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.
The police are shown politely giving individual warnings of what was to come if the protesters did not move as commanded.
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."
IOW, who gives a hoot how "polite" the cops were? Just because they tell them nicely that they're about to do something illegal doesn't make it any less illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
What else were the police supposed to do?
You're kidding me, right? The chancellor had ordered all the tents removed because overnight camping on campus was dangerous and unsanitary (since there were no open buildings they could use the facilities in). The chancellor then asked campus police to assist in accomplishing this. And that's ALL the chancellor asked them to do.
By the time you see these videos every tent had been dismantled and removed.
What else were the police supposed to do at that point? How about leave?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
The protesters would not let the officers leave.
That is entirely untrue. The cop who sprayed those kids stepped right over them, turned around and then proceeded to spray them. Every single freaking one of them could have stepped over the seated kids and just walked away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
They defied the orders which were within the law.
No, the orders were against the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
Protesters should be allowed to protest; but not block other peoples' passage.
They weren't blocking anyone. One more time, with emphasis: The guy stepped over them to spray them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
I think the police were well within the law. As a law abiding citizen, I like to think that as long as they are acting within the written law, the police are in charge; not some group of people I may not agree with.
Young was sitting on the curb eating his broccoli with his back turned to Wells when Wells began to pepper spray him, and the record does not suggest that Young was threatening Wells or the public in any way. See Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 832–33 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding suspect posed no immediate threat to officer where”[t]he facts suggest that [the suspect] was not even facing [the officer] when he was shot [with a taser].”). The record is thus clear and the parties do not dispute that no reasonable safety concern warranted Wells's use of pepper spray upon Young. ...
When, as here, a suspect's disobedience of a police officer takes the form of passive noncompliance that creates a minimal disturbance and indicates no threat, immediate or otherwise, to the officer or others, it will not, without more, give rise to a governmental interest in the use of significant force. ...
Wells chose [to bypass] a variety of less painful and potentially injurious measures that would have been both feasible and reasonable under the circumstances. Instead, he proceeded to employ a level of intermediate force that caused Young significant pain and threatened serious bodily injury. ...
We conclude our analysis of whether the force used by Wells was reasonable by balancing “the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the government's need for that intrusion.” Miller, 340 F.3d at 964. The intermediate force used by Wells indisputably constituted a significant intrusion upon Young's liberty interests. In assessing the countervailing governmental interest that we must balance against that intrusion, as explained above, all three factors traditionally used to assess the government's interest weigh against a finding that the force used in this case was reasonable. First, the “immediate threat to safety of the officer or others,” Miller, 340 F.3d at 964, was negligible: Wells has never argued that Young posed any sort of safety threat prior to his use of pepper spray, and to the extent that he argued in the district court that his baton blows were justified by fears for his safety, such arguments would, at most, suffice to raise a jury question as to whether it was reasonable for him to fear an assault from a man who had failed to wear his seatbelt and was armed only with broccoli and a tomato—a man who had not in any way threatened him or indicated any propensity for violent behavior. Second, the crimes involved in Young's traffic stop were non-violent misdemeanors committed in a manner that gave no indication of dangerousness to Wells or others, and thus not sufficiently “severe” to justify the use of significant force. Finally, Young was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. As well, while not included among the factors we traditionally consider, the fact that Wells could have feasibly employed less intrusive measures prior to his use of force suggests that the government's interest in the use of significant force was extremely limited, if not altogether non-existent.
Having determined that the force allegedly used against Young was significant and that the governmental interest in the use of that force minimal, we conclude that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Young, the force used by Wells was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The school, the campus police, the county & the state are going to get their a$$es sued off. And rightfully so.
When the first video came out I questioned where was the footage that lead up to the police pepper spraying the protesters. I didn't believe it was just a random act on behalf of the police, but just a piece of video to make it look as if it was.
