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 guess the rest of the country's or the feds opinion doesn't matter in California
Ppssst...They use case law from other states all the time.
I'm still lost as to how your applying the 4th amendment to this?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the common law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot.
Under the common law, when three or more individuals assembled for an illegal purpose, the offense of unlawful assembly was complete without the commission of any additional overt act. Some modern state statutes require both assembly and the commission of one of the acts proscribed by the statutes, even if the purpose of the assembly is not completed. Generally, an unlawful assembly is a misdemeanor under both common law and statutes.
The basis of the offense of unlawful assembly is the intent with which the individuals assemble. The members of the assembled group must have in mind a fixed purpose to perform an illegal act. The time when the intent is formed is immaterial, and it does not matter whether the purpose of the group is lawful or unlawful if they intend to carry out that purpose in a way that is likely to precipitate a breach of the peace.
In general, a unit of government may reasonably regulate parades, processions, and large public gatherings by requiring a license. Licenses cannot, however, be denied based on the political message of the group. Persons who refuse to obtain a license and hold their march or gathering may be charged with unlawful assembly.[LEFT]
Read more: Unlawful assembly: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
[/LEFT]
.
The California Penal Code Section 407 states: Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.
When the unlawful activities of a group of people escalate to an unmanageable level, in the opinion of the law enforcement officers in charge, they may declare the gathering to be an "Unlawful Assembly" and order the group to disperse.
What California Penal Codes are used for enforcement of “Unlawful Assembly”?
Title 11 of the California Penal Code, identifies the elements and punishments for Crimes against the Public Peace. Complete information can be found with an Internet search at Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys, Law, Legal Information - FindLaw
Section 409 states: 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.
Section 416 states: (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.
I guess the rest of the country's or the feds opinion doesn't matter in California
Ppssst...They use case law from other states all the time.
I'm still lost as to how your applying the 4th amendment to this?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the common law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot.
Under the common law, when three or more individuals assembled for an illegal purpose, the offense of unlawful assembly was complete without the commission of any additional overt act. Some modern state statutes require both assembly and the commission of one of the acts proscribed by the statutes, even if the purpose of the assembly is not completed. Generally, an unlawful assembly is a misdemeanor under both common law and statutes.
The basis of the offense of unlawful assembly is the intent with which the individuals assemble. The members of the assembled group must have in mind a fixed purpose to perform an illegal act. The time when the intent is formed is immaterial, and it does not matter whether the purpose of the group is lawful or unlawful if they intend to carry out that purpose in a way that is likely to precipitate a breach of the peace.
In general, a unit of government may reasonably regulate parades, processions, and large public gatherings by requiring a license. Licenses cannot, however, be denied based on the political message of the group. Persons who refuse to obtain a license and hold their march or gathering may be charged with unlawful assembly.[LEFT]
Read more: Unlawful assembly: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
[/LEFT]
.
The California Penal Code Section 407 states: Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.
When the unlawful activities of a group of people escalate to an unmanageable level, in the opinion of the law enforcement officers in charge, they may declare the gathering to be an "Unlawful Assembly" and order the group to disperse.
What California Penal Codes are used for enforcement of “Unlawful Assembly”?
Title 11 of the California Penal Code, identifies the elements and punishments for Crimes against the Public Peace. Complete information can be found with an Internet search at Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys, Law, Legal Information - FindLaw
Section 409 states: 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.
Section 416 states: (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.
Jill is assuming that public place, UC Davis, is their private home. That might be true if they were the sole contributors to the UC college system.
Jill is assuming that public place, UC Davis, is their private home. That might be true if they were the sole contributors to the UC college system.
No, she is assuming, correctly, that police do not have the right to pepper spray anyone that they see breaking a law. You guys can quote the student code of conduct or statutes on blocking sidewalks as much as you want. The fact that they were breaking both makes no difference, at all. The cops should have arrested the students involved without using weapons such as pepper spray.
Really?
She thinks because they pay taxes or that they pay tuition that they some how have ownership thus it is there property, yard, domicile and you can just sit and block any sidewalk they wish.
Even if that was so they violated campus policy.
News flash.
There are thousands of folks with a city sidewalk crossing their property and they can't block it.
As with the side walk on campus property. If it is open to the public, no gate or posted no trespassing and as a (state part of the U.S.A.) school it has to fallow the guidelines for the Americans with disability act.
the laws of the U.S.A and the state of California apply.
Get off of the sidewalk.
They should find a guy or gal in a wheel-chair that is willing to just ram them
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Jill is assuming that public place, UC Davis, is their private home. That might be true if they were the sole contributors to the UC college system.
