Police mace the hell out of peaceful OWS protesters

[torpid]

1. The video did not show anyone being sprayed repeatedly (i.e. minutes between spraying) and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being sprayed repeatedly;
2. The video did not show anyone being sprayed down their throat and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being sprayed down the throat;
3. The video did not show anyone being denied treatment and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being denied treatment.

If true, however, it would more closely resemble Lundberg, which, of course, would just mean the facts should be presented to a jury.

MotionMan

I didn't know repeatedly had such a specific definition/meaning in the Humboldt case. The video I saw certainly shows the same people being sprayed multiple times in a row. I believe they also sprayed someone they had laid out on the ground already, but I might be mistaken (blocked at work).

I agree with your conclusion, "repeatedly" notwithstanding; I just thought it was interesting how similar some of the events and alleged events were.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Let's say you drive a $50,000 car and get a parking ticket which you do not dispute was legally given. You are told, if you do not pay for the ticket and tow/storage charge of $200, which you do not dispute is legal, your car will eventually be sold.

You refuse.

You are warned again. Simply pay the $200 and you will get your car back, otherwise, it will be sold.

You refuse.

Eventually, the car is sold (I am not sure how much one gets back in such a situation, if anything, but assume that, if you get back anything, it is far less than $50,000.)

For the want of you paying $200, you lost a $50,000 car.

So, you argue, the punishment is disproportionate to the offense committed. I say you were an idiot and should have just paid the $200 when given the chance.

MotionMan

Sorry, the implications of car fines and civil rights are not one in the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I've been towed before, and been charged an exorbitant amount of money to retrieve my car. Did I think it was a fair amount of money? Nope. Did I pay it and move along? Yup. I don't know of any legal authority that would suggest any constitutional rights are implicated in assessing car fines.

 

[Corporate Thug]

1. The video did not show anyone being sprayed repeatedly (i.e. minutes between spraying) and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being sprayed repeatedly;
2. The video did not show anyone being sprayed down their throat and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being sprayed down the throat;
3. The video did not show anyone being denied treatment and no one has linked to any video or direct quote about someone being denied treatment.

If true, however, it would more closely resemble Lundberg, which, of course, would just mean the facts should be presented to a jury.

MotionMan

Or just don't do shit that would lead a case being presented to a jury...this has been my point throughout this entire thread.

 

[torpid]

Let's say you drive a $50,000 car and get a parking ticket which you do not dispute was legally given. You are told, if you do not pay for the ticket and tow/storage charge of $200, which you do not dispute is legal, your car will eventually be sold.

You refuse.

You are warned again. Simply pay the $200 and you will get your car back, otherwise, it will be sold.

You refuse.

Eventually, the car is sold (I am not sure how much one gets back in such a situation, if anything, but assume that, if you get back anything, it is far less than $50,000.)

For the want of you paying $200, you lost a $50,000 car.

So, you argue, the punishment is disproportionate to the offense committed. I say you were an idiot and should have just paid the $200 when given the chance.

In your analogy, to the best of my knowledge, most of the actions taken against "me" are actually done in court well after the initial incident. A more apt scenario would involve the police office who wrote the ticket in your scenario threatening to and then actually selling your car on the spot.

 

[MotionMan]

I didn't know repeatedly had such a specific definition/meaning in the Humboldt case. The video I saw certainly shows the same people being sprayed multiple times in a row. I believe they also sprayed someone they had laid out on the ground already, but I might be mistaken (blocked at work).

That was the "repeatedly" referenced in the Lundberg case. I do not believe that the same spraying up and down the line in a waving motion would qualify as "repeatedly".

I agree with your conclusion, "repeatedly" notwithstanding; I just thought it was interesting how similar some of the events and alleged events were.

Important part bolded.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Sorry, the implications of car fines and civil rights are not one in the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I did not start the parking ticket analogy, Ninjahedge did. I was just responding.

It is disproportionate to the offense committed. Just like illegal parking. You give a ticket, then tow. You do not hit the car with a bat or throw a stink bomb through a broken window.

I've been towed before, and been charged an exorbitant amount of money to retrieve my car. Did I think it was a fair amount of money? Nope. Did I pay it and move along? Yup. I don't know of any legal authority that would suggest any constitutional rights are implicated in assessing car fines.

Nor I. I did not bring it up.

MotionMan

 

[torpid]

Important part bolded.

