Better look at UC Davis pepper spray incident.

[Dead Duck]

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.

So - ......They were having a student study group .................on the lawn.........in their tents............and their sleeping bags...............with no books............this activity is legal at all public schools .....Right?

The police had absolutely no business even being there. Only the students are allowed to camp and crap and litter and do drugs and trespass and scream at police and throwing stuff and etc...

I had no idea you can do so much on campus now days......and I guess.. its all legal. We should just move all the homeless there to live too and this would fix a lot of the city problems.

Lots of purple, I know.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So - ......They were having a student study group .................on the lawn.........in their tents............and their sleeping bags...............with no books............this activity is legal at all public schools .....Right?

The police had absolutely no business even being there. Only the students are allowed to camp and crap and litter and do drugs and trespass and scream at police and throwing stuff and etc...

I had no idea you can do so much on campus now days......and I guess.. its all legal. We should just move all the homeless there live too and this would fix a lot of the city problems.

Lots of purple, I know.

No, they were holding a political protest - which is also legal, and commonplace on public campuses in America.

The police had business being there - to patrol and protect citizens. The police had no business illegally breaking up a peaceful political protest, or initiating unnecessary violence... the distinction is huge.

 

[Rookie]

 

[Roadie]

Why's everyone gotta hate on us fat guys?

 

[Roadie]

One of the pepper-sprayed students said:
"We had encircled them [campus police], and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us"

Another said:
'Well, we were protesting together, and the riot cops came at us, and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And at one point, they were—we had encircled them, and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us. "

 

[Hoosierdood]

I am one of the first to call out the police when they overstep their authority. But they did what needed to be done here. They cited California penal code which defined the protester's actions as being illegal. They warned them multiple times that they would be removed and/or arrested. They only arrested those who interfered with the removal of the tents. When the protesters saw their friends being arrested, the began demanding that the police release them. When the police would not (since they were arrested for legitimate reasons) the crowd went from peaceful protest to threatening and hostage taking. They surrounded the police and in essence, took them hostage. They even stated that they would release the police whom they had taken hostage if the police would release the protesters who had been arrested for breaking the law.

Bottom line - it was not a peaceful protest because they were holding the police hostage. After repeated attempts to clear the crown who had surrounded them, the police had no other choice but to use reasonable force to remove them.

ETA: just because the protesters claim that they were peaceful, doesn't mean it is true.


THANKS Denny for posting this video!

 

[Roadie]

Meals, Toilets, and Marx for UC Davis Protesters

"The day that they set up camp,” he said, “they had hundreds of people marching through classes, mine included. They marched through classes with hundreds of people banging on walls, kicking walls, slamming doors, and screaming ‘We are the 99 percent.’ There’s a huge difference between free speech and what they were doing.”
---

Their Rights ended when the trampled on the Rights of others, IMO

 

[KG1]

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...

The original reason for the campus police being there was because the chancellor requested that the tents and encampments that were set up be removed. The problem arose from some of the protesters causing a scene when the tents were being removed and they subsequently were arrested.

Upon hearing of those arrests the students then gathered around the Police and attempted to block them while they were leaving and demanded that the Police release the protesters that had been arrested. Only after repeated peaceful attempts by the police to get the protesters to disperse and after they were also advised numorous times that they would be subject to the use of force if they did not do so did the Police take action.

When the protesters surrounded the Police and blocked them in and started to make demands then IMO at that point it stopped being a peaceful protest.

 

[88GT]

In this situation, yes. The student/campus police relationship is not (and should not be) the same as the general public/Professional Police relationship. And the limit is (IMHO):Use violence only once violence is used against me.

Point of order: refusal to obey a lawful order from duly installed LE is not peaceful.

A lack of physical violence or physical force does not mean an act is peaceful.

Congregating and behaving with the intent to disrupt the normal comings and goings of others is not peaceful.

Deliberatey blocking the right-of-way is not peaceful.

Prohibiting anyone from making unobstructed egress is not peaceful.

They were not peaceful. Let's start with that premise. I don't believe the rest of your conclusions will logically follow (assuming they are relevant in the first place).

 

[dsells13]

THanks for this post, I read about the real story, but I now have something to share with my friends.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So, if the non-peaceful threat was that the police were being blocked in - why did they spray the individuals in the middle that were not blocking their path?

If they were trying to leave, would it not make more sense to spray those blocking their exit while attempting to leave? Yet they did not... they focused on others that were not in blocking their exist...