I guess the rest of the country's or the feds opinion doesn't matter in California
Ppssst...They use case law from other states all the time.
I already explained this to you.
Case law from other jurisdictions can be considered. It is not binding.
Nor does your case address the use of force issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer
I'm still lost as to how your applying the 4th amendment to this?
How I'm applying it? The court applied it. To understand why, all you'd have to do is read the findings, which I linked to in my very first post in this thread. But since it's unlikely you will read it on your own, here you go:
Quote:
The gravity of the particular intrusion that a given use of force imposes upon an individual's liberty interest is measured with reference to “the type and amount of force inflicted.” Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1279(9th Cir.2001). Young contends that Wells pepper sprayed him as he sat on the sidewalk eating his broccoli and continued to do so as he rose to his feet and attempted to back away from the pepper spray. Young further alleges that Wells attempted to strike him in the head with a baton, that he blocked “eight or more” such attempts with his arms before Wells landed a solid baton blow to his shin, and that Wells struck him again with the baton after he had lain down on the ground. Both pepper spray and baton blows are forms of force capable of inflicting significant pain and causing serious injury. As such, both are regarded as “intermediate force” that, while less severe than deadly force, nonetheless present a significant intrusion upon an individual's liberty interests. See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701–02(9th Cir.2005); United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613, 623 (4th Cir.2003).
Pepper spray “is designed to cause intense pain,” and inflicts “a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an involuntary closing of the eyes, a gagging reflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx,” as well as “disorientation, anxiety, and panic.” Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1199–1200(9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801, 122 S.Ct. 24, 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); see also United States v. Neill, 166 F.3d 943, 949–50 (9th Cir.1999) (affirming district court finding that pepper spray is a “dangerous weapon” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and describing trial evidence that pepper spray causes “extreme pain” and is “capable of causing ‘protracted impairment of a function of a bodily organ’ “ as well as lifelong health problems such as asthma). The evidence includes a declaration by a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department lieutenant who testified as a police practices expert and stated that the basic curriculum of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) instructs officers that “the use of pepper spray can have very serious and debilitating consequences,” and that “[a]s such, it should only be generally used as a defensive weapon and must never be used to intimidate a person or retaliate against an individual.”
There's further explanation at the source if you bother to read it.
Like how?
They asked them nicely to move.
They said no.
Now what?
How do you get them from sitting with their arms locked together to the squad car or bus.
Remember the cop doesn't have to be a 230lb all mussel tough guy they could be women that weight no more than 100lbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken
No, she is assuming, correctly, that police do not have the right to pepper spray anyone that they see breaking a law. You guys can quote the student code of conduct or statutes on blocking sidewalks as much as you want. The fact that they were breaking both makes no difference, at all. The cops should have arrested the students involved without using weapons such as pepper spray.
I Have taken the POST test and I passed.
Standards are not laws standards change like theories.
I cited your code it is a misdemeanor it can carry a jail term of up to a year.
They are not enforcing a peaty offense but a crime.
Like how?
They asked them nicely to move.
They said no.
Now what?
How do you get them from sitting with their arms locked together to the squad car or bus.
Well one thing they could have done — and I know this is way out there — but they could have stepped one-by-one over the line of kids and walked away. Given that the kids were only sitting there with their arms locked in protest of the police presence, if they had just left the kids would no longer have had any reason to sit there now, would they?
But even if you want to see these vicious criminals arrested for blocking the sidewalk (OMG, the humanity!), the police should have just taken them by their arms, separated them, handcuffed them and led them away.
Had they resisted and become injured in the process, that would not be actionable against the arresting officers.
The police are supposed to be trained in how to diffuse a potentially volatile situation, not contribute to it or make it worse. They did everything wrong in this case.
I Have taken the POST test and I passed.
Standards are not laws standards change like theories.
I cited your code it is a misdemeanor it can carry a jail term of up to a year.
They are not enforcing a peaty offense but a crime.
So?
What?
You still haven't addressed how this justifies their use of pepper spray in the manner it was administered.
Let's see how you and the police feel when each of those students wins $1 million settlement.
The use of pepper spray on peaceful protesters should be considered torture. And if it's not torture, it's at least an assault.
Did you not watch the video in the OP? If you saw it I guess you didn't see the one girl who kept here head and face averted as if she thought that would somehow keep them from talking to her. That cop was talking right at the side of her head and she tried to ignore him.
What were those kids doing on that sidewalk? Is there not a chance that they were trying to keep the police from going down it to get back to the street? Why I think that is just what they wanted. They wanted to push the police into the crowd for some reason that both of us know what was.
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.
I guess the rest of the country's or the feds opinion doesn't matter in California 
