Police mace the hell out of peaceful OWS protesters

[Corporate Thug]

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

MotionMan

Gotcha. Were your questions in reference to the Davis occupy event or Occupy events in general?

 

[torpid]

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

There is an interview on boing boing with the student whose throat was sprayed where he talks about another student whose hands were burning and when he asked for treatment or help the cops refused. I believe there was another similar report but I'll have to try to dig it up. Obviously, burning hands is not life-threatening or similar, but once they had the guy subdued and in the back of a patrol car they should have administered treatment.

 

[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.

I never said he was immune. Just that it was stupid of the person to not move the car given the risk/reward analysis. Move the car then take up the violation of his rights in the courts.

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.

Yet it was avoidable. Do people have to become stupid when they might be in the right? Comply with the legal order and take up the violation of his rights in the courts.

MotionMan

 

[davmat787]

nm, was supposed to be a new post, not reply. ugh.

 

[sourceninja]

 

[MotionMan]

The sign I parked in front of.

That was an instruction not to park there.

Were you subsequently told to move or have your car damaged?

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.

I am shaking in my boots.

Superfluous.

On the contrary, it is central to the discussion. The fact that you think it has no import shows how little you understand the discussion.

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.

It does not make it legal, but what does it say about you if you park there anyway? Don't park there and take it up in the courts.

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.

I believe your analogy sucked, so I am trying to fix it.

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?

It helps for search purposes and makes a great conversation piece.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

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?

I was responding to the following statement:

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.

That made it sound like there were such allegations. I had not seen them, so I was asking for clarification.

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?

The ruling is that it must be decided by a jury.

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.

I am not sure what you are referring to.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Gotcha. Were your questions in reference to the Davis occupy event or Occupy events in general?

It was in regards to you saying "From all the "occupy" events that are happening around campuses all across the US".

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

There is an interview on boing boing with the student whose throat was sprayed where he talks about another student whose hands were burning and when he asked for treatment or help the cops refused. I believe there was another similar report but I'll have to try to dig it up. Obviously, burning hands is not life-threatening or similar, but once they had the guy subdued and in the back of a patrol car they should have administered treatment.

If that is true, then that would be closer to a Lundberg scenario.

MotionMan

 

[Broheim]

lol the best so far

 

[Ninjahedge]

MM, simply stated, if you are arguing and nit picking about multiple applications of the spray when that is not the core issue in contention, you are trying to refute the other sides argument by needling and nit-picking largely irrelevant points.

the issue here is, was, and always will be:

Was the amount of force used commensurate with the offense committed and the behavior of the perpetrators?

Overwhelmingly the answer has been "no". From legal precedent to official handbooks of the law enforcement agencies to outright public opinion, what they did was NOT within the scope of tolerable action.

It does not matter a rats ass if a Q-tip was or was not used in order to prove the base violation. That only explains the degree of violation.

This was an intentional abuse of power and an IMPROPER means of crowd control.

 

[MotionMan]

MM, simply stated, if you are arguing and nit picking about multiple applications of the spray when that is not the core issue in contention, you are trying to refute the other sides argument by needling and nit-picking largely irrelevant points.

the issue here is, was, and always will be:

Was the amount of force used commensurate with the offense committed and the behavior of the perpetrators?

Overwhelmingly the answer has been "no". From legal precedent to official handbooks of the law enforcement agencies to outright public opinion, what they did was NOT within the scope of tolerable action.

It does not matter a rats ass if a Q-tip was or was not used in order to prove the base violation. That only explains the degree of violation.

This was an intentional abuse of power and an IMPROPER means of crowd control.

You call it nit picking. I call it legal analysis.

I was banged over the head multiple times that the actions of the cops were a violation of civil rights based on "Federal Law". When asked for the basis of that assertion, I was presented with the Lundberg cases. I read the cases and analyzed them. I found the facts of the present matter to differ significantly from the facts of the Lundberg cases in a number of ways. In addition, in the end, the Lundberg cases merely established that a directed verdict against the protesters was inappropriate (and that there was no governmental immunity), not that the actions of the cops were per se improper.

The Lundberg protesters eventually won at trial based on the facts of their case only. The Court specifically stated that each case must be looked at based on the facts of each case. I am looking at the facts of this case.

I disagree with your legal analysis. In addition, of course, public opinion is not a basis for finding there was a violation or liability.

What is this "legal precedent" you refer to?

MotionMan

 

[actuarial]

Yet it was avoidable. Do people have to become stupid when they might be in the right? Comply with the legal order and take up the violation of his rights in the courts.

MotionMan

There are two parties to the avoidance though, and you seem to be focusing one only one.

From a risk/reward perspective, the cop risked far more than the protesters by going through with it. A few seconds of pepper spray is better than losing your job IMO.

 

[Ichinisan]

[snip]

You go, MM!

