^ I wouldn't characterize it as creepy. The word that I would use would be "powerful."

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.

 

I guess they figured that after one PR nightmare there was no sense in compounding it by running over members of the media, either on foot or by car.

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.

This is an interesting question. If the protesters were told multiple times to not block the side walk what and they would not comply what is next? Either they are forcibly moved by the officers which good lead to physical injury to the protestors and/or the officers, they could be tazed, or pepper sprayed. Like you I don't know what the correct answer is. I would love to see the 10 mins or so leading up to the this video.

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.

It's a heck of a lot better (and less violent) way of freeing the right-of-way for law abiding citizens than to start a ruckus and end up having to baton people. I'd say these goofballs (most of which make over $500,000 a year, btw) deserve everything they get. Besides, that kind of treatment is exactly what they want. It makes them appear to be martyrs for the cause.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by Birdsfan

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.

Absolutely! What about the rights to the REAL 99%ers?

It's a heck of a lot better (and less violent) way of freeing the right-of-way for law abiding citizens than to start a ruckus and end up having to baton people. I'd say these goofballs (most of which make over $500,00 a year, btw) deserve everything they get. Besides, that kind of treatment is exactly what they want. It makes them appear to be martyrs for the cause.

 

Surely I am misreading this...you are okay with police pepper spraying nonviolent protestors?

Deaths, rapes, drug trafficking, destruction of property, terrorist threatening, overt threats to children - this is 'peaceful'?

^ And all this happened on the quad at UC Davis? That's one wild college party.

Surely I am misreading this...you are okay with police pepper spraying nonviolent protestors?

Yes, for their own benefit. Would you rather beat them with batons? Use tazers? How should we deal with people who take it upon themselves to hold the public hostage? I'd say there's a big difference between a peaceful protest (which I'm all for) and this kind of illegal activity.

Deaths, rapes, drug trafficking, destruction of property, terrorist threatening, overt threats to children - this is 'peaceful'?

Yeah, that never makes onto the cellphone videos.

Yes, for their own benefit. Would you rather beat them with batons? Use tazers? How should we deal with people who take it upon themselves to hold the public hostage? I'd say there's a big difference between a peaceful protest and this kind of illegal activity.

 

None if the above. Handcuff them and pull them apart. Police officers have been doing this for years without pepper spray.

Yes, for their own benefit. Would you rather beat them with batons? Use tazers?

 

Logical fallacy. Less evil only means "less evil." Less evil does not mean "good." They didn't need to be tazered. They didn't need to be hit with batons. They didn't need to be pepper sprayed.

 

Why did they need to be removed at all? What were they doing apart from sitting on a walkway in the middle of a college campus? Was there a lot of automobile through-traffic for emergency vehicles on that particular sidewalk? This was the middle of a college campus.

None if the above. Handcuff them and pull them apart. Police officers have been doing this for years without pepper spray.

When they attempt that (if it's even possible) the result is always a fight. Then the police are blamed for that. It's a no-win situation for them.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by Birdsfan

Logical fallacy. Less evil only means "less evil." Less evil does not mean "good." They didn't need to be tazered.They didn't need to be hit with batons. They didn't need to be pepper sprayed.

 

Why did they need to be removed at all? What were they doing apart from sitting on a walkway in the middle of a college campus? Was there a lot of automobile through-traffic for emergency vehicles on that particular sidewalk? This was the middle of a college campus.

Are you kidding? First of all, pepper spraying is not "evil!" :lol: It's a non-violent enforcement technique. Secondly, should we just allow the public's rights to be destroyed by a handful of law-breakers? Allow people like this to disrupt and impede lawful travel and commerce? Don't think so. And speaking personally, I'll say yes to your question. This blocked sidewalk would have made travel between those two points impossible for me.

When they attempt that (if it's evenp possible) the result is always a fight. Then the police are blamed for that. It's a no-win situation for them.

No, there is not always a fight. In this case, if the police had attempted to arrest the protesters and then HAD to use pepper spray, due to 'a fight' I wouldn't even be responding to this thread, as I would have no problem with it. Bottom-line is that the first line of response was pepper spray and that is very much overboard. Even the chancellor that called the police in agrees.