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.
Then you know I'm a realest.
I don't candy coat things.
I have explained it all to you.
You and Jill can jump up and down and scream at us that we are
Wrong when I/we have cited the law and cars law . You and Jill may not like it but we are not wrong.
So useing a quote from Jill so as not to be rude.
You are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Actually, no. I've read many of your responses on this and other threads. The attitude comes through loud and clear.
And pepper spray was overkill and unwarranted in this situation.
So if it is a war we can impose the pateroit act or are the protesters now combatants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Ohh goody, we get to call it a war now? Let's name them enemy combatants and send them to Obama's extraordinary rendition camps.
This is one nasty post with a bad atitude.
To bad it sums it right up.
Yanking then apart useing force (batons, fists, )could have caused serious injery.
The use of peper spray and what is is has already been coveered.
So if your late to the party you better go back and read all about it
Leper spray
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer
The more you know.
The kids on the sidewalk were trying to encircle the tent camp To block the police from gaining access to the camp
strike 1. This is not passive or peaceful.
They were inciting the crowed.
Strike 2
They were illegally blocking the sidewalk and refusing a lawful order to disperse.
strike 3.
They resisted police, actively or passively they still resisted.
Your out of the game.
Taken into custody. 99'9 of all people who are arrested are FIRST taken into custody.
It is up to the cop to and when he reads the Miranda rights.
It could be right there and then or it could be just before booking.
They inter locked arms and a police officer attempted to take them into "CUSTODY" they resisted the officers attempt to do so..
They the protesters incited the crowed.
Game over.
CA penal code.
408. Every person who participates in any riot or unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanor.
409. Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
416. (a) If two or more persons assemble for the purpose of disturbing the public peace, or committing any unlawful act, and do not disperse on being desired or commanded so to do by a public officer, the persons so offending are severally guilty of a misdemeanor.
420. Every person who unlawfully prevents, hinders, or obstructs any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land of the United States within the State of California, subject to settlement or entry under any of the public land laws of the United States; or who unlawfully hinders, prevents, or obstructs free passage over or through the public lands of the United States within the State of California, for the purpose of entry, settlement, or residence, as aforesaid, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
420.1. Anyone who willfully and knowingly prevents, hinders, or obstructs any person from entering, passing over, or leaving land in which that person enjoys, either personally or as an agent, guest, licensee, successor-in-interest, or contractor, a right to enter, use, cross, or inspect the property pursuant to an easement, covenant, license, profit, or other interest in the land, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500),
In addition, the California Penal Code § 835 (a) provides that: “Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrestedhas committed a public offense may use reasonable force to (1) effect the arrest, (2)prevent escape or (3) overcome resistance. A peace officer, who makes or attempts tomake an arrest, need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of resistance orthreatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed anaggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect thearrest or to prevent escape or toovercome resistance.”
Passive Resistance – Physical actions that do not prevent the officer’s attempt to control, for example, an individual subject who remains in a sitting, standing, limp or prone position with no physical contact (e.g. locked arms) with other individuals. An individual in handcuffs meets the definition of passive resistance if: (a) the individual is in a sitting, standing or prone position and is not engaged in any motion intended to injure, resist, or remove the handcuffs; or (b) the individual is walking (but not running) with the accompaniment of an officer. An individual who, while sitting or standing, has locked arms with another individualis not engaged in passive resistance but is engaged in proactive action to obstruct. An individual subject who has previously engaged in passive resistance or other passive behavior such as walking, as an individual, but who subsequently engages in behavior such as flailing, kicking, elbowing, head-butting, biting, shoving, jerking, or other action that an officer interprets as a threat or actual act of active resistance is no longer considered to be engaging in passive resistance.
Spray'em.
Were done here book the whole bunch.
Take them in to custody, then arrest them.
Handcuffing and placing someone in a squad car is not an arrest but it could be. It's at the officers discretion.
According to international law--Geneva Convention--use of any chemical agent by any country in the world is not legal in any war.
No matter what you think about the demonstrators, hopefully some here will get the implications of this kind of force on the American public, who could be demonstrating for anything including such things as the right to bear arms, etc.
Now, moving back to reality, the chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Convention and the later Chemical Weapons Convention are not even remotely related to pepper spray. Agents such as mustard gas and Sarin are the types of items prohibited.
Dramatic as it may be attempting to state pepper spray is banned from use in warfare is utterly laughable.
pepper spray is organic acid...spraying acid in the eyes is not utterly laughable..What's next..perhaps something less diluted...like sulphuric acid? Chemical agents or tazering are extreme and should not be seen as normal deterants or control mechanizms. IF the demonstrators were out of hand a firm hand from the cops is fine - but you don't just stroll about spraying people as if they were roaches.
