Better look at UC Davis pepper spray incident.

[IncendiaryGunner]

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.

The fact that they were quoting Penal Code 409 indicates that.

Listen to their megaphone warnings again, they spell it out.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

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"..

Minus a few protesters, who was harmed?

What violent action required the police to break up the protest?

Since then, how many people have been harmed?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Minus a few protesters, who was harmed?

What violent action did the police respond to?

Since then, how many people have been harmed?

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.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

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.

My point was that the protest was viewed by the police as non-violent in the first place...

No violent action triggered the presence of the police... the protest was peaceful...

 

[jd4320t]

My point was that the protest was viewed by the police as non-violent in the first place...

No violent action triggered the presence of the police... the protest was peaceful...

I believe the school wanted them off the quad. That triggered the police.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I believe the school wanted them off the quad. That triggered the police.

Yes, it was ordered by the Chancellor, who also claimed after the fact that she specifically told them not to use force, and if their presence escalated the situation that they should leave.

After the fact, she apologized profusely - claiming that it was a mistake to make the call in the first place.... ofcourse, this was after widespread calls for her resignation.

It seems that everyone involved in the decision regrets that it happened...

Bratton's report should likely yield more information about the incident.

 

[jd4320t]

Yes, it was ordered by the Chancellor, who also claimed after the fact she specifically told them not to use force, and if their presence escalated the situation to leave.

After the fact, she apologized profusely - claiming that it was a mistake to make the call in the first place.... ofcourse, this was after widespread calls for her resignation.

It seems that everyone involved in the decision regrets that it happened...

Those things may be true but the protesters made their bed when they surrounded the police. That situation was one stupid kid away from turning very ugly.

If an LEO asks me to move I do it. If I don't move I expect force to be used on me.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Those things may be true but the protesters made their bed when they surrounded the police. That situation was one stupid kid away from turning very ugly.

If an LEO asks me to move I do it. If I don't move I expect force to be used on me.

To a point I agree, that was a bad move... but it seems law enforcement made their beds also, and were not necessarily on solid legal ground....

In the end, the protesters got worldwide publicity and recognition... law enforcement got a black eye and suspensions...

That goes without mentioning the rest of the law enforcement community that is frowned upon because of the actions of people they don't even know... Police act reasonable most of the time... something like this is on tv, and guess how cops are perceived.

 

[shibumiseeker]

My point was that the protest was viewed by the police as non-violent in the first place...

No violent action triggered the presence of the police... the protest was peaceful...

Right up until the protesters interfered with the police lawfully conducting their business.

If a LEO pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket and then I block that LEO in afterwards and try to prevent them from leaving I wonder what will happen?

And quite frankly, I'm not someone who believes the power of the State should be wielded often, but in this situation if you defy the lawful authority of the State, then you WILL suffer the consequences. Either you had better be prepared to stand up and fight the State wielding that power, or you had better submit because at that point those two options are your only ones.

Getting back to my ticket analogy, if I think the ticket is unlawful I still have recourse through the courts and through the legislature, NOT through trying to get the LEO to submit to my will.

ANYONE doing that who isn't prepared to go all the way is just being stupid.

 

[shibumiseeker]

In the end, the protesters got worldwide publicity and recognition... law enforcement got a black eye and suspensions...

And to what degree is that result because the mainstream media chose to report the incident in such a fashion that made the police there seem like the bullies?

Public opinion is being manipulated very strongly here.

 

[Expat]

law enforcement got a black eye and suspensions...

That goes without mentioning the rest of the law enforcement community that is frowned upon because of the actions of people they don't even know... Police act reasonable most of the time... something like this is on tv, and guess how campus cops are perceived.

You are right, the police were portrayed on the MSM as the bad guys. Lies were told once again about what happened. It doesn't matter which side of this debate you come down on, the one thing we all can agree on is that the tale told my MSM was not accurate. But this is why most people do not believe what they hear or see on MSM. Heck most of the people I know don't watch the news or read a newspaper any more. They are tired of it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Right up until the protesters interfered with the police lawfully conducting their business.

If a LEO pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket and then I block that LEO in afterwards and try to prevent them from leaving I wonder what will happen?

And quite frankly, I'm not someone who believes the power of the State should be wielded often, but in this situation if you defy the lawful authority of the State, then you WILL suffer the consequences. Either you had better be prepared to stand up and fight the State wielding that power, or you had better submit because at that point those two options are your only ones.

