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.
Nor are you in the majority. Guess it's too much to ask to wait until the review of the officers actions has been completed prior to determining they're guilty of abuse.
It seems for a great deal of those most vocally condemning of the actions of the police a presumption of innocence only applies to the protestors.
Actually I think I am in the majority. Unless the officers were being attacked and feared for their life there was no reason to use the spray. Isn't that called unnecessary force or something.
Actually I think I am in the majority. Unless the officers were being attacked and feared for their life there was no reason to use the spray. Isn't that called unnecessary force or something.
No, it isn't called unnecessary force. It's called employment of the minimum amount of force needed to obtain compliance.
Pepper spray is not used when an officer is in fear for their life. Had the protestors attacked the officers in such a manner as to cause the officers to fear for their lives they would have been met with a hail of gunfire rather than a stream of pepper spray.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand that pepper spray is a compliance tool and not a weapon?
As far as your views being in the majority that's questionable even in this thread which is anything but supportive of the actions of the police.
Actually I think I am in the majority. Unless the officers were being attacked and feared for their life there was no reason to use the spray. Isn't that called unnecessary force or something.
Uhh....if they feared for their lives, they would have reached for their guns. If the department policy allows for pepper spray against groups refusing a lawful order then the officer has the right to use it. Not saying he should of but he did so within policy he can't be fired/reprimanded, more like a change in policy is what your looking for. If he did violate policy then he should be held accountable.
Now it looks like there is confusion on the legal rights for the students to gather, sit, protest and block the walkway. Did he have the right to give a lawful order to disburse, that too will be reviewed.
Are you kidding me....pepper spray is a weapon. It leaves people defenseless. I am not talking about being in the majority on CD because obviously I'm not. Read the news, people are outraged by these events.
Are you kidding me....pepper spray is a weapon. It leaves people defenseless. I am not talking about being in the majority on CD because obviously I'm not. Read the news, people are outraged by these events.
No, I'm not kidding you. Pepper spray is not a weapon. A person is not defenseless after being dosed with pepper spray. I've been dosed repeatedly and was not rendered defenseless. It's unpleasant and uncomfortable. That's why it's categorized as an irritant. A weapon leaves broken, torn, and leaking body parts that don't stop hurting when they're rinsed with water.
What you're talking about is by no means obvious. You cited no news sources that support your positions. In reality the level of outrage expressed in the news sources largely depends on the political slant of the newspaper. Based on your comments in this thread the one thing that is obvious is the direction your preferred news sources likely slant.
Again, you continue to illustrate your ignorance regarding pepper spray, your refusal to condemn the actions of the protestors that led to the confrontation, and your determination to proclaim the police guilty without so much as an investigation. Never mind that you weren't there and have no understanding of the characteristics of the agent used or the policies regarding it's use.
Enjoy your unabashed bias. I've wasted all the time I'm willing to waste presenting factual statements you will simply ignore.
No, I'm not kidding you. Pepper spray is not a weapon. A person is not defenseless after being dosed with pepper spray. I've been dosed repeatedly and was not rendered defenseless. It's unpleasant and uncomfortable. That's why it's categorized as an irritant. A weapon leaves broken, torn, and leaking body parts that don't stop hurting when they're rinsed with water.
What you're talking about is by no means obvious. You cited no news sources that support your positions. In reality the level of outrage expressed in the news sources largely depends on the political slant of the newspaper. Based on your comments in this thread the one thing that is obvious is the direction your preferred news sources likely slant.
Again, you continue to illustrate your ignorance regarding pepper spray, your refusal to condemn the actions of the protestors that led to the confrontation, and your determination to proclaim the police guilty without so much as an investigation.
Enjoy your unabashed bias. I've wasted all the time I'm willing to waste presenting factual statements you will simply ignore.
Oh give me a freaking break. You want me to give you sources to support my position. It is my OPINION. I feel the cops were out of line and over zealous in their actions. Find me a newspaper that agrees with them and I'll find you more that are outraged. In war pepper spray not be a weapon but spraying a peaceful crowd is.
But then we'd have to pay for them....which is what they want!!
true
jail would be too good for them...ship them to russia...let's see if they complain then
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.