:thumbsup:

 

[MotionMan]

There are two parties to the avoidance though, and you seem to be focusing one only one.

From a risk/reward perspective, the cop risked far more than the protesters by going through with it. A few seconds of pepper spray is better than losing your job IMO.

So now the risk for the protesters is just a few seconds of pepper spray? A few pages ago it was possible death 😉

What is the reward for the protesters in this scenario?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

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 LEO?
2. If so, have any protesters claimed to have suffered a broken arm, dislocated shoulder or any lesser injuries?
3. Were any LEO reported injured?

MotionMan

Anyone?

MotionMan

 

[Perknose]

It was an inappropriate use, Motion Man, but don't take my word for it, take the word of the expert who helped develop it for the FBI, a man who helped formulate the pepper spray use guidelines for a number of police departments.

Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.

“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.

Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.

 

[Corporate Thug]

UC President says he is appalled over the incident:

http://sfist.com/2011/11/20/uc_president_yudof_appalled_by_uc_d.php

I am appalled by images of University of California students being doused with pepper spray and jabbed with police batons on our campuses.

I intend to do everything in my power as president of this university to protect the rights of our students, faculty and staff to engage in non-violent protest.

Chancellors at the UC Davis and UC Berkeley campuses already have initiated reviews of incidents that occurred on their campuses. I applaud this rapid response and eagerly await the results.

The University of California, however, is a single university with 10 campuses, and the incidents in recent days cry out for a systemwide response.

Therefore I will be taking immediate steps to set that response in motion.
I intend to convene all 10 chancellors, either in person or by telephone, to engage in a full and unfettered discussion about how to ensure proportional law enforcement response to non-violent protest.

To that end, I will be asking the chancellors to forward to me at once all relevant protocols and policies already in place on their individual campuses, as well as those that apply to the engagement of non-campus police agencies through mutual aid agreements.

Further, I already have taken steps to assemble experts and stakeholders to conduct a thorough, far-reaching and urgent assessment of campus police procedures involving use of force, including post-incident review processes.

My intention is not to micromanage our campus police forces. The sworn officers who serve on our campuses are professionals dedicated to the protection of the UC community.

Nor do I wish to micromanage the chancellors. They are the leaders of our campuses and they have my full trust and confidence.

Nonetheless, the recent incidents make clear the time has come to take strong action to recommit to the ideal of peaceful protest.

As I have said before, free speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history. It is a value we must protect with vigilance. I implore students who wish to demonstrate to do so in a peaceful and lawful fashion. I expect campus authorities to honor that right.

 

[twinrider1]

Ok, this needs the mace cop treatment...

 

[MotionMan]

It was an inappropriate use, Motion Man, but don't take my word for it, take the word of the expert who helped develop it for the FBI, a man who helped formulate the pepper spray use guidelines for a number of police departments.

“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,”

Is it your (everyone, not just Perk) belief that this was the most inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents ever?

When I receive sufficient responses, I will respond to the rest of the statements by Mr. Loghman.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

UC President says he is appalled over the incident:

http://sfist.com/2011/11/20/uc_president_yudof_appalled_by_uc_d.php

Shocking. I never saw that coming.

🙄

MotionMan

 

[yhelothar]

Is it your (everyone, not just Perk) belief that this was the most inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents ever?

When I receive sufficient responses, I will respond to the rest of the statements by Mr. Loghman.

MotionMan

Mr. Loghman did not assert that was his belief. He just stated his opinion that is the most inappropriate and improper use that he has ever seen.

Given Mr. Loghman's position, he has assuredly seen it used in all kinds of situations, yet his opinion still stands regarding the incident at UC Davis.

 

[MotionMan]

Mr. Loghman did not assert that was his belief. He just stated his opinion that is the most inappropriate and improper use that he has ever seen.

Given Mr. Loghman's position, he has assuredly seen it used in all kinds of situations, yet his opinion still stands regarding the incident at UC Davis.

Is it your belief that this was the most inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents ever?

MotionMan

 

[DayLaPaul]

Is it your belief that this was the most inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents ever?

MotionMan

Whatever point you are trying to make, spit it out. Stop trying to bait someone into saying "yes" so you can grasp onto this straw man. You're perfectly capable of making your point without this.

Chemical agents is such a broad term that I'm sure the moment someone says "yes," you'll quickly remind them of some atrocities (perhaps committed by some foreign dictator) that we wouldn't associate with the UC Davis incident or whatever it is you have in mind, so that you'll have your "gotcha" moment.

None of us have encyclopaedic knowledge of every incident ever involving chemical agents, so the answer really doesn't matter.

I do know that if I was one of these UC Davis cops, I wouldn't want Mr. Loghman stating his opinion on the witness stand.

 

[JSt0rm]

Is it your belief that this was the most inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents ever?

MotionMan

Yes. In all of the history of man kind this was the worst chemical attack. Now what do I win?