That’s fair and I understand the need to be prepared, especially for the officers’ safety. I’ve tried to steer my comments more toward the various governmental decisions rather than the actions of individual officers as I think they were mostly following protocol. While I understand that law enforcement is a dangerous and necessary job, I also think that part of the reason it is dangerous is because certain tactics or procedures are proscribed to protect the rights of the public. I suppose that’s my complaint here in that when I see the riot gear brought out for a peaceful protest, then see the subsequent violence I’m not entirely shocked. I don’t think they should have been called in in the first place, but even still I think those who wanted to go to jail for their cause could have been handled by well trained officers without all of the riot gear. That might have been more difficult, but I also think that’s what makes it one of the more noble professions – not just anyone can cut it and we are a better country because of it.

 

For the record, I agree with the rest of your original post. I can't say I've read enough information as to all of the events that transpired leading up to the pepper spray incident, so my partially uninformed opinion is to question the governmental/institutional decisions that were made and certainly to question the tactics used by the police at that point in time. There's an old saying that 'discretion is the better part of valor' and perhaps this was a situation in which it would have been more appropriate to lay back and let time work to your advantage, especially given the demonstrators didn't appear to be causing danger to anyone. Of course, anyone can be a solid Monday morning quarterback - it's quarterbacking on Sunday that is the challenge.

 

That all being said, I still have to take issue with two small pieces of your last post and then I'll let this die. You seem to be implying that police use of riot gear is only appropriate when a riot is taking place. Simply not true. It is appropriate to employ even in "peaceful" situations when dealing with large numbers of people in a situation that has a realistic potential to become combative. It's simply not fair to say that "well-trained officers could have handled the situation without all of the riot gear." The best trained, most experienced officers in the world don't automatically have the ability to convince large numbers of highly-motivated people to comply with their verbal demands or to arrest/remove such people without the risk of serious violence occurring. A mob mentality can be a scary thing. Sometimes it truly does require a show of force and, perhaps, the actual use of force. Just part of the world we live in.

 

And while I certainly agree with and appreciate your assessment that police work is one of the most noble professions, this "nobility" shouldn't mean that we take unnecessary risks, fail to acknowledge potentially dangerous situations, or not employ standard and acceptable tools of the trade (i.e., riot gear) in the interest of appearing more noble or heroic.

 

Good debate though. It'll be very interesting to see what exactly took place leading up to the incident, who issued what orders and when.

Habib, I'm not sure why you keep calling it a peaceful protest. At least 10 of those peaceful protesters are facing charges for not abiding by the rules of the college. They did not follow the orders of the Chancellor. Its a college. A learning environment. You are not holding any of the students accountable for their actions. The cop that used the pepper spray should face consequences but don't act like the students were mere victims.

 

I think "peaceful" is still an appropriate adjective. When you compare this to many of the protests and demonstrations across this country and throughout the world, it's not as if the protestors were throwing rocks at police, turning over cars, looting businesses, attacking innocent bystanders, etc. Those are the types of activities most of us ascribe to "violent" protests and none of those things occurred (that I'm aware of). Were they disobedient in that they violated some rules of the college and ignored police warnings? Sure. But I'm not sure those things would throw this event into the "non-peaceful" category. For me anyways, I think "peaceful protest" still appropriately describes the event.

Glad to have my man Coop back on the board.

Glad to have my man Coop back on the board.

 

Been a brutally busy past few months at work and a ton of travel. After next week things calm down considerably. Eligible to retire Jan. 2 - not going, but nice to be in the club. Especially since I'm so dang young.

For the record, I agree with the rest of your original post. I can't say I've read enough information as to all of the events that transpired leading up to the pepper spray incident, so my partially uninformed opinion is to question the governmental/institutional decisions that were made and certainly to question the tactics used by the police at that point in time. There's an old saying that 'discretion is the better part of valor' and perhaps this was a situation in which it would have been more appropriate to lay back and let time work to your advantage, especially given the demonstrators didn't appear to be causing danger to anyone. Of course, anyone can be a solid Monday morning quarterback - it's quarterbacking on Sunday that is the challenge.

 

That all being said, I still have to take issue with two small pieces of your last post and then I'll let this die. You seem to be implying that police use of riot gear is only appropriate when a riot is taking place. Simply not true. It is appropriate to employ even in "peaceful" situations when dealing with large numbers of people in a situation that has a realistic potential to become combative. It's simply not fair to say that "well-trained officers could have handled the situation without all of the riot gear." The best trained, most experienced officers in the world don't automatically have the ability to convince large numbers of highly-motivated people to comply with their verbal demands or to arrest/remove such people without the risk of serious violence occurring. A mob mentality can be a scary thing. Sometimes it truly does require a show of force and, perhaps, the actual use of force. Just part of the world we live in.

 

And while I certainly agree with and appreciate your assessment that police work is one of the most noble professions, this "nobility" shouldn't mean that we take unnecessary risks, fail to acknowledge potentially dangerous situations, or not employ standard and acceptable tools of the trade (i.e., riot gear) in the interest of appearing more noble or heroic.

 

Good debate though. It'll be very interesting to see what exactly took place leading up to the incident, who issued what orders and when.

