Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

What does the right to peaceably assemble mean? Do militarized police forces designed to gas, shoot, or otherwise beat the hell out citizens need to exist in a country where the above is the the foremost restriction against government? Is this violence acceptable as long as we don't agree with or detest those assembling? I write this mainly to provocate, but they are genuine questions.

 

 

*If you want to discuss the merits of the OWS movement or any other groups, start another thread.

Want to give us a little more to go on here?

If the authorities want to ignore this "right" to a group I wish it would be the Westboro church folks who protest the military funerals. They should pepper spray those idiots every time.

I keep trying to put myself in the shoes of the police officers. Were these protesters unruly prior to the picture shown here? I'm not finding any reports of that. But, if so, wouldn't the pepper spray been better used at that time? Which leads me to ask, aren't tools like pepper spray, etc, to be used to quell violent individuals? Despite my best efforts, I'm not able to see how protesters seated with arms locked present a threat.

I keep trying to put myself in the shoes of the police officers. Were these protesters unruly prior to the picture shown here? I'm not finding any reports of that. But, if so, wouldn't the pepper spray been better used at that time? Which leads me to ask, aren't tools like pepper spray, etc, to be used to quell violent individuals? Despite my best efforts, I'm not able to see how protesters seated with arms locked present a threat.

 

Here is video:

 

Wow.

I keep trying to put myself in the shoes of the police officers. Were these protesters unruly prior to the picture shown here? I'm not finding any reports of that. But, if so, wouldn't the pepper spray been better used at that time? Which leads me to ask, aren't tools like pepper spray, etc, to be used to quell violent individuals? Despite my best efforts, I'm not able to see how protesters seated with arms locked present a threat.

Serious question here. What rights do non-protestors have to forceably remove protestors if they are haulting access in to places, bumping in to people, impeding upon everday life, etc. Not saying that was the case here, just a question of curiosity.

Serious question here. What rights do non-protestors have to forceably remove protestors if they are haulting access in to places, bumping in to people, impeding upon everday life, etc. Not saying that was the case here, just a question of curiosity.

 

I'm not sure. But pepper spraying seated people? I could see removing the protesters, even arresting them if there are laws being broken. But in reality, what you describe is no different than crowd control in a stadium, etc. I could see pepper spraying individuals that were being agressive. But look at the video linked and tell me any of those portesters were posing any agression.

I'm not sure. But pepper spraying seated people? I could see removing the protesters, even arresting them if there are laws being broken. But in reality, what you describe is no different than crowd control in a stadium, etc. I could see pepper spraying individuals that were being agressive. But look at the video linked and tell me any of those portesters were posing any agression.

They were not and I was not condoning the officer's actions. Though if people are locked arms denying access in to a public building I am not sure what you do beside forceably remove someone. Then the "authority" figures are criticized for doing even that. Not saying pepper spray is the way to go. It is just something I have always wondered. I am all for a good demonstration, but protestors often cross the line to what I believe is acceptable.

They were not and I was not condoning the officer's actions. Though if people are locked arms denying access in to a public building I am not sure what you do beside forceably remove someone. Then the "authority" figures are criticized for doing even that. Not saying pepper spray is the way to go. It is just something I have always wondered. I am all for a good demonstration, but protestors often cross the line to what I believe is acceptable.

 

I agree protestors can cross lines. I'm speaking only to this video, though. The whole protest seems to be occuring in an open, green area. So, I can't find any way at all to justify the actions in this video. If there's an issue of public safety, like access to emergency exits, I could possibly see forcible removal. If it were simply a matter of access, I would think that they could use tactics that didn't include physical harm to push protestors back.

What I saw in that video was totally unacceptable.

What I saw in that video was totally unacceptable.

No doubt. Granted we do not know what happend up until that point, but that is a terrible image.

I cannot see any reason why pepper spray was used in this instance. The unfortunate reality is that bad decisions like this lead to a negative characterization for police in general.

How's this for a protest? Following the pepper-spray incident, there have been numerous calls for the resignation of UC Davis' Chancellor, Linda Katehi, who asked the police to remove the students and take control. What happened after is pretty amazing (read: creepy). During her walk to her car following the press conference regarding the incident, she found students standing and sitting along the walkway in complete silence.

 

Wow, now that is how you demonstrate. Was it just me or was she walking in super slow motion and the car going about 2 mph? I would not be going near that slow.