[smithy77]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

The real question is do they? I have talked with the occupy Omaha people and I ended up getting a different answer from each person on what they thought their movement stood for and it's goals. That is not a good sign for a movement trying to accomplish something. Now if they just want to waste some time, then they are off to a good start.

I have a hard time believing that this movement is all about people wanting to "waste some time". I'm not a member of OWS, but many of them seem to be very passionate about being there. What kinds of things were they telling you? Maybe if you string their ideas together, you'll get some sense about what they believe and what motivates them. I've never seen a group of people participate in a protest movement for nothing.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by smithy77

Again, this was a non-violent demonstration. They were blocking a sidewalk, for cripe sakes. The police were not following standard police protocol. According to Dr. John McDonald, professor of criminology at the University of Pennsylvania: "Pepper spray should only be used when there's a clear threat to officers or severe enough resistance, essentially, when the only alternative is more extreme force."

But they can't sit wherever they want just because they are non-violent. Non-violence doesn't some how make resistance ok and legal. If they are sitting someplace that their local publicly elected officials have deemed inappropriate they have to leave. If they sit on the ground and refuse, that's basically challenging law enforcement to make them leave. If our law enforcement doesn't backup what they say, then they are useless. What was the alternative to pepper spray? Let them stay there even though they were ordered to leave?

As I mentioned, this may have been excessive, and if so, very wrong and people need to be punished. However, if they legitimately had a reason for those people to have to leave and the peopled didn't leave. Then they told them if they didn't leave they were going to get pepper sprayed, and still didn't leave. . It's on them.

Anyone else think it convenient that the video recording starts exactly at the right time to catch the spraying?

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by pheaton

What was the alternative to pepper spray? Let them stay there even though they were ordered to leave?

If they were on private property and the owner or police trespassed them, then one alternative is to simply handcuff them and arrest them. Using force was totally unnecessary.

[harshbarj]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

If they were on private property and the owner or police trespassed them, then one alternative is to simply handcuff them and arrest them. Using force was totally unnecessary.

How can you handcuff someone that is resisting arrest and locking arms with others? When you resist arrest then force becomes necessary.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

How can you handcuff someone that is resisting arrest and locking arms with others? When you resist arrest then force becomes necessary.

They were locking arms because they had a right to be there. No need to arrest at that point. But if they were unlawfully on private property, applying pressure to a few pressure points would get their arms to unlock in about a half-second.

[harshbarj]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

They were locking arms because they had a right to be there. No need to arrest at that point. But if they were unlawfully on private property, applying pressure to a few pressure points would get their arms to unlock in about a half-second.

Clearly they did not have the right to be there.

And you really think if the cops would have used pressure points that these occunuts would not have cried brutality just the same.

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

Clearly they did not have the right to be there.

And you really think if the cops would have used pressure points that these occunuts would not have cried brutality just the same.

When I was in corrections we used pressure point techniques to insure compliance as a low level step. Pepper spray was several levels higher on the use of force continuum. Police often times have to skip a level or two for their own safety. As nasty as Pepper Spray is it is temporary. A nightstick to the knee or kidneys can be permanent. Pressure points will bring immediate compliance and leave absolutely no permanent damage but they are useful only in a one on one type of situation. When controlling a crowd a higher level of force is needed.

GL2

[pheaton]

Thanks for the backup harsh, and Gunluvver.

MountainMen you are right. If they were totally within the law to be there then the cops were wrong and should be punished. However, if they didn't have the right to be there, then they needed to leave or face the consequences.

Again, I don't know what happened here. I'm assuming a lot. That the police were ordered to remove the people, that this was a for a good reason and that the people didn't have the right to be there. Also, I'm assuming the police warned them before they did it. This is what I assume is being investigated. By the way, has anyone heard anything else about this?

Pressure points work well, but of course like harshbarj said, they would have claimed the cops were hurting them just the same. And like Gunluvver said, I assume the police felt as though they were outnumbered and would be attacked if they started doing that. So out came the spray. I suspect that the crowd was probably threatening and yelling at the cops too, which the video conveniently didn't show.

The bottom line is, we don't have the facts and the news stinks at reporting things accurately. But there are circumstances, likely circumstances in which the pepper spray was justified. Just because they are sitting there non-violently doesn't mean anything. It might mean something if they brought out the riot gear and started beating them into submission.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by pheaton

Ok, I'll give you that it creates a chemical reaction. . But so does digestion. But to say it's a chemical weapon and compare it to mustard gas or something is just not right.

I guess I'm still confused. I mean, if the police tell you to leave or get pepper sprayed. Your choices are leave, or stay and get sprayed. So I'm not sure why they are so shocked about getting sprayed.

"Pepper spray is banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of all riot control agents in warfare whether lethal or less-than-lethal.[20]"

from: Pepper spray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by pheaton

But they can't sit wherever they want just because they are non-violent. Non-violence doesn't some how make resistance ok and legal. If they are sitting someplace that their local publicly elected officials have deemed inappropriate they have to leave.

Rosa Parks.