Not that important; I stated it repeatedly. Unless the students had researched the case law, I doubt they intentionally fabricated things to match up with that case. I do think there is a high likelihood that the UC Davis police did not administer treatment in a timely manner to every single student, due to sheer logistics.

 

[MotionMan]

Or just don't do shit that would lead a case being presented to a jury...this has been my point throughout this entire thread.

Easier said than done. You should know that.

No matter what the cops did to remove the protesters, there would have been outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits. If they were "deadlifted" apart and an arm was broken or shoulder dislocated, do you really think there would not be outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits? Really?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

In your analogy, to the best of my knowledge, most of the actions taken against "me" are actually done in court well after the initial incident. A more apt scenario would involve the police office who wrote the ticket in your scenario threatening to and then actually selling your car on the spot.

I disagree. I like my analogy.

In any event, in your analogy, if the cop legally said, "Either write a check to the City for $200 or your car will be sold today", and gave you ample time to comply and you had the ability to comply, you failed to comply and your car gets sold, people would claim that the punishment was disproportionate to the offense committed.

MotionMan

 

[Corporate Thug]

Easier said than done. You should know that.

No matter what the cops did to remove the protesters, there would have been outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits. If they were "deadlifted" apart and an arm was broken or shoulder dislocated, do you really think there would not be outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits? Really?

MotionMan

I think I answered this before . From all the "occupy" events that are happening around campuses all across the US, I don't there has been any outrage remotely on the same level as the Davis incident.


We just have a difference of opinion here is all.

 

[MotionMan]

Not that important; I stated it repeatedly. Unless the students had researched the case law, I doubt they intentionally fabricated things to match up with that case. I do think there is a high likelihood that the UC Davis police did not administer treatment in a timely manner to every single student, due to sheer logistics.

I have not seen or heard any firsthand allegations of such acts.

Also, the standard is not "timeliness" of treatment. In Lundberg, treatment was withheld. If treatment is delayed due to logistics, that is not the fault of the cops.

MotionMan

 

[Phoenix86]

Easier said than done. You should know that.

No matter what the cops did to remove the protesters, there would have been outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits. If they were "deadlifted" apart and an arm was broken or shoulder dislocated, do you really think there would not be outrage, suspensions, investigations and lawsuits? Really?

MotionMan

Absolutely, the papers would have read "Police manhandle non-violent protestors", "Police injure non-violent protestors", etc. I expect the outrage would have been worse.

 

[Corporate Thug]

I have not seen or heard any firsthand allegations of such acts.

Also, the standard is not "timeliness" of treatment. In Lundberg, treatment was withheld. If treatment is delayed due to logistics, that is not the fault of the cops.

MotionMan

I haven't heard anything about treatment being withheld but generally speaking, it sure would be hard to explain a delay based on logistics when you have facilities on campus...

 

[MotionMan]

I haven't heard anything about treatment being withheld but generally speaking, it sure would be hard to explain a delay based on logistics when you have facilities on campus...

I did not bring it up. I was responding to speculation by torpid.

Not that important; I stated it repeatedly. Unless the students had researched the case law, I doubt they intentionally fabricated things to match up with that case. I do think there is a high likelihood that the UC Davis police did not administer treatment in a timely manner to every single student, due to sheer logistics.

MotionMan

 

[Ninjahedge]

The car analogy, as initially presented, was appropriate.

You are given a ticket, then towed. You do not have your car sprayed with something that will damage it, you do not have your tires flattened, you do not have excessive almost retributive action taken upon you for something like that.

You DO pay the fine for the offense committed.

The thing is, you do not take the analogy and re-assign it to something that does not fit, then blame the originator for your misdirection.

 

[MotionMan]

I think I answered this before . From all the "occupy" events that are happening around campuses all across the US, I don't there has been any outrage remotely on the same level as the Davis incident.

These are honest questions as I have not read every article about this:

1. Were Occupy protesters who were locking arms removed by force by LOE?
2. If so, have any protesters claimed to have suffered a broken arm, dislocated shoulder or any lesser injuries?
3. Were any LOE reported injured?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

The car analogy, as initially presented, was appropriate.

You are given a ticket, then towed. You do not have your car sprayed with something that will damage it, you do not have your tires flattened, you do not have excessive almost retributive action taken upon you for something like that.

You DO pay the fine for the offense committed.

