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.
According to the chancellor at UCD, she told the police not to use force to remove the students so as to avoid another Berkeley.
Either the police should be fired and tried for assault and battery, or the chancellor should admit she's a bald-faced liar and resign to face a civil suit. Which will it be?
That's not what she said. She said remove the encampment.
Then the whole surrounding the police commenced.
Officers have a pretty broad discretion when it comes to civil unrest.
I don't think there's really anything to 'get'. And I'm normally among those who has criticized police tactics openly before. I'm not a flag-waving, 'support the boys in blue' kind of guy, really, but this sort of mentality makes it hard for me to have sympathy for the 'victims'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
The police were not obligated to wait them out.
The police had a right to compel compliance with the request to disperse.
Just because people can be injured with the use of lesser force, doesn't provide cover for using more force than is warranted under the law.
Just a question, then: How would you suggest they have handled this? You seem to have expertise in police conduct. What do you suggest next time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Young establishes that if police "could have feasibly employed less intrusive measures prior to [the] use of force [it] suggests that the government's interest in the use of significant force was extremely limited, if not altogether non-existent."
Young establishes that pepper spray does significantly more than merely cause some burning for 15 minutes. "Pepper spray “is designed to cause intense pain,” ... [and we affirm the] district court finding that pepper spray is a “dangerous weapon” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and describing trial evidence that pepper spray causes “extreme pain” and is “capable of causing ‘protracted impairment of a function of a bodily organ’ “ as well as lifelong health problems such as asthma."
Young establishes through the testimony of a police practices expert, that pepper spray "should only be generally used as a defensive weapon and must never be used to intimidate a person or retaliate against an individual."
I'll be honest and concede that you may well be right, legally speaking. I have neither the time nor the interest in getting into the finer points of case law here. I wasn't speaking as a legal authority; I was appealing to common sense. I don't know how you were raised, but if I'm protesting, I understand that I don't have the right to block roadways and walk ways or otherwise interfere with public access to and from facilities. In common everyday vernacular, it means not being a douche.
I don't know if the officers employed the best response in that situation. They probably could have used different tactics. I'm guessing they probably could have handled this differently, and I'm sure that some of them are wondering now if they shouldn't have employed different means. I know that if it were me, though, I wouldn't have forced them to make that kind of decision in real time. If I had already been breaking the law by blocking public traffic, I think I would have heeded the officer's warning to disperse. I don't know about you, but I was taught that if an officer makes a reasonable request, then it's probably best not to be a dick about it and just do what he asks.
Moral of the story? Just because you have the constitutional right to be a disruptive, defiant little wanker...doesn't mean that you should, you know, actually be one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
If they had wanted to, all they'd have had to do is grab the little sh**'s arms and slap cuffs on them and be done with it. If the students had started actively resisting or started a riot, then the police may have been justified in escalating force.
Something tells me you'd still be complaining about it, regardless of how they reacted. That's it, isn't it? Instigate a confrontation, and then complain about how it wasn't handled properly. How about not being confrontational in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
I swear to G-d I don't know why this is so damn hard to grasp.
It's not, hon. It's just a difference of perspective here. I think a much wider one than the narrow legal peephole through which you're analyzing this issue.
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-29-2011 at 05:50 AM..
Reason: personal attack
Look dude, those kids who were sitting in that circle were not at any point prior to being pepper sprayed, placed under arrest.
PERIOD.
Those kids. Not some 10 random other kids, but those kids.
NOT. PLACED. UNDER. ARREST.
You cannot be resisting a non-existent thing.
We have video with audio of every moment leading up to the pepper spraying and not once, ever, at any time, do any officers ever say they are placing any of those seated kids under arrest.
At no time did any of those officers ever attempt to put anyone under arrest with the use of handcuffs or any other type of restraint.
They weren't read any rights.
They weren't anything related to being under arrest.
I don't know why this has to be explained to you over and over and over and OVER again in 27 different ways.
THOSE. SEATED. KIDS. WERE. NOT. PLACED. UNDER. ARREST. PRIOR. TO. POLICE. RESORTING. TO. THE. USE. OF. PEPPER. SPRAY.
And the kids could have linked d!@ks for all it matters - the officers WERE. NOT. TRAPPED. BECAUSE. THEY. EASILY. STEPPED. OVER. THE. SEATED. KIDS.
Jesus freaking Christ what is the matter with you people?
Once again, they do not have to be read their rights.
Quote:
“It appears from interviews and correspondence that many students and faculty members were under the impression that…locking arms with others to block a pathway would be regarded by police as passive and peaceful resistance not justifying the use of force. In fact, demonstrators who stand, sit, or lie down with arms locked to one another are engaged in ‘active resistance’ as UCLA and other police departments understand that phrase…”
The police don't have to give you a miranda warning when placing you under arrest - once again, what is your legal background? Because you really don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
The USSC has repeatedly stated that police use of force is highly fact specific - you have taken a single case and without really understanding law enforcement procedure or the facts in issue, assume the Young case applies here in a particular way. It isn't that simple.
This is why I keep asking for your legal background - because you keep saying things (perhaps poorly worded, but sometimes not) that does not correspond to the law. The fact that you think the police have to read you the Miranda warning is something any first year C.J major would know isn't true at all.
Also, 10 of them were arrested - I provided the newspaper article stating as much, but since your entire argument is predicated on facts you wish to imagine out of thin air, I suspect there's not much more to be done here.