Getting back to my ticket analogy, if I think the ticket is unlawful I still have recourse through the courts and through the legislature, NOT through trying to get the LEO to submit to my will.

ANYONE doing that who isn't prepared to go all the way is just being stupid.

I don't pretend to agree with how the protesters handled the situation, but I have a problem with considering the actions of police lawful when they are blatantly violating one of the most important core laws of our democratic society. In all honest, I would likely disagree with what the majority of protesters believe... but the injustice I see is not hipsters pitching tents, it is the infringement on the god given right of political speech and assembly.

And to what degree is that result because the mainstream media chose to report the incident in such a fashion that made the police there seem like the bullies?

Public opinion is being manipulated very strongly here.

Well, the police WERE the bullies... They came in riot gear to a peaceful protest with the intent of arresting anyone who does not disperse... You can attempt to justify their actions, and point out how stupid many of the protesters were - but you have to spin the story pretty hard before they are not the bullies.

 

[jd4320t]

I don't pretend to agree with how the protesters handled the situation, but I have a problem with considering the actions of police lawful when they are blatantly violating one of the most important core laws of our democratic society. In all honest, I would likely disagree with what the majority of protesters believe... but the injustice I see is not hipsters pitching a tent, it is the infringement on the god given right of political speech and assembly.



Well, the police WERE the bullies... They came in riot gear to a peaceful protest with the intent of arresting anyone who does not disperse...

Didn't you just agree with me that the school wanted the protesters gone??

The police were doing what they were asked to do...removing trespassers.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Didn't you just agree with me that the school wanted the protesters gone??

The police were doing what they were asked to do...removing trespassers.

The chancellor wanted the protesters gone, yes - but she did not have solid legal grounds.

They were still not trespassing....

I will give you an analogy... the NY OWS raids... A judge immediately granted a restraining order against the mayor, since his actions were not legal... they were not trespassing, and his orders for police to clear the area were not legal. The restraining order was largely ignored by law enforcement, and ended up having no teeth - but ignoring the law does not make a course of action legal.

Being mayor or chancellor does not turn public property into your private property...

 

[KG1]

To a point I agree, that was a bad move... but it seems law enforcement made their beds also, and were not necessarily on solid legal ground....

In the end, the protesters got worldwide publicity and recognition... law enforcement got a black eye and suspensions...

That goes without mentioning the rest of the law enforcement community that is frowned upon because of the actions of people they don't even know... Police act reasonable most of the time... something like this is on tv, and guess how campus cops are perceived.

There are two separate issues we are dealing with here.

The original reason for them being there in the first place is debatable but in regards to the second issue why were they not on solid legal ground using force when they were attempting to leave the area and the protesters blocked them in?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

There are two separate issues we are dealing with here.

The original reason for them being there in the first place is debatable but in regards to the second issue why were they not on solid legal ground using force when they were attempting to leave the area and the protesters blocked them in?

I think when the final report comes out it will indicate that they were on solid legal ground to some degree (use of force, not crowd dispersement), I just do not buy the line that it was in an attempt to egress - because they did not make that attempt. I also think it was horrible judgement, not necessary, and will always be entangled with the first issue - the legality of disbanding a peaceful protest in a public space.

Watch the video closely... go to about 13:48, after they spray them... the path is clear, but the officers do not leave... why? If they were intimidated, and attempting to flee - would they not take the first opportunity to leave? Sure does not seem like they are fearful of the crowd.... It was not until everyone began shouting "you can go" that they decided to leave...

 

[KG1]

I think when the final report comes out it will indicate that they were on solid legal ground to some degree.

I agree Also the whole pepper spray incident could've been avoided if the protesters would've gotten up and dispersed as they we're directed to do.

After all it was not a peaceable protest at that point as defined by the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and the Police were therefore on solid legal grounds to call for their dispersment.

 

[88GT]

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.

You are cherry-picking two of the ways in which they were violating the standard of "peaceful.". I mentioned half a dozen ways. The First is not an unfettered right at the expense of all other considerations. It becomes even more muddied when individuals seek to assembly outside the confines of private property. Their behavior is not beyond reproach simply because they are in the process of exercising a single right. We cannot and should not view these circumstances in a vacuum, without acknowledging the role additional factors play in determining legitimacy.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I agree Also the whole pepper spray incident could've been avoided if the protesters