U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-23-2011, 03:20 PM
 
1,221 posts, read 2,129,456 times
Reputation: 1057

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton View Post
Another news story blowing up about the UC Davis protestors that were peacefully protesting and got pepper sprayed. You hear about the chancellor apologizing and demanding an investigation, you hear about the shocked and freighted students. You hear about the officers on administrative leave, but you hear nothing about why the pepper spray came out. They want you to believe that it was for no reason and maybe it was. But what do the police say? Why did they do it?

From what I can gather from reading literally a dozen or so stories is that the police (for some still unknown reason) were called to disburse the crowd. Maybe they were afraid it was going to get violent, maybe a few other reasons, but they were told to disburse the crowd. So they went in to do that. A few of the students decided to sit down and refuse and were therefore pepper sprayed and a few of them arrested.

So where does this leave us? Personally, if a police officer comes up to me and says I have orders to disburse this crowd, I'm going to leave. Even if I think I'm within my rights to be there, I'm going to leave. Because these are the cops and they have ways of making me leave whether or not I think it's legal and/or whether I want to leave. I can go home, make some calls and reassemble later if needed, but for now I'm going to leave. I have to assume they are disbursing it for reasons of safety or some other related reason.

If I decide that I'm right, and they are wrong, so I'm going to prove this and sit down and lock arms with a bunch of people and refuse to leave. Well then, I need to be prepared to face the consequences. In this case, the consequence was pepper spray. I suppose they could have smacked them with a baton, or maybe used pressure points to force them to comply, but I think pepper spray was probably the most effective way to force a rather large group of people to follow orders to go away.

We have to remember that while we are guaranteed the right to peacefully assemble and protest, it has to be within the law. Just because you are doing something peacefully, doesn't mean that it's 100% legal and that nobody can touch you.

So were these police wrong? Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. I assume they were within their rights to do this if they had a good reason to break up this crowd and these students flat out refused to cooperate. Peaceful or not, you have to cooperate with law enforcement in certain situations. The particular officer in the video seemed to possibly be enjoying himself, which makes him look a bit like a jerk, but it doesn't mean it was illegal.
I personally found the pepper spray incident disgusting. Using a chemical weapon on un-armed peaceful protesters is like killing a fly with a shotgun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2011, 08:29 PM
 
816 posts, read 1,414,781 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy77 View Post
I personally found the pepper spray incident disgusting. Using a chemical weapon on un-armed peaceful protesters is like killing a fly with a shotgun.
un-armed yes, peaceful no. They were disobeying an order to disperse and resisting arrest. If they REALLY thought their rights were being violated the proper thing to do would be obey the officers orders (as they were reasonable) and file a complaint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 11:47 PM
 
1,221 posts, read 2,129,456 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by harshbarj View Post
un-armed yes, peaceful no. They were disobeying an order to disperse and resisting arrest. If they REALLY thought their rights were being violated the proper thing to do would be obey the officers orders (as they were reasonable) and file a complaint.
Passive resistance and non-violent civil disobedience have a long history in this country. It was practiced by Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement and by Mahatma Gandhi during the Indian independence movement. Both men were committed to non-violence. This was a non-violent demonstration----met with an unusually sadistic response by the police. Even the University's President apologized for the police action and offered to pay for medical treatment for all affected. The officers involved are on administrative leave pending and investigation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 02:56 AM
 
816 posts, read 1,414,781 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy77 View Post
Passive resistance and non-violent civil disobedience have a long history in this country. It was practiced by Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement and by Mahatma Gandhi during the Indian independence movement. Both men were committed to non-violence. This was a non-violent demonstration----met with an unusually sadistic response by the police. Even the University's President apologized for the police action and offered to pay for medical treatment for all affected. The officers involved are on administrative leave pending and investigation.
There is a BIG difference between peaceful and non-violent. You can be non-violent and yet also not be peaceful (peace·ful adj \ˈpēs-fəl\
untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion). The OWS people that were blocking people from getting to work were NOT peaceful. The ones blocking the streets were NOT peaceful. Same here at UC Davis. Non-violent? sure. Peaceful? Hell no! Anything but peaceful. Peaceful protestors do not block sidewalks, they stand to one side and still get their message across. Peaceful protestors do not ignore police officers requests to disperse and they DON'T lock arms when it's decided to arrest them (hence resisting arrest).

As for what the University's President said, it makes no difference. She is not a judge. She is free to make such statements, but they are not legally binding. Also placing the officers on administrative leave is standard procedure in most departments for many things, it in itself is not an indication of wrong doing. Just look how often Omaha police officers are placed on administrative leave and later found no crime was committed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,231 posts, read 7,243,410 times
Reputation: 6680
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy77 View Post
Passive resistance and non-violent civil disobedience have a long history in this country. It was practiced by Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement and by Mahatma Gandhi during the Indian independence movement. Both men were committed to non-violence. This was a non-violent demonstration----met with an unusually sadistic response by the police. Even the University's President apologized for the police action and offered to pay for medical treatment for all affected. The officers involved are on administrative leave pending and investigation.
Martin Luther King and OWS the same?
What an insult to MLK.

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,340 posts, read 8,690,173 times
Reputation: 1215
Civil rights protesters didn't resist arrest either...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,908 posts, read 19,083,409 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
Martin Luther King and OWS the same?
What an insult to MLK.

GL2
I'm pretty sure he was comparing methods, not the causes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 08:34 PM
 
1,221 posts, read 2,129,456 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raphael07 View Post
Civil rights protesters didn't resist arrest either...
I really don't want to waste my time correcting your lack of knowledge of American history----something I used to teach, btw. I will suggest that you read up on the subject. The library is a good starting point.

Last edited by smithy77; 11-24-2011 at 09:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 08:45 PM
 
1,221 posts, read 2,129,456 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
Martin Luther King and OWS the same?
What an insult to MLK.

GL2
Why do conservatives like yourself and Glenn Beck like to invoke the name of Martin Luther King? Your ideological ancestors in the 1960's called him a Communist agitator----and those were the NICE conservatives. King was committed to economic justice (read up on the "Poor People's Campaign" for economic justice, which he led around 1967) as well as full citizenship for all people. I'm convinced that King would be behind OWS 100%. I was alive and conscious during most of King's activist life, and I remember reading a few books by him many years ago. You might want to study his life and beliefs (and not just what Glenn Beck has to say about him) before you use him to justify your perceived "insult".

Last edited by smithy77; 11-24-2011 at 09:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,231 posts, read 7,243,410 times
Reputation: 6680
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy77 View Post
Why do conservatives like yourself and Glenn Beck like to invoke the name of Martin Luther King? Your ideological ancestors in the 1960's called him a Communist agitator----and those were the NICE conservatives. King was committed to economic justice (read up on the "Poor People's Campaign" for economic justice, which he led around 1967) as well as full citizenship for all people. I'm convinced that King would be behind OWS 100%. I was alive and conscious during most of King's activist life, and I remember reading a few books by him many years ago. You might want to study his life and beliefs (and not just what Glenn Beck has to say about him) before you use him to justify your perceived "insult".
You don't know diddly squat about anything smith77. I was wide awake and sober during the 1960's. Sounds to me like you might have been hitting the bong a bit too hard during that time.

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top