When the first video came out I questioned where was the footage that lead up to the police pepper spraying the protesters. I didn't believe it was just a random act on behalf of the police, but just a piece of video to make it look as if it was.
Here. Here's a video just prior to the illegal use of a harmful substance against passive non-compliance in violation of the students' 4th amendment rights.
Note the cop stepping over the line of seated kids whose backs were to him at around the 2:22 mark, then turning around and attacking them with the pepper spray illegally.
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."
IOW, who gives a hoot how "polite" the cops were? Just because they tell them nicely that they're about to do something illegal doesn't make it any less illegal. You're kidding me, right? The chancellor had ordered all the tents removed because overnight camping on campus was dangerous and unsanitary (since there were no open buildings they could use the facilities in). The chancellor then asked campus police to assist in accomplishing this. And that's ALL the chancellor asked them to do.
By the time you see these videos every tent had been dismantled and removed.
What else were the police supposed to do at that point? How about leave? That is entirely untrue. The cop who sprayed those kids stepped right over them, turned around and then proceeded to spray them. Every single freaking one of them could have stepped over the seated kids and just walked away. No, the orders were against the law. They weren't blocking anyone. One more time, with emphasis: The guy stepped over them to spray them. The police were well outside the law.
The school, the campus police, the county & the state are going to get their a$$es sued off. And rightfully so.
So I'm sure you'll retract now, right?
Uh, why would the county be a party to this lawsuit? Since the school and the campus police are part of the state, that's a bit redundant.
Also, how is actively resisting arrest defined? Would interlocking arms together to prevent police from making individual arrests qualify as actively resisting arrest? Since you bolded that part, I'll assume you have free reign with Westlaw, and can get an answer on this lickity-split. My understanding is that passive resistance is going limp - any other action (such as the aforementioned interlocking of arms) would be active resistance.
Whether that is all the chancellor asked the police to do is not relevant - you can question whether or not the police used good discretion in choosing to enforce the law, but if they identified a law being broken, they, might... enforce the law, as is their job.
Here. Here's a video just prior to the illegal use of a harmful substance against passive non-compliance in violation of the students' 4th amendment rights.
Note the cop stepping over the line of seated kids whose backs were to him at around the 2:22 mark, then turning around and attacking them with the pepper spray illegally.
Now that you've seen this and read the decision in Young v. The County of Los Angeles posted above, you'll be retracting, right?
Were they not warned??? It appears so since they were preparing for the spray. And how dramatic were they with the "don't shoot" chant?? Did the police actually threaten to shot them??
Isn't it possible that there is conversation missing that no one is aware of between the Chancellor and the police when meeting as to how disburse the protesters? Maybe she told them to do whatever was necessary to remove them? Maybe they asked if they could use pepper spray??
Maybe the protesters should have protested on a grassy area where they didn't infringe on the rights of those students who weren't protesting. Blocking entry to the building to those who were not taking part in the protest was infringing on their rights to have clear passage.
When anyone, including police, are surrounded by a group of people and they are outnumbered, there is a level of threat to them, and they were surrounded by students that outnumbered them.
Why is it that it's all about the protesters and their rights, and to hell with everyone elses rights?? The businesses that were closed because of them? Business lost because of them? People who lost jobs because of them?People's property in NYC ruined because protesters were using it as a public toilet? Didn't those people have rights? Or.............don't the rights of others count?? If the protesters "rights" were being violated, trust me you would have every bleeding heart lawyer and organization out there to defend them, especially if there was the chance of cashing in on a lawsuit. Do you seen any????
With regard to the case you used to argue, it didn't say if Wells gave the person a prior warning.
And no, I'm not retracting my previous statement, no will I retract this one. You haven't made a good enough case to convince me of anything.
Here. Here's a video just prior to the illegal use of a harmful substance against passive non-compliance in violation of the students' 4th amendment rights.
Note the cop stepping over the line of seated kids whose backs were to him at around the 2:22 mark, then turning around and attacking them with the pepper spray illegally.
