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.
What are your qualifications for proclaiming the use of pepper spray illegal? Are you trained in it's use and the legalities thereof? Are you a criminal attorney? I'd argue you're posting a personal opinion not supported by actually applicable case law or any recognized training or experience that would enable you to make a determination as to the legality of it's employment.
Why would anyone not sharing your views retract their statements based on anything you posted? Your cited incidence doesn't even rise to the level of comparing apples and oranges.
At the bare minimum the protestors were involved in activities that could easily have led to their being charged with criminal trespass, obstruction of justice, interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties, and resisting arrest. The fact that they disagreed with the arrest of their fellow protestors did not give them a right to interfere with or demand officers refrain from making the arrests. We have courts in which those issues are intended to be addressed.
Pepper spray is not illegal. You can buy it in the store. Don't even need a license.
Now I suppose it's some sort of assualt to use it unless one is defending oneself. Which is exactly what the courts wil rule here. If it ever even comes to that.
. Comprehension helps when reading case law. The police are free to arrest the students if they find that they have violated any laws. They are not free to casually walk up and down a line of students who are sitting on the ground (even if said sitting is considered trespassing, criminal or not) and USE FORCE ON THEM IN THAT MANNER.
Try again. Police are allowed to employ the level of force necessary to accomplish their duties. The officers involved in this incident used a minimal level of force that was unlikely to cause injury.
Regardless of how much bold type you use in attempting to make your point the fact that you personally disagree with the way the incident was handled changes neither facts nor existing laws.
As far as my comprehending case law with regard to use of force I'll put my academy training and years of law enforcement experience up against your emotion driven opinion any day of the week.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Your rights can not infringe on my rights.
Get out of the way.
Why do you get to block the sidewalk?
It's not a right.
Are you better than the rest of us?
So what if the "cop" walked over them.
I don't want to walk over some protester nor do I want my kids or wife to.
What if your were blind or in a wheel chair?
Missing a leg?
Can you imagine the hardships involved?
Those kids(adults) made a choice to sit where they did.
They made a choice to break the law.
They made a choice to stay when told what was going to happen before it did.
They were FREE to MOVE and protest in a law abiding manor.
It does not mater if this side walk was surrounded with miles and miles of flat mowed grass.
It is still illegal to block the sidewalk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Hypothetical Police to hypothetical citizen exercising a Constitutional Freedom: "Sir, Madam, Please stop exercising your rights or I'm terribly afraid I'm going to have to shoot you. Thank you ever so kindly."
The number of people on this board who casually dismiss the Constitutional rights and applauding the use of violence against fellow citizens who they disagree with politically is beyond disturbing. Especially when those cheering the police state the loudest are self described small government conservatives.
Just drop the whole "conservative" mask and call yourselves the statist authoritarians you really are.
I always find it odd that the "big government" types think it's okay for people they agree with politically to do whatever they wish, and that cops have no rights to defend themselves.
Who said that? Point it out to us please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
Try again. Police are allowed to employ the level of force necessary to accomplish their duties. The officers involved in this incident used a minimal level of force that was unlikely to cause injury.
1. No, they aren't allowed "to use the level of force necessary to accomplish their duties." They're only allowed to use force if there is a compelling state interest in doing so, "by balancing “the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government's need for that intrusion.” Miller, 340 F.3d at 964," which requires a burden not present here.
2. The police used excessive force and they did cause injuries. Students were hospitalized. At least one student was coughing up blood for hours after-the-fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
Regardless of how much bold type you use in attempting to make your point the fact that you personally disagree with the way the incident was handled changes neither facts nor existing laws.
Nor does your inability to read and comprehend the case law make your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
As far as my comprehending case law with regard to use of force I'll put my academy training and years of law enforcement experience up against your emotion driven opinion any day of the week.
Oh goody, another alleged law enforcement officer who doesn't understand or abide by the law. Just what we need. Thank g-d you don't live anywhere near me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer
Your rights end where mine begin.
Your rights can not infringe on my rights.
Get out of the way.
Why do you get to block the sidewalk?
It's not a right.
Are you better than the rest of us?
Has anyone said the students weren't blocking the sidewalk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer
So what if the "cop" walked over them.
I don't want to walk over some protester nor do I want my kids or wife to.
What if your were blind or in a wheel chair?
Missing a leg?
Can you imagine the hardships involved?
The "so what" is that it completely destroys the cops' allegation that they were somehow "trapped" by the students and in some sort of fear of not being "able" to leave the circle. You see, there's video evidence that leaving the circle was as easy as simply stepping over the kids on the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer
Those kids(adults) made a choice to sit where they did.
They made a choice to break the law.
They made a choice to stay when told what was going to happen before it did.
They were FREE to MOVE and protest in a law abiding manor.
It does not mater if this side walk was surrounded with miles and miles of flat mowed grass.
It is still illegal to block the sidewalk.
Who said it wasn't? It may very well have been.
One. More. Time.
THE POLICE USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE STUDENTS' 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, EVEN IF THE STUDENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW WHILE SITTING THERE.
The number of people on this board who casually dismiss the Constitutional rights and applauding the use of violence against fellow citizens who they disagree with politically is beyond disturbing. Especially when those cheering the police state the loudest are self described small government conservatives.
Just drop the whole "conservative" mask and call yourselves the statist authoritarians you really are.
Dramatic as your post may be, you and many of your fellow supporters of OWS criminal behavior fail to grasp that there is no Constitutional protection of criminal activity.
Just drop the whole "I'm concerned about the Constitutional rights of my fellow citizens" mask and admit you think the law only applies to those with whom you disagree.