This is the California Penal Code statute for resisting arrest;
Quote:
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
It's quite clear that you do not have to be the arrestee to be charged with resisting. It's equally clear the chief proponent of the protestors in this thread is woefully misinformed.
The protestors that encircled the officers were in violation of the law. The officers involved were well within their rights to employ minimal force to facilitate the performance of their duties.
Despite the unlikelihood of the protestors attaining a level of maturity that would compel them to embark upon a life that is in any way productive I'd argue they were fortunate in that they were dispersed with minimal discomfort rather than saddled with a lifetime criminal record.
Just a question, then: How would you suggest they have handled this? You seem to have expertise in police conduct. What do you suggest next time?
I spelled it out in the very post you're quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I'll be honest and concede that you may well be right, legally speaking. I have neither the time nor the interest in getting into the finer points of case law here. I wasn't speaking as a legal authority; I was appealing to common sense. I don't know how you were raised, but if I'm protesting, I understand that I don't have the right to block roadways and walk ways or otherwise interfere with public access to and from facilities. In common everyday vernacular, it means not being a douche.
I don't know if the officers employed the best response in that situation. They probably could have used different tactics. I'm guessing they probably could have handled this differently, and I'm sure that some of them are wondering now if they shouldn't have employed different means.
Finally an honest concession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I know that if it were me, though, I wouldn't have forced them to make that kind of decision in real time. If I had already been breaking the law by blocking public traffic, I think I would have heeded the officer's warning to disperse. I don't know about you, but I was taught that if an officer makes a reasonable request, then it's probably best not to be a dick about it and just do what he asks.
We aren't talking about you or me or how we were raised. We're talking about actual events as they were handled by young people in their late teens and/or early twenties, tops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Moral of the story? Just because you have the constitutional right to be a disruptive, defiant little wanker...doesn't mean that you should, you know, actually be one.
No kidding!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Something tells me you'd still be complaining about it, regardless of how they reacted. That's it, isn't it? Instigate a confrontation, and then complain about how it wasn't handled properly. How about not being confrontational in the first place?
Well you should recalibrate whatever that thing is because it's out of whack. You don't see me complaining about most of the other arrests or incidents, do you? With a handful of exceptions the police have more or less acted reasonably.
They did not in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
It's not, hon. It's just a difference of perspective here. I think a much wider one than the narrow legal peephole through which you're analyzing this issue.
Talk about condescending. And since we're talking about the law here, I'm afraid a difference of perspective isn't relevant.
This is the California Penal Code statute for resisting arrest;
It's quite clear that you do not have to be the arrestee to be charged with resisting. It's equally clear the chief proponent of the protestors in this thread is woefully misinformed.
The protestors that encircled the officers were in violation of the law. The officers involved were well within their rights to employ minimal force to facilitate the performance of their duties.
Despite the unlikelihood of the protestors attaining a level of maturity that would compel them to embark upon a life that is in any way productive I'd argue they were fortunate in that they were dispersed with minimal discomfort rather than saddled with a lifetime criminal record.
You're a real trip, dude. Love how you stop short of actually defining how that code is interpreted and/or enforced.
Resist, delay, or obstruct
Physical acts, such as running away or hiding, are clear examples of resisting, delaying, or obstructing arrest. Some not so clear examples involve physical force. The types of physical struggles that trigger this charge take place when you are trying to avoid:
being handcuffed,
being put in a police car, or
being placed in a holding cell.
Well, none of those, nor any other physical acts occurred, so. . .
Verbal and other non-physical acts can also result in Penal Code 148 PC resisting arrest charges. Examples: California courts have held that the following examples were sufficient to sustain a resisting, delaying, or obstructing conviction:
falsely identifying yourself during an investigation,
refusing to disclose your identity during the booking process, and
acknowledging and then ignoring an officer’s order to stop interfering with a separate on-going investigation.[/indent]
Nope, none of those things, either.
Next. . .
Conversely, the courts have held that the following acts are not by themselves sufficient to support a resisting, delaying, or obstructing conviction:
slowly complying with an officer’s order,
refusing to give your name while in a police car en route to jail, or
criticizing, swearing at, or otherwise voicing your opinion to the police (unless you’re using "fighting words" to incite a riot in violation of Penal Code 415 PC California’s "disturbing the peace" law).
So now we learn that kids sitting on the ground and yelling at police who are clearly capable of stepping over them unimpeded are not resisting arrest.
I don't know where you used to enforce the law, but it wasn't California.
We aren't talking about you or me or how we were raised. We're talking about actual events as they were handled by young people in their late teens and/or early twenties, tops.
How I was raised is relevant, because it's obviously different than how a lot of the WTO/OWS morons were raised, and it's going to land them a few knuckles to the teeth. More importantly, it's going to turn off people like me, and hate me all you want, but you need people like me to support the goofy movement. I'm not a tea-party parrot; I'm a middle-of-the-road American. The heart and soul of this country. And if these protesters don't convince someone like me that they're worth a crap, then I'll be smiling as the cops beat punk asses. There, I said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
They did not in this case. Talk about condescending. And since we're talking about the law here, I'm afraid a difference of perspective isn't relevant.
It's relevant, even if you don't 'get it. There's more of my kind than there are of the OWS hipsters.
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.
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.
