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.
Mmm, no, we get that just fine, thankyouverymuch. We just don't believe protesting rises to the level of "criminal activity." Hoo boy. This thread is an hilarious example of your side claiming exactly that.
You choose to ignore the multiple criminal violations listed in an earlier post.
Enjoy your willful ignorance. I'm done debating with you.
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".
Then they are obviously wrong. If they'd have left it alone, the tents would have been gone within a week, because Thanksgiving was coming up, and college students are hungry and broke. Now, the cops are suspended, the chancellor was humiliated, there's an investigation, the President of the UC system is involved, and on and on.
It's a college campus, there are always protests against something. Simply dragging the kids off is the standard technique for dealing with students that want to block some pathway or office. There was, again, no need at all to go beyond that.
Then they are obviously wrong. If they'd have left it alone, the tents would have been gone within a week, because Thanksgiving was coming up, and college students are hungry and broke. Now, the cops are suspended, the chancellor was humiliated, there's an investigation, the President of the UC system is involved, and on and on.
It's a college campus, there are always protests against something. Simply dragging the kids off is the standard technique for dealing with students that want to block some pathway or office. There was, again, no need at all to go beyond that.
And if the police did "drag" them off more than likely there would be screams of police brutality.
Maybe schools should create an elective course: "Protest 101"?
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.
Where did you get that info? I find it odd that you hold such a strange opinion.
If you were to educate yourself about Libertarian (small government) views you would see that there is a huge focus on abuse of power.
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.
This would be hilariously laugh-inducing except for the fact that you claim to be a (former?) law enforcement officer.
Darling, you know damn good and well that that cop had no legal right to indiscriminately pepper spray those kids. None. Several of the cops started to remove the kids by their arms and after the tiniest of tugs backed away with no further effort so that the bully could step across the kids and just willy-nilly spray them at point blank range. Several of the kids had the pepper spray canister shoved into their mouths and sprayed down their throats. Just stop defending this clear abuse of power. It's getting ridiculous already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
What qualifies you to interpret the law and determine how it is to be applied, to who, by whom and where? When you have bettern comprehension and a basic understanding of the law Judge Jill get back to me.
My understanding and comprehension of the law is perfectly fine, thank you. Yours, however, is not. You can quote me all the definitions you want, stating that police are allowed to use force. I have never disputed this, nor would I. But they are not allowed to use force however and whenever they please. I have actual case law that is on point from the very state where this incident occurred that supports my position that in this circumstance the force was excessive. You do not.
And since the rest of your post is just more of the same that I've already debunked or answered, I'm not going to further waste my time on the minutia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
You choose to ignore the multiple criminal violations listed in an earlier post.
Enjoy your willful ignorance. I'm done debating with you.
You don't read well. I didn't ignore any alleged criminal violations. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that the students in this instance may very well have been breaking a law or two.
But the fact that someone is breaking a law doesn't all of a sudden give police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to stop it.
I'm not being ignorant by any definition. You, however, are willfully lying about how far police authority stretches.
Who is saying this?
You?
Or a reporter looking for a headline, this does not make it the truth.
You can use large red text this will not change a thing.
no ones 4th amendment rights were trampled on.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you mean the 1st or 2nd amendment, maybe freedom of speech?
The right, guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Or freedom of speech as in the 2nd amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
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.
so you will under stand
IT IS AGEIST THE LAW TO BLOCK A SIDEWALK
REFUSING TO OBEY A LAWFUL ORDER IS ALSO BREAKING THE LAW
THE POLICE DON"T NEED TO WALK AWAY OR WRESTLE THEM APART
It was illegal to protest like they did.
Did they have a permit?
102.16
Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his or her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such University or other public officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.
102.06 Unauthorized Entry, Use, or Possession. Unauthorized entry to, possession of, receipt of, or use of any University services, equipment, resources, or properties, including the University's name, insignia, or seal.
I suppose the cops should have just called their mommy and told her junior is acting up again.
and to come get him before he gets sprayed with pepper spray.
Last edited by snofarmer; 11-26-2011 at 01:19 PM..