The thing is, you do not take the analogy and re-assign it to something that does not fit, then blame the originator for your misdirection.

Fine. In your analogy, were you given a legal instruction to move your car? Were you told that, if you did not move your car, it was going to be damaged? Were you given the opportunity to move the car before it was damaged? Did you knowingly refuse to move your car after being told that it would be damaged if you refused to move it?

MotionMan

 

[torpid]

I have not seen or heard any firsthand allegations of such acts.

Have you heard of second-hand allegations? I have seen a couple from interviews with students who were there or who were pepper sprayed. I don't think it should matter whether you didn't administer treatment due to logistics, BTW. If you don't have the logistics in place to administer treatment for a mass pepper spraying, then don't do it. It should be part of the plan from the start.

 

[MotionMan]

Have you heard of second-hand allegations? I have seen a couple from interviews with students who were there or who were pepper sprayed. I don't think it should matter whether you didn't administer treatment due to logistics, BTW. If you don't have the logistics in place to administer treatment for a mass pepper spraying, then don't do it. It should be part of the plan from the start.

Wait, wait, wait...

Honest question:

Have there been allegations that medical treatment was not timely, delayed or withheld?

MotionMan

 

[Corporate Thug]

I did not bring it up. I was responding to speculation by torpid.



MotionMan

Not saying you did Motion, just responding to the speculation myself.

 

[Corporate Thug]

These are honest questions as I have not read every article about this:

1. Were Occupy protesters who were locking arms removed by force by LOE?
2. If so, have any protesters claimed to have suffered a broken arm, dislocated shoulder or any lesser injuries?
3. Were any LOE reported injured?

MotionMan

Looks like I checked out for the day...what's LOE again?

 

[actuarial]

Fine. In your analogy, were you given a legal instruction to move your car? Were you told that, if you did not move your car, it was going to be damaged? Were you given the opportunity to move the car before it was damaged? Did you knowingly refuse to move your car after being told that it would be damaged if you refused to move it?

MotionMan

Just because an officer gives an instruction, and gives advance notice of a specific action if the instruction is not followed, does not give immunity to the officer from going through with that action.

In the case of a car, if an officer gives you a legal instruction to move your car, then tells you if you did not they are going to illegally damage your car, then gives you the opportunity to move your car before illegally damaging it, and then illegally damages your car when you refuse to move it, the damage done to the car is still illegal.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Fine. In your analogy, were you given a legal instruction to move your car?

The sign I parked in front of.

Please, don't split hairs with me, I will argue every single one of them until they crumble in your hands... and that just ain't fun.

Were you told that, if you did not move your car, it was going to be damaged?

Superfluous.

The argument was in two stages:

1. Was what they did out of proportion to the offense committed.
2. Does SAYING you are going to do something wrong make it right?

So SAYING you are going to bash a car has no relevance to this particular analogy. In addition, if the sign said "If you park here we will light your car on fire" does not make it legal to do so.

Were you given the opportunity to move the car before it was damaged? Did you knowingly refuse to move your car after being told that it would be damaged if you refused to move it?

You are going further and further from the point of the analogy. Why don't you argue about the car being inorganic, a possession and a living thing. Why don't you introduce a bunch of other conditions I was not in order to compare the ENTIRE incident to a smaller aspect I was examining.

This is NOT a direct comparison to the entire episode at Davis, just the measuring of "appropriate action" or "measured response" that cops are SUPPOSED to practice.

MotionMan

Why do you sign your own posts when your name is at the top of it to begin with? You afraid people will not know who posted it?

 

[MotionMan]

Looks like I checked out for the day...what's LOE again?

LOL - Spellchecks way of fixing LEO (Law Enforcement Officer).

MotionMan

 

[Ninjahedge]

Wait, wait, wait...

Honest question:

Have there been allegations that medical treatment was not timely, delayed or withheld?

Honest question, are you the only one that is allowed to express hypotheticals in their posts in order to try and prove/disprove a particular action?

Argue the situation as presented, THEN offer possible mitigating circumstances.

YES they were sprayed excessively. Go find the product manual and see what they recommend for the range on a sprayer like that. Sprayed more than once? Lets say yes.

If that is the case, what is the ruling? If you do not think it matters, then it should not have been contested (as it should not have effected your position/argument).

The mere fact that you DO try to refute individual permutations indicates that you are trying to discredit the presenter and not the action itself.


Classic.