 

Well said. I largely agree, I'm just a little skeptical sometimes. Good discussion. :thumb:

I think "peaceful" is still an appropriate adjective. When you compare this to many of the protests and demonstrations across this country and throughout the world, it's not as if the protestors were throwing rocks at police, turning over cars, looting businesses, attacking innocent bystanders, etc. Those are the types of activities most of us ascribe to "violent" protests and none of those things occurred (that I'm aware of). Were they disobedient in that they violated some rules of the college and ignored police warnings? Sure. But I'm not sure those things would throw this event into the "non-peaceful" category. For me anyways, I think "peaceful protest" still appropriately describes the event.

 

By law, if they were told to leave and still refuse to do so, it ceases to be a 'peaceful' protest. Were they violent? No. Were they following the law? No. If they were being peaceful and following the rules they wouldn't of been arrested.

By law, if they were told to leave and still refuse to do so, it ceases to be a 'peaceful' protest. Were they violent? No. Were they following the law? No. If they were being peaceful and following the rules they wouldn't of been arrested.

 

I guess that means that the MLK civil rights protest marches of the '60s were also not peaceful? Are you redefining the term "civil disobedience" and "peaceful?"

I guess that means that the MLK civil rights protest marches of the '60s were also not peaceful? Are you redefining the term "civil disobedience" and "peaceful?"

 

Its a joke you are even comparing these two.

Its a joke you are even comparing these two.

 

Is it really? No one knows what the future holds, but it's written in history that many in that time viewed the Civil Rights Movement with the same derision and dismissal as people view the OWS movement.

Is it really? No one knows what the future holds, but it's written in history that many in that time viewed the Civil Rights Movement with the same derision and dismissal as people view the OWS movement.

 

Yes, really. I don't look at the Day of Rage protests in awe and parallel it to the Civil Rights Movement. I certainly won't do it with these protests either. The Civil Rights Movement was about the black community getting the same rights as every other human should. Its insulting that you or anyone else would compare it. The Civil Rights had a purpose. You ask what Civil Rights protesters were fighting for and they would tell you. You ask a Wall St. Protester what they are protesting for, they are unsure or you get extremely different answers. Some what capitalism to fail. Some want redistribution of wealth. Others have legitimate needs and concerns. Some are down there just to be idiots.

Yes, really. I don't look at the Day of Rage protests in awe and parallel it to the Civil Rights Movement. I certainly won't do it with these protests either. The Civil Rights Movement was about the black community getting the same rights as every other human should. Its insulting that you or anyone else would compare it. The Civil Rights had a purpose. You ask what Civil Rights protesters were fighting for and they would tell you. You ask a Wall St. Protester what they are protesting for, they are unsure or you get extremely different answers. Some what capitalism to fail. Some want redistribution of wealth. Others have legitimate needs and concerns. Some are down there just to be idiots.

 

The reason for protest is irrelevant to what I was talking about; only the methods is what I'm speaking of. Again, civil disobedience is, by its very nature, peaceful. In this case, "violent" is the opposite of "peaceful." Just because they aren't minding police orders doesn't mean they're being violent.

The reason for protest is irrelevant to what I was talking about; only the methods is what I'm speaking of. Again, civil disobedience is, by its very nature, peaceful. In this case, "violent" is the opposite of "peaceful." Just because they aren't minding police orders doesn't mean they're being violent.

 

That post had to do with what Rockmom said and comparing it with the Civil Rights Protests. So it was irrelevant to what you were talking about.

 

Also, did you not read my previous post to Habib? I said they weren't being violent. However, being non-violent does not mean you are being peaceful. You are forgetting that states and institutions have the right to regulate assembly, by law.

 

I should make it clear, once again, that I do not agree with the way the police officers handled this. The ones that used the pepper spray obnoxiously should be held accountable. Just don't let the college kids (and some people that were there weren't college students) seem like they were innocent bystanders.

Edited November 23, 201114 yr by marvel
added last paragraph

I guess that means that the MLK civil rights protest marches of the '60s were also not peaceful? Are you redefining the term "civil disobedience" and "peaceful?"

 

Its a joke you are even comparing these two.

 

Is it really? No one knows what the future holds, but it's written in history that many in that time viewed the Civil Rights Movement with the same derision and dismissal as people view the OWS movement.

 

That post had to do with what Rockmom said and comparing it with the Civil Rights Protests. So it was irrelevant to what you were talking about.

 

I made the first comparison. RM responded to your objection. Again, my statement was not comparing the reasons for protest, just the methods.

 

Also, did you not read my previous post to Habib? I said they weren't being violent. However, being non-violent does not mean you are being peaceful. You are forgetting that states and institutions have the right to regulate assembly, by law.

 

I should make it clear, once again, that I do not agree with the way the police officers handled this. The ones that used the pepper spray obnoxiously should be held accountable. Just don't let the college kids (and some people that were there weren't college students) seem like they were innocent bystanders.

 

Again, I think you're trying to redefine the term "peaceful" and its antonym, "violent."

 

peace·ful

   /ˈpisfəl/ Show Spelled[pees-fuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.

 

And I love your phrase about "some people that were there that weren't even college students." Were they "communist agitators?" You sound like a Bircher.