Dramatic as your post may be, you and many of your fellow supporters of OWS criminal behavior fail to grasp that there is no Constitutional protection of criminal activity.
Mmm, no, we get that just fine, thankyouverymuch. We just don't believe protesting rises to the level of "criminal activity."
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
Just drop the whole "I'm concerned about the Constitutional rights of my fellow citizens" mask and admit you think the law only applies to those with whom you disagree.
Hoo boy. This thread is an hilarious example of your side claiming exactly that.
Oh goody, another alleged law enforcement officer who doesn't understand or abide by the law. Just what we need. Thank g-d you don't live anywhere near me.
THE POLICE USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION OF THE STUDENTS' 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, EVEN IF THE STUDENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW WHILE SITTING THERE.
Alleged? You (wrongfully) assume I place enough value on your opinion to lie about my background.
As far as failing to understand or abide by the law goes you are once again incorrect. I fail to embrace your biased interpretation.
I do share your relief that we don't live near one another though my time in law enforcement was spent very near your location.
With regard to excessive force, again, despite your screaming you are incorrect. The police had people in custody. They were responsible for the safety of those in custody. Leading them through an increasingly hostile crowd clamoring for their release is all but asking for a physical confrontation. That exposes both the officers and those in custody to an unacceptable level of risk.
Last edited by outbacknv; 11-26-2011 at 12:31 PM..
1. They weren't being arrested, so your use of the term "resistance" is misplaced. They were non-compliant, which is what I bolded. You clearly did not read the cited case law for comprehension, let alone use any accuracy in attempting to rebut it.
Definition of resistance: The refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument. They resisted the request to disband.
2. It is a violation of the students' 4th amendment rights for the police to have used FORCE against them. Their "job" is not to pepper spray people who do not pose any physical threat to them or anyone else, even if those people have broken a law themselves. Three question marks doesn't make your case any stronger. "Warning" someone that you are about to violate their constitutional rights does not somehow make said violation not a violation. If you warn someone that you're going to break into their house before you do, it doesn't make you not guilty of breaking and entering. It doesn't matter what conversation was had. And now you're just being absurd. The cops didn't ask permission to pepper spray those kids. So what? As in the cited case law, at worst it was a misdemeanor and did not rise to the level of requiring the use of FORCE against them. Period. The police were not threatened by the seated students. Why do I have to repeat this?
I'm absurd?? How the hell do you you know if they did or didn't ask permission? I was question the POSSIBILITY that they did during a private conversation with the chancellor, whereas you clearly state they didn't. Were you privy to that conversation? Were you there? Have you ever heard of a mob turning on police? Did you happen to notice the other protesters that were standing around the police? Who are you to determine there was no level of threat? Police are trained for such things. Again, were you there?
THE OFFICER WHO SPRAYED THEM STEPPED OVER THEM BEFORE USING THE PEPPER SPRAY ON THEM. THE POLICE WERE NOT THREATENED. What the hell are you talking about? These kids were on a college campus for a single night. They didn't close any businesses, cost anyone their jobs, destroy any property or any other bizarre allegation you can dream up.
Gee, so he stepped over them, so what? What I am talking about is that you and they think it's all about their rights. I asked you if it was their "right" to close businesses, etc. as has been done by these protesters in other cities.
You really do have a comprehension problem or selective memory as to what havoc they have caused in other cities to other people not involved with these protests. People who just want to get through each day and EARN a living, a living that was deprived of some because of the protesters.
Yes, other people have rights and their rights matter, too. And the police can take certain actions to enforce laws and protect other people's rights.
And in this case the police took a certain action to enforce the law. They were asked to leave and clearly were warned that they would be sprayed if they did not.
WHAT THEY CANNOT DO IS USE EXCESSIVE FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. Actually, the case law I quoted did address whether Wells was given a warning. He was not.
Some reading material for you from the United States Department of Justice.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force." In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single, accepted definition among the researchers, analysts, or the police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its study, Police Use of Force in America 2001, defined use of force as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." The IACP also identified five components of force: physical, chemical, electronic, impact, and firearm. To some people, though, the mere presence of a police officer can be intimidating and seen as use of force.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in Data Collection on Police Use of Force, states that "…the legal test of excessive force…is whether the police officer reasonably believed that such force was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police purpose…" However, there are no universally accepted definitions of "reasonable" and "necessary" because the terms are subjective. A court in one jurisdiction may define "reasonable" or "necessary" differently than a court in a second jurisdiction. More to the point is an understanding of the "improper" use of force, which can be divided into two categories: "unnecessary" and "excessive." The unnecessary use of force would be the application of force where there is no justification for its use, while an excessive use of force would be the application of more force than required where use of force is necessary.
Seems to me the police were within their rights and the force they used was NOT excessive.
That is irrelevant. Note that the existence or non-existence of a warning was not taken into account anywhere in the court's conclusion that the use of force was in violation of Wells' 4th amendment rights for merely sitting on the ground while not complying with a police order. LOL Okay, since you say so. Comprehension helps when reading case law. The police are free to arrest the students if they find that they have violated any laws. They are not free to casually walk up and down a line of students who are sitting on the ground (even if said sitting is considered trespassing, criminal or not) and USE FORCE ON THEM IN THAT MANNER. Rules against sit-ins? Where did you come up with that nonsense?
What qualifies you to interpret the law and determine how it is to be applied, to who, by whom and where? When you have better comprehension and a basic understanding of the law Judge Jill get back to me.
Last edited by softblueyz; 11-26-2011 at 12:29 PM..
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.
So what? As in the cited case law, at worst it was a misdemeanor and did not rise to the level of requiring the use of FORCE against them. Period. The police were not threatened by the seated students. Why do I have to repeat this?
