Better look at UC Davis pepper spray incident.

[Expat]

oh, my bad. i thought that was a picture of unclemike from back in the 70's

No. Back in the good old days they used fire hoses, nightsticks, dogs. Now they use all this wussy stuff to avoid injuring anyone. The rioters back in the old days just sucked it up and took it. Now if they get their feelings hurt they start complaining and cry.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

No. Back in the good old days they used fire hoses, nightsticks, dogs. Now they use all this wussy stuff to avoid injuring anyone. The rioters back in the old days just sucked it up and took it. Now if they get their feelings hurt they start complaining and cry.

Ahh the good ole' days, when more aggressively violent tactics being used to suppress peacefully assembling citizens was the status quo... If only we could revert to a monarchical government, where executing protesters would be the response - and protesters just have to take it (die).

Ahh, "the good ole' days"....

 

[Expat]

Ahh the good ole' days, when more aggressively violent tactics being used to suppress peacefully assembling citizens was the status quo... If only we could revert to a monarchical government, where executing protesters would be the response - and protesters just have to take it (die).

Ahh, "the good ole' days"....

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. Really, I mean it... it's okay. I take it back.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. Really, I mean it... it's okay. I take it back.

I am not butthurt.. just sarcastic and snippy like usual. I find it is often much briefer and to the point than debating the belief that the evolution of civil liberties is a good thing.

 

[Love the 1911]

Do you think insulting me makes you right?

This post only shows how much of an idiot YOU really are...you just flamed me for making THE SAME POINT AS YOU!!!.

It's funny you tell me to read...TRY READING THE PREVIOUS POSTS, MORON!

To put too fine a point on it...in 'the day' it was just called liberalism, classic liberalism is a modern designation of an old ideology. If you bothered to READ, you'd see that I was attempting to relate my PERSONAL ideology to that of 'Classic Liberalism' vs. 'Modern Liberals (The current popular archetype). I was NOT attempting to say that Nancy Pelosi is a classic liberal, or that Thomas jefferson is a modern 'progresive'.

Open your eyes...and stop being a dick.

Too may more of these and people will be starting threads about the MODs closing threads for no reason at all.

I think we all like a good heated debate and I know you aren't the first to start with insults but let's try leaving moron and dick out of the posts so we can continue to discuss instead of having the door shut on all of us.

 

[Roadie]

Not a single protester in this video acted in a violent or aggressive manner - the police initiated the violence, and that was the ONLY violence... the violence was in response to a peaceful protest. The legality of their response is at best questionable, and very likely illegal.

If being blocked in was the issue, and they were just attempting to retreat - why would they spray the people in the middle sitting on the ground, not blocking them in? It is actually very simple - because that is what they came to do, and it had nothing to do with being blocked in. Their plan was to remove protesters, first through use of intimidation, and if that did not prove successful - the application of force. They stuck to their plan well... We all know this... it is not a point that should even have to be made.

Their actions were justified how?

They were trespassing, and had been asked to leave, but they didn't, and some of them blocked the police, etc etc.. but since they were breaking the law "peacefully" no action should have been taken?

Let's say you have a party at your house, and one of your invited guests decides he isn't leaving. He wants to stay sitting there in your LazyBoy. You call the Police, but they tell you they can't do anything as long as he is disobeying the law peacefully. You would be OK with this?

 

[GBuck]

PaulF has 73 posts. He has been a member since April of 2009. 19/73 posts were made in this thread. Are we sure he isn't a UC Davis student? Perhaps he has a child there?

 

[UncleMike]

Do you think insulting me makes you right?

This post only shows how much of an idiot YOU really are...you just flamed me for making THE SAME POINT AS YOU!!!.

It's funny you tell me to read...TRY READING THE PREVIOUS POSTS, MORON!

To put too fine a point on it...in 'the day' it was just called liberalism, classic liberalism is a modern designation of an old ideology. If you bothered to READ, you'd see that I was attempting to relate my PERSONAL ideology to that of 'Classic Liberalism' vs. 'Modern Liberals (The current popular archetype). I was NOT attempting to say that Nancy Pelosi is a classic liberal, or that Thomas jefferson is a modern 'progresive'.

Open your eyes...and stop being a dick.

Calling other members names in frowned upon here.
Perhaps if you'd actually read many as posts on INGO as you claimed earlier you'd know that.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

They were trespassing, and had been asked to leave, but they didn't, and some of them blocked the police, etc etc.. but since they were breaking the law "peacefully" no action should have been taken?

Let's say you have a party at your house, and one of your invited guests decides he isn't leaving. He wants to stay sitting there in your LazyBoy. You call the Police, but they tell you they can't do anything as long as he is disobeying the law peacefully. You would be OK with this?

Yeah, except they were not trespassing... they were students demonstrating on a public campus that they attend...

They were not on private property, and they were not trespassing... they were peacefully protesting in a public space in which they are granted access to. The order to leave was in direct conflict with the first amendment, and therefore illegal... The "they did not comply" argument falls apart when you realize the order was not legally sound in the first place.

 

[spasmo]

Closed so I can read all of this and fix what needs to be fixed.

 

[spasmo]

OK, opened back up. No more name calling, etc or more banning will occur. Have a great day!

 

[Westside]

I am know a part of this thread. Please continue on.

 

[steveh_131]

good job spasmo, let's get this thread back on track.

 

[danielocean03]

PaulF has 73 posts. He has been a member since April of 2009. 19/73 posts were made in this thread. Are we sure he isn't a UC Davis student? Perhaps he has a child there?