Darling, you know damn good and well that that cop had no legal right to indiscriminately pepper spray those kids. None. Several of the cops started to remove the kids by their arms and after the tiniest of tugs backed away with no further effort so that the bully could step across the kids and just willy-nilly spray them at point blank range. Several of the kids had the pepper spray canister shoved into their mouths and sprayed down their throats. Where's the video on that? Just stop defending this clear abuse of power. It's getting ridiculous already. My understanding and comprehension of the law is perfectly fine, thank you. What you ACTUALLY know and what you THINK you know are two different things. Up to now you have shown that you actually know zero about law. Yours, however, is not. You can quote me all the definitions you want, stating that police are allowed to use force. I have never disputed this, nor would I. But they are not allowed to use force however and whenever they please. I have actual case law that is on point from the very state where this incident occurred that supports my position that in this circumstance the force was excessive. You do not. Will you be the side chair attorney or the one actually representing them if they bring the matter to court because you seem to think they have a strong case??
An armchair lawyer is not a lawyer, daaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhling.
And since the rest of your post is just more of the same that I've already debunked or answered, I'm not going to further waste my time on the minutia. You don't read well. I didn't ignore any alleged criminal violations. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that the students in this instance may very well have been breaking a law or two.
But the fact that someone is breaking a law doesn't all of a sudden give police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to stop it.
You have zero comprehension of what I posted from the DOJ or you are very dense.
I told you get back to me when you have a modicum of law.
This would be hilariously laugh-inducing except for the fact that you claim to be a (former?) law enforcement officer.
Darling, you know damn good and well that that cop had no legal right to indiscriminately pepper spray those kids. None. Several of the cops started to remove the kids by their arms and after the tiniest of tugs backed away with no further effort so that the bully could step across the kids and just willy-nilly spray them at point blank range. Several of the kids had the pepper spray canister shoved into their mouths and sprayed down their throats. Just stop defending this clear abuse of power. It's getting ridiculous already. My understanding and comprehension of the law is perfectly fine, thank you. Yours, however, is not. You can quote me all the definitions you want, stating that police are allowed to use force. I have never disputed this, nor would I. But they are not allowed to use force however and whenever they please. I have actual case law that is on point from the very state where this incident occurred that supports my position that in this circumstance the force was excessive. You do not.
And since the rest of your post is just more of the same that I've already debunked or answered, I'm not going to further waste my time on the minutia. You don't read well. I didn't ignore any alleged criminal violations. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that the students in this instance may very well have been breaking a law or two.
But the fact that someone is breaking a law doesn't all of a sudden give police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to stop it.
I'm not being ignorant by any definition. You, however, are willfully lying about how far police authority stretches.
That's the second time in this thread you've called me a liar. Apparently you have no more concern for the TOS of this site than you do for the rule of law as you seem to think violating either is perfectly acceptable as long as it serves your purposes.
I'll refrain from further comment as it would accomplish nothing.
Thanks for reminding me why you were previously on ignore. You've just made your way back onto the list.
That's the second time in this thread you've called me a liar. Apparently you have no more concern for the TOS of this site than you do for the rule of law as you seem to think violating either is perfectly acceptable as long as it serves your purposes.
I'll refrain from further comment as it would accomplish nothing.
Thanks for reminding me why you were previously on ignore. You've just made your way back onto the list.
But it so much fun observing the diatribe that spews forth.
so you will under stand
IT IS AGEIST [sic]THE LAW TO BLOCK A SIDEWALK
REFUSING TO OBEY A LAWFUL ORDER IS ALSO BREAKING THE LAW
THE POLICE DON"T NEED TO WALK AWAY OR WRESTLE THEM APART
Actually, yes they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
I told you get back to me when you have a modicum of law.
I have more than a modicum of law. You clearly do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
That's the second time in this thread you've called me a liar. Apparently you have no more concern for the TOS of this site than you do for the rule of law as you seem to think violating either is perfectly acceptable as long as it serves your purposes.
I'll refrain from further comment as it would accomplish nothing.
Thanks for reminding me why you were previously on ignore. You've just made your way back onto the list.
I am not the least surprised that someone who cannot read and comprehend case law cannot read and comprehend the difference between "you claim to be in law enforcement" and "you're a liar." On the internet, anyone can claim to be anything.
I wonder if you think it hurts my feelings that you're going to "ignore" me. That's funny.
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 even the looney left made rules which say it the university NOT "better off ignoring the circle kids".
