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.
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.
They weren't resisting arrest. This is a basic fact that is supported by all of the video and audio evidence. Period. You're welcome to disagree with opinions; you are not welcome to disagree with facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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?
I am quite certain that the students had been given a lawful order to disperse and did not follow that order, exactly as Young was given a lawful order to sit in his truck and disobeyed that order and sat on the curb. What the students were or were not "anticipating" is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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.
No. They had not be placed under arrest. Period. They can't be resisting something that never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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).
You're just making things up as you go along now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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...
Stop attempting to articulate "my logic." You're wrong. There's nothing I've posted here that remotely implies such an absurdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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.
See, this is why I know you didn't read the case. And apparently you haven't even read what I've posted, in spite of quoting it.
The underlying offense that leads to the extent of force police are allowed to use IS THE FIRST THING THE COURT CONSIDERS WHEN DETERMINING IF THERE WAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN THE USE OF FORCE.
In evaluating the government's interest in the use of force we look to:
(1) the severity of the crime at issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
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.
Who said anything about the police not having the authority to arrest them? What on earth are you on about? No one is or was disputing that the police had the authority to arrest the students if they were breaking the law.
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST THEM WHILE THEY WERE SEATED ON THE GROUND, HAVING NOT COMMITTED A "SERIOUS" OFFENSE, WHILE THEY WERE NOT THREATENING THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE OR OTHERS AND WHILE THEY WERE NOT RESISTING ARREST.
That's strange, in the case you quoted, I don't see where it says all 3 criteria must be satisfied before force is used.
In fact, the case itself explicitly states that the 3 factors are used to assess.
If the police try to arrest someone for jaywalking and they actively resist, the police don't throw up their hands and say "well, it's just jaywalking, I guess we'll just let it slide since he's resisting."
Do you even understand what you post? I ask again, what is your legal background?
You finally answer - interlocking arms is not active resistance to arrest? Says who? You? Since you seem to have extensive legal knowledge, please post the evidence that allows you to come to this conclusion. I'm curious - everything I've read suggests the opposite
I might add that the police never have the authority to use excessive force.
Last edited by rimmerama; 11-28-2011 at 01:36 AM..
These loons wanted to get sprayed. They get all the fellow loons who don't have the nads to go out and protest all up in arms screaming and howling like there's no tomorrow. They got what they wanted. Pretty simple until a southpaw notices a full moon.
The students were not resisting arrest. They hadn't been placed under arrest. They were protesting. Nor had Young been placed under arrest.
Someone still doesn't comprehend the definition of resistance nor how to use it in the right context. One does not have to be placed under arrest to be resistant. As I pointed out to you earlier, but you clearly chose to overlook it, there is no clear definition of force according to the DOJ. Because you define it to your liking, doesn't make it law. Only an appointed judge, sitting in a court of law, can interpret and define the force that was used. I don't think you are an appointed judge sitting in a court of law. Being an armchair lawyer/judge doesn't count.
Judge Jill rewriting law, again.
Last edited by softblueyz; 11-28-2011 at 01:38 AM..
Of course they did. But the *******s on this board won't believe it no matter how much proof you give them.
sorry, bulldogdad, i am not a "*******" and i thought that the pepper spraying was unnecessary and dangerous to use on children, particularly in light of the fact that they were just sitting there peacefully. (and some students are still minors).
here is a medical report on the danger of pepper spraying (especially if one of those children had asthma):
maybe we need to consider the level of reaction that is used in peaceful protesting by the youth.
i remember when i was in school there was a sit-in over something, and basically the students just had a fairly short attention span and left after a while.
That's strange, in the case you quoted, I don't see where it says all 3 criteria must be satisfied before force is used.
In fact, the case itself explicitly states that the 3 factors are used to assess.
This will be my last post to you because you do not read for comprehension, then you make ridiculous statements of claims I allegedly made that I actually never made. For the FINAL TIME.
I never said that "all 3 criteria must be satisfied before force is used."
I said the severity of the crime was the FIRST of 3 criteria that is looked at by the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
If the police try to arrest someone for jaywalking and they actively resist, the police don't throw up their hands and say "well, it's just jaywalking, I guess we'll just let it slide since he's resisting."
Well considering you're just making stuff up as you go along, I can't imagine you don't see the absurdity of trying to make this my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
Do you even understand what you post? I ask again, what is your legal background?
It is you who doesn't understand what I post. My legal background is none of your business and not relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
You finally answer - interlocking arms is not active resistance to arrest? Says who? You? Since you seem to have extensive legal knowledge, please post the evidence that allows you to come to this conclusion. I'm curious - everything I've read suggests the opposite
I might add that the police never have the authority to use excessive force.
The Students Were NOT Resisting ARREST. They were not placed under arrest. At no time did any officer say, "I'm placing you under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be represented by an attorney and have that attorney with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?"
NOT. UNDER. ARREST.
THEREFORE:
NOT. RESISTING. ARREST.
Defying a lawful order to disperse? YES!
Resisting arrest? NO, NO, and one last time, NO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Someone still doesn't comprehend the definition of resistance nor how to use it in the right context. One does not have to be placed under arrest to be resistant. As I pointed out to you earlier, but you clearly chose to overlook it, there is no clear definition of force according to the DOJ. Because you define it to your liking, doesn't make it law. Only an appointed judge, sitting in a court of law, can interpret and define the force that was used. I don't think you are an appointed judge sitting in a court of law. Being an armchair lawyer/judge doesn't count.
Judge Jill rewriting law, again.
Someone still doesn't comprehend that a court has ruled in Young v. The County of Los Angeles that a person sitting on the ground, having committed a minor crime, and who was not actively posing the threat of harm to police or others, cannot be pepper sprayed.
Any other definition or non-definition or whatever other crap you can pull out of wherever is utterly irrelevant here.
We have a ruling from a court in the jurisdiction that lays out that the use of pepper spray under these specific circumstances is excessive.
I have not defined anything, let alone defined it to my liking. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined it in Young v. The County of Los Angeles.
Just because you don't like how a Court of Law defined it doesn't make it ambiguous.
ELLI PEARSON: Well, we were protesting together, and the riot cops came at us, and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down. And all I could see was people telling me to cover my head, protect myself, and put my head down. And the next thing I know, I was pepper-sprayed.
51:00...
Give it up, they trapped the police and then complained because they got pepper sprayed.
ELLI PEARSON:
And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us.
Guess what happened? The people with authority did just that and with the least force available to them.
Give it up, they trapped the police and then complained because they got pepper sprayed.
Someone's case just went down the drain!!!!
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.
One does not have to be placed under arrest to be resistant. As I pointed out to you earlier, but you clearly chose to overlook it, there is no clear definition of force according to the DOJ. Because you define it to your liking, doesn't make it law. Only an appointed judge, sitting in a court of law, can interpret and define the force that was used. I don't think you are an appointed judge sitting in a court of law. Being an armchair lawyer/judge doesn't count.