Considering that the cop with the spray stepped right over their circle, I'd say that they weren't blocking much of anything. And frankly, there was little chance of injuring anyone had they used the usual police tactic of simply grabbing and separating the kids - and they also wouldn't face the widespread condemnation and escalation of protests had they simply acted as cops are supposed to.
As you as you initiate physical contact and force, the danger to police and protestors increases wioth the increased probability of a struggle. Pepper spray was used to avoid crossing the barrier into physical contact. They were warned and given time to move. They just didn't like the response they got - too bad, they don't get to make the choice.
pepper spray is organic acid...spraying acid in the eyes is not utterly laughable..What's next..perhaps something less diluted...like sulphuric acid? Chemical agents or tazering are extreme and should not be seen as normal deterants or control mechanizms. IF the demonstrators were out of hand a firm hand from the cops is fine - but you don't just stroll about spraying people as if they were roaches.
Of course, use a firm hand on a protester and the next thing you know that protester is in a vid telling how they suffered from police brutality.
I think maybe throwing stale gummy bears at the protesters might get them to move.
pepper spray is organic acid...spraying acid in the eyes is not utterly laughable..What's next..perhaps something less diluted...like sulphuric acid? Chemical agents or tazering are extreme and should not be seen as normal deterants or control mechanizms. IF the demonstrators were out of hand a firm hand from the cops is fine - but you don't just stroll about spraying people as if they were roaches.
I'd think at some point people would realize displaying their ignorance in the form of drama accomplishes little. Orange juice is an acid, by your reasoning it shouldn't be ingested. What's next, parents packing a thermos full of sulphuric acid in their kid's lunches?
You're arguing that two items that were adopted to lessen the likelihood of injuries to all parties involved should be abandoned for little reason other than the fact that you find their use distasteful.
Pepper spray is a lower level of force than employing physical force. Had the officers applied your logic a number of the protestors would have been headed to the hospital and jail rather than a water fountain to rinse off the pepper spray.
Last edited by outbacknv; 12-01-2011 at 08:05 AM..
Has it been proved in a court that their demonstration is unlawful and they were impeding the rights of (whom?).
The order to disperse a peaceful protest could, in a court of Constitutional law, be found illegal.
Neither you nor I, with our subjective opinions and biases, can judge this.
Read the First Amendment and many of the legal interpretations of it.
You don't go to court before the police take action unless it's something like getting a warrant. Do you have to be proven guilty before the police place you under arrest? No. You go to court after that to defend youself against the charge.
They did not have permits to block public access and they did not follow police orders. At that point, it is no longer a peaceful protest. If they want to challenge it as unconstitutional, they are free to do so.
Has it been proved in a court that their demonstration is unlawful and they were impeding the rights of (whom?).
The order to disperse a peaceful protest could, in a court of Constitutional law, be found illegal.
Neither you nor I, with our subjective opinions and biases, can judge this.
Read the First Amendment and many of the legal interpretations of it.
You go to court after you're arrested, not before. Nothing whatsoever needs to be proven in a court of law prior to law enforcement becoming involved in an incident. People are free to contest the actions of law enforcement in court after the fact. Attempting to do so while cops are trying to do their job is all but begging to be introduced to the concept of the continuum of force.
It seems you're having difficulty grasping the way the criminal justice system here works. Imagine yourself being beaten by a violent individual. Someone calls the police hoping to summon help. The police are sympathetic with the situation presented to them but being forced to operate within the constraints of the criminal justice system you erroneously believe to exist they are forced to tell the caller they are unable to respond until the abuses being visited upon you are examined by a court of law and determined to be illegal. While all this is happening you continue to be beaten.
Returning to the real world the police respond to the call, subdue your assailant, and summon medical help to deal with your injuries. The subdued assailant is free to dispute the actions of the police in court after his arrest.
It amazes me that a concept so simple needs to be explained to what is presumably an adult poster. I won't even bother to address your assertion that the rights of the protestors to ignore the law and wantonly intrude upon the rights of others is somehow protected by the First Amendment.
You either slept through your entire high school civics class or have resorted to blindly grasping at straws in an effort to support the protestors. In fact, your above quoted post may actually eclipse your earlier post attempting to categorize pepper spray as akin to chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Convention for it's embrace of fallacy in a misguided attempt to push a point.
Last edited by outbacknv; 12-01-2011 at 08:27 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.