See how this does not add up?

 

[Roadie]

So, if the non-peaceful threat was that the police were being blocked in - why did they spray the individuals in the middle that were not blocking their path?

If they were trying to leave, would it not make more sense to spray those blocking their exit while attempting to leave? Yet they did not... they focused on others that were not in blocking their exist...

See how this does not add up?

As I posted above, even some of the protesters admitted the blocked them..

One of the pepper-sprayed students said:
"We had encircled them [campus police], and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us"

Once they blocked the path, then refused to leave, it had crossed the line and no longer "peaceful". If some that were not directly blocking the path, got sprayed, one can only assume it was because they didnt leave..

 

[Expat]

So, if the non-peaceful threat was that the police were being blocked in - why did they spray the individuals in the middle that were not blocking their path?

If they were trying to leave, would it not make more sense to spray those blocking their exit while attempting to leave? Yet they did not... they focused on others that were not in blocking their exist...

See how this does not add up?

Not so sure what is confusing about this. They were wanting a confrontation with the police and they got one. The rest of the people were just a support mob.

 

[Roadie]

Not so sure what is confusing about this. They were wanting a confrontation with the police and they got one. The rest of the people were just a support mob.

Agreed. You have people that were IN the protest admitting that they intended to block the police "in protest of their presence"... seems pretty clear to me their intentions.

You also have witnesses say that they were not just "peaceful", they were disruptive:

“they had hundreds of people marching through classes, mine included. They marched through classes with hundreds of people banging on walls, kicking walls, slamming doors, and screaming ‘We are the 99 percent.’ There’s a huge difference between free speech and what they were doing.”

That is NOT "peaceable assemblage"...

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

“they had hundreds of people marching through classes, mine included. They marched through classes with hundreds of people banging on walls, kicking walls, slamming doors, and screaming ‘We are the 99 percent.’ There’s a huge difference between free speech and what they were doing.”

That is also not what they addressed...

The irony of the situation is the amount of tents that popped up after the event... and the fact that nobody has been harmed by them... LE has let them be, and nobody has been hurt...

It would seem the only act of violence anywhere near the situation, originated from law enforcement.

 

[shibumiseeker]

It would seem the only act of violence anywhere near the situation, originated from law enforcement.

I would consider someone preventing me from leaving to be sufficient reason to escalate to physical violence.

Just because there was no direct physical violence on the part of the protesters does not mean that they were not presenting a direct, credible and articulable threat, and it's pretty well established that in self defense one does require physical violence to respond to such a threat.

 

[Roadie]

That is also not what they addressed...

The irony of the situation is the amount of tents that popped up after the event... and the fact that nobody has been harmed by them... LE has let them be, and nobody has been hurt...

It would seem the only act of violence anywhere near the situation, originated from law enforcement.

Not sure why you are ignoring quotes FROM the actual protesters that I posted..

One of the pepper-sprayed students said:
"We had encircled them [campus police], and they were trying to leave, and they were trying to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us"

So, how did that originate from law enforcement..

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Not sure why you are ignoring quotes FROM the actual protesters that I posted..



So, how did that originate from law enforcement..

Force was initiated before they encircled them....

I do think that was a bad move on the part of the protesters... I just don't buy the line that they had the right to disperse the protest as an "unlawful assembly".

California Penal Code 409 (the one cited during the warning over the magaphone in the video):
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.

A peaceful political protest in a public space designated for gathering is not an unlawful assembly.....

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.

 

[Roadie]

Force was initiated before they encircled them....

I do think that was a bad move on the part of the protesters... I just don't buy the line that they had the right to disperse the protest as an "unlawful assembly".

California Penal Code 409 (the one shouted over the magaphone in the video):
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.

A peaceful political protest in a public space designated for gathering is not an unlawful assembly.....

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.

I think we are all fairly familiar with the 1st, and I doubt anyone here has a problem with protest and/or assembly, I think the disagreement lies in whether or not this protest met the qualifications of "peaceably"..

 

[KG1]

Force was initiated before they encircled them....

I do think that was a bad move on the part of the protesters... I just don't buy the line that they had the right to disperse the protest as an "unlawful assembly".

Who says they were originally sent there to disperse the protest? They were requested to be there to see about the removal of the tents and encampments and after that was accomplished they were leaving and the protesters could've gone right on protesting. The order to disperse was only given after the crowd attempted to surround them.