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.
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.
It's relevant, even if you don't 'get it. There's more of my kind than there are of the OWS hipsters.
And now you're just flying off the handle with absurdities, like that I hate you (as if I cared enough to) and then changing the subject to whether or not you support the "goofy movement" instead of whether or not the police were in the right to inflict "intermediate harm" on them for what they were doing.
One thing I recommend you do is look up what those kids were protesting. Hint: it's not related to "Occupy Wall Street" except in the loosest way possible. These kids are "occupying" their campuses to protest exorbitant fee hikes that are leaving them with skyrocketing debt.
It would help if you at least knew what you were so angry about. On the other hand, you could just go on calling everyone morons without a shred of an idea what the movement is even about. It won't be nearly as informative or enlightening, but who knows, maybe you'll think it's more fun.
These kids are "occupying" their campuses to protest exorbitant fee hikes that are leaving them with skyrocketing debt.
Are they being forced to attend that college? Are they being held hostage? If neither, then they should go to another college which is more affordable. Tuition at community colleges is considerably less.
The increases and extra costs for pensions and health benefits will total about $164 million and will be paid for by state funds, student tuition, hospital revenue and research grants, UC spokesman Steve Montiel said. Facing steep cuts in state funding, the UC regents last month approved the second of two tuition hikes for this fall.
A state full of people who want, want, want but won't pay for it.
I got a good idea, go sit in an encampment and scream and shout till you fall over backwards foaming at the mouth. If that doesn't work they can just eat themselves...
Here's the funny thing. Students have been arrested for protesting for various reasons. That means there is an arrest record. So when they go out to find that job, job applications ask: Have you ever been arrested? Even if they answer no, there is a possibility that the company will do a background check. Companies are even googling names of applicants. So for some, this "moment in time" that they participated in can come back and bite them on the backside and who will they blame for that?
Here's the funny thing. Students have been arrested for protesting for various reasons. That means there is an arrest record. So when they go out to find that job, job applications ask: Have you ever been arrested? Even if they answer no, there is a possibility that the company will do a background check. Companies are even googling names of applicants. So for some, this "moment in time" that they participated in can come back and bite them on the backside and who will they blame for that?
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.
Go look at her follow-up statements from two days later. She is backpedalling just as hard as she can to avoid being sued for everything she owns, being removed, and ending up on the streets.
One thing I recommend you do is look up what those kids were protesting. Hint: it's not related to "Occupy Wall Street" except in the loosest way possible. These kids are "occupying" their campuses to protest exorbitant fee hikes that are leaving them with skyrocketing debt.
Whether the students that were arrested were specifically protesting Wall Street, I don't know and I don't care. They were on the same site as OWS encampments that had been there for weeks, and in light of some of the recent events in nearby Oakland, it was one of the top UC officials herself who summoned the police to take down the camp. That was what they were called in there to do, and that's what they set out to do.
I repeat, the students in this case could have avoided this. They were within their constitutional liberties to protest peacefully, and lawfully, and in a way that would be without disruption to the public, but the UC executives felt that this situation was increasingly unstable, so they called in police to ask students to comply with requests to leave. At that point, the students deliberately refused to comply with a reasonable request. They chose to confront police and experience the consequences. Pepper spray was used not on one protester but to disperse and subdue a crowd of protesters who were already openly defiant of police power.
I'm sorry, but the fact is, the students asked for it. They got what they wanted. I think it's pathetic that you're outraged by this.
I've read the damn case - your problem is that you are making assumptions regarding the facts at hand in regard to what happened to UC Davis - those facts matter when applying the criteria you outline - you assume they weren't resisting arrest, I disagree, and I suspect the police reports will disagree with that as well.
Are you sure the students hadn't been given a lawful order to disperse, and then refused that lawful order, and interlocked their arms in anticipation of the police placing them under arrest? The police could therefore articulate that the protesters by interlocking their arms were resisting arrest... The pepper spray was thus utilized to effect an arrest.
After all, has an arrest occurred prior to a person being taken into physical custody? The police don't arrest a person and then detain them, they detain a person and then arrest them (or it occurs simultaneously). By your logic, the police can't use force until they have a person in their physical custody - but they can't use force to get a person into physical custody...
The authority of the justice system is paramount to a functioning society - ignoring the police (or the court) is in and of itself a serious offense - the underlying offense that leads to the exertion of police authority is irrelevant when determining if force should be used to effect that authority.
If a person believes the police don't have the authority to arrest them, the proper venue to address that problem is in court, not by resisting arrest.
It appears the students were in fact given a lawful order to disperse, and they were warned several time of the impending pepper spray. So you are in fact in the right on this issue and the other person inaccurate. A lawful order was provided, along with adequate warning of the use of force, and pepper spray, use of minimal force is in fact called for.
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.
Oh, wait............I take that back. *That's not on the agenda*
