayed.

MotionMan

Using pepper spray in that situation is illegal as well, as shown by the federal law (and resulting lawsuit in a similar situation).

Let me reword what you said to take your argument to it's logical conclusion:

So, if the protesters were, in conjunction with the legal order to leave, told, that, if they did not leave, force was going to be used to make them leave, and they were told exactly why kind of force was going to be used (that being, opening fire on them), by not leaving, they impliedly consented to having live amunition used on them?

In either case, this does not absolve the officer from following the law in terms of what force is justified in that particular situation.

 

[MotionMan]

Using pepper spray in that situation is illegal as well, as shown by the federal law (and resulting lawsuit in a similar situation).

Except the use of pepper spray was avoidable by the protesters. The illegal advances by the other cop were, arguably, not avoidable by the woman.

Let me reword what you said to take your argument to it's logical conclusion:

In either case, this does not absolve the officer from following the law in terms of what force is justified in that particular situation.

Would you agree that, if given a warning that they will be fired up, and the protesters, nonetheless, remained, that would be pretty stupid of the protesters and they would have to take at least some of the blame for remaining?

MotionMan

 

[sourceninja]

Except the use of pepper spray was avoidable by the protesters. The illegal advances by the other cop were, arguably, not avoidable by the woman.


MotionMan

Couldn't she had just picked going to jail? I know I would....

I don't feel bad for her at all, she had a choice.

 

[Phokus]

Except the use of pepper spray was avoidable by the protesters. The illegal advances by the other cop were, arguably, not avoidable by the woman.



Would you agree that, if given a warning that they will be fired up, and the protesters, nonetheless, remained, that would be pretty stupid of the protesters and they would have to take at least some of the blame for remaining?

MotionMan

Let me ask a question to answer your previous question:

Can you implicitly consent to an illegal threat? Meaning does that by implicitly giving your consent to an illegal threat, does that absolve the officers of any legal punishment if they follow through with that illegal threat? I am not a lawyer, but i'm 99% sure that's not the case, so your point is moot. And i sure as fuck hope you don't represent people as a criminal defense attorney.

Nobody said the protestors didn't have 'responsibility', but the amount of responsibility is much greater on the officers of the law.

 

[MotionMan]

Couldn't she had just picked going to jail? I know I would....

I don't feel bad for her at all, she had a choice.

For some, going to jail is worse than giving a BJ. I don't believe she had any real choice at all.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Let me ask a question to answer your previous question:

Can you implicitly consent to an illegal threat? Meaning does that by implicitly giving your consent to an illegal threat, does that absolve the officers of any legal punishment if they follow through with that illegal threat? I am not a lawyer, but i'm 99% sure that's not the case, so your point is moot. And i sure as fuck hope you don't represent people as a criminal defense attorney.

Nobody said the protestors didn't have 'responsibility', but the amount of responsibility is much greater on the officers of the law.

You have a duty to avoid avoidable injury, to mitigate your damages and, most of all, to comply with the legal instructions of law enforcement.

It has not been determined that the use of pepper spray was illegal (though you seem to think it has). Accordingly, at the time, the protesters were given a legal order, given a warning that presumably legal force was going to be used and they failed to leave.

Until proven otherwise, this is all on the protesters.

MotionMan

 

[Phokus]

You have a duty to avoid avoidable injury, to mitigate your damages and, most of all, to comply with the legal instructions of law enforcement.

It has not been determined that the use of pepper spray was illegal (though you seem to think it has). Accordingly, at the time, the protesters were given a legal order, given a warning that presumably legal force was going to be used and they failed to leave.

Until proven otherwise, this is all on the protesters.

MotionMan

Bolded for posterity.

And you haven't answered the question. Can you consent to an illegal threat and does that give the officers the legal right to follow through on that threat without legal reprecussions? Sounds like you're just trying to lawyer it away and avoid the question.


And i sure as hell do believe it's illegal, based on LEGAL PRECEDENT.

You don't have to answer this question, because i HIGHLY doubt i'd get an honest answer from you, but if you were forced to wager half your wealth on whether or not the students would win a lawsuit against the police department, would you seriously bet that they would fail their case, given the legal precedent before?

 

[MotionMan]

Bolded for posterity.

The legal instruction was to disperse. You already agreed to that.

And you haven't answered the question. Can you consent to an illegal threat and does that give the officers the legal right to follow through on that threat without legal reprecussions? Sounds like you're just trying to lawyer it away and avoid the question.

The answer is No. Of course, in this case, the threat has not been determined to be illegal and the protesters probably did not believe the threat was illegal at the time.

And i sure as hell do believe it's illegal, based on LEGAL PRECEDENT.

You don't have to answer this question, because i HIGHLY doubt i'd get an honest answer from you,

Wrong again.

but if you were forced to wager half your wealth on whether or not the students would win a lawsuit against the police department, would you seriously bet that they would fail their case, given the legal precedent before?

I will discuss that bet with you when we both have a chance to review all the available video.

MotionMan

 

[Ninjahedge]

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.

 

[Phokus]

The legal instruction was to disperse. You already agreed to that.

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

The answer is No.

Haha, then shut your pie hole.

Of course, in this case, the threat has not been determined to be illegal and the protesters probably did not believe the threat was illegal at the time.

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

Wrong again.

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

I will discuss that bet with you when we both have a chance to review all the available video.

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.

 

[Phokus]

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.

I think this is a case where MotionMan has dug a hole from himself and he's unwilling to admit he's wrong because he's emotionally invested in this.

I think he's in full lawyer mode where he has to present a zelous defense (in this case, of his stupid argument) as if he's legally obligated to do, thus you get the batshit crazy arguments from him.