I'm certain he doesn't have a child there, nor has he ever attended there. He's an old friend of mine.

 

[GBuck]

I'm certain he doesn't have a child there, nor has he ever attended there. He's an old friend of mine.

Oh, DO3. Always finding the flaws in my "logic".

 

[Expat]

I'm certain he doesn't have a child there, nor has he ever attended there. He's an old friend of mine.

Being old can explain the lack of posting. The older I get the better a good nap sounds

 

[Roadie]

Yeah, except they were not trespassing... they were students demonstrating on a public campus that they attend...

They were not on private property, and they were not trespassing... they were peacefully protesting in a public space in which they are granted access to. The order to leave was in direct conflict with the first amendment, and therefore illegal... The "they did not comply" argument falls apart when you realize the order was not legally sound in the first place.

So, are you saying a person can't trespass on Public Property?
Try walking into the Statehouse armed, and not leaving when asked... would they be breaking both the 1st and 2nd, or is a "Public Property" allowed to enforce rules/laws?

Also. They weren't just protesting, they were CAMPING there. I can't just go set up a tent on the Statehouse lawn and put up a protest sign and move in, and I am pretty certain that isn't what the Founders had in mind..

Do you honestly equate "peaceably assemble" with "taking over public property and moving in" ?

This leads me to another question: Is a "public university" always "public property" just because it receives public funds?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So, are you saying a person can't trespass on Public Property?
Try walking into the Statehouse armed, and not leaving when asked... would they be breaking both the 1st and 2nd, or is a "Public Property" allowed to enforce rules/laws?

Also. They weren't just protesting, they were CAMPING there. I can't just go set up a tent on the Statehouse lawn and put up a protest sign and move in, and I am pretty certain that isn't what the Founders had in mind..

Do you honestly equate "peaceably assemble" with "taking over public property and moving in" ?

This leads me to another question: Is a "public university" always "public property" just because it receives public funds?

Yes, a public university space that is open to the public, is "public property". Restricted areas can exist on public campuses - like access controlled labs - but the space we are talking about is space specifically open to the public - to be used by students and student led events.

Students attending a public university are not trespassing, and they are permitted to express political speech... It happens quite frequently, at every campus I have been to. The thing is, you rarely hear about it - because nearly every time the campus police look around at the gathering, realize they pose no immediate threat to anyone, and are able to act reasonably - without the application of unnecessary force. The ironic thing is, in the majority of cases the police are present to protect everyone - including protesters - against any threat that might rear it's head.

In this instance, police came with the intent of breaking up the protest because the Chancellor instructed them to, planning ahead of time that they were willing to use force. That, in retrospect, proved to be a mistake - as those involved with the decision making have publicly announced.

As far as the duration of their protest, I do not remember any curfew or time limitation specified in the first amendment. The idea that the duration of their protest somehow makes it illegal makes little sense to me...

I also find it hard to buy the line that the campus was shut down, or that the protest negatively impacted academic study. I have seen quite a few student protests at universities, and I have yet to come across one that I could not simply walk around.

 

[Roadie]

Yes, a public university space that is open to the public, is "public property". Restricted areas can exist on public campuses - like access controlled labs - but the space we are talking about is space specifically open to the public - and specifically students.

Students attending a public university are not trespassing, and they are permitted to express political speech... It happens quite frequently, at every campus I have been to. The thing is, you rarely hear about it - because nearly every time police are able to act reasonably, without the application of unnecessary force.

As far as the duration of their protest, I do not remember any curfew or time limitation specified in the first amendment. The idea that the duration of their protest somehow makes it illegal makes little sense to me...

I also find it hard to buy the line that the campus was shut down, or that the protest has impedes academic study. I have seen quite a few student protests at universities, and I have yet to come across one that I could not walk around.

You kind of side stepped a couple of my direct questions...

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that laws against "squatting" are null in void if it is done in protest? Hence my Statehouse example. Were the protesters in Wisconsin justified, in your mind, camping out in, trashing and destroying the Statehouse there, because it was their 1st Amendment Right?
I still don't think that is what the Founders had in mind, unless you can post at least anecdotal evidence that protracted "camp out" protests took place on public land, in the Founder's time...

You are also insinuating that the students have the right to camp out on Campus because they go there, but if it is a public property as you assert, then I would have as much right to protest/camp there as they do, would I not? Would that change your position if it were non students were we discussing?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You kind of side stepped a couple of my direct questions...

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that laws against "squatting" are null in void if it is done in protest? Hence my Statehouse example. Were the protesters in Wisconsin justified, in your mind, camping out in, trashing and destroying the Statehouse there, because it was their 1st Amendment Right?
I still don't think that is what the Founders had in mind, unless you can post at least anecdotal evidence that protracted "camp out" protests took place on public land, in the Founder's time...

You are also insinuating that the students have the right to camp out on Campus because they go there, but if it is a public property as you assert, then I would have as much right to protest/camp there as they do, would I not? Would that change your position if it were non students were we discussing?

Actually, any military encampment during the revolutionary war should satisfy your request... Remember what they considered freedom of speech and assembly? The founding fathers took their political expression to the extreme, and camped where they pleased, because they were free men.

What I am saying is that the students have the right to freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech. The fact that some stayed in the area at night does not strip that right from anyone.

Also, it is highly unlikely that most of those student were camping out... maybe a small minority were, but most of them likely went to their warn dorm rooms in the evenings.

To answer your squatting question, yes - I do believe local squatting ordinances are of lower precedence than god granted rights protected from government infringement by the bill of rights. The idea that American citizens even question that saddens me...