Now that you've seen this and read the decision in Young v. The County of Los Angeles posted above, you'll be retracting, right?
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.
Actually, it doesn't matter how much warning they gave. Pepper spray shouldn't be used on peaceful protesters. The cops would have been better off ignoring the circle kids, or at most simply unlinking them and arresting them, which is what police normally do.
I always find it odd that the "small government" types think it's okay for cops to do whatever they wish, and that citizens have no rights that hold against them.
UC Davis has to be one of the most politically and ideologically liberal campuses on the planet, and yet their rules and such prohibit sit ins, which these students were conducting in. So even the looney left made rules which say it the university NOT "better off ignoring the circle kids".
Uh, why would the county be a party to this lawsuit? Since the school and the campus police are part of the state, that's a bit redundant.
Also, how is actively resisting arrest defined? Would interlocking arms together to prevent police from making individual arrests qualify as actively resisting arrest? Since you bolded that part, I'll assume you have free reign with Westlaw, and can get an answer on this lickity-split. My understanding is that passive resistance is going limp - any other action (such as the aforementioned interlocking of arms) would be active resistance.
Whether that is all the chancellor asked the police to do is not relevant - you can question whether or not the police used good discretion in choosing to enforce the law, but if they identified a law being broken, they, might... enforce the law, as is their job.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Were they not warned??? It appears so since they were preparing for the spray. And how dramatic were they with the "don't shoot" chant?? Did the police actually threaten to shot them??
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Isn't it possible that there is conversation missing that no one is aware of between the Chancellor and the police when meeting as to how disburse the protesters? Maybe she told them to do whatever was necessary to remove them? Maybe they asked if they could use pepper spray??
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Maybe the protesters should have protested on a grassy area where they didn't infringe on the rights of those students who weren't protesting. Blocking entry to the building to those who were not taking part in the protest was infringing on their rights to have clear passage.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
When anyone, including police, are surrounded by a group of people and they are outnumbered, there is a level of threat to them, and they were surrounded by students that outnumbered them.
The police were not threatened by the seated students. Why do I have to repeat this?
THE OFFICER WHO SPRAYED THEM STEPPED OVER THEM BEFORE USING THE PEPPER SPRAY ON THEM. THE POLICE WERE NOT THREATENED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Why is it that it's all about the protesters and their rights, and to hell with everyone elses rights?? The businesses that were closed because of them? Business lost because of them? People who lost jobs because of them?People's property in NYC ruined because protesters were using it as a public toilet? Didn't those people have rights? Or.............don't the rights of others count?? If the protesters "rights" were being violated, trust me you would have every bleeding heart lawyer and organization out there to defend them, especially if there was the chance of cashing in on a lawsuit. Do you seen any????
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.
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.
WHAT THEY CANNOT DO IS USE EXCESSIVE FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
With regard to the case you used to argue, it didn't say if Wells gave the person a prior warning.
And no, I'm not retracting my previous statement, no will I retract this one. You haven't made a good enough case to convince me of anything.
Actually, the case law I quoted did address whether Wells was given a warning. He was not.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
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.
LOL Okay, since you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
UC Davis has to be one of the most politically and ideologically liberal campuses on the planet, and yet their rules and such prohibit sit ins, which these students were conducting in. So even the looney left made rules which say it the university NOT "better off ignoring the circle kids".
Rules against sit-ins? Where did you come up with that nonsense?
Actually, it doesn't matter how much warning they gave. Pepper spray shouldn't be used on peaceful protesters. The cops would have been better off ignoring the circle kids, or at most simply unlinking them and arresting them, which is what police normally do.
I always find it odd that the "small government" types think it's okay for cops to do whatever they wish, and that citizens have no rights that hold against them.
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.
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.
My understanding is that passive resistance is going limp - any other action (such as the aforementioned interlocking of arms) would be active resistance.
So even the looney left made rules which say it the university NOT "better off ignoring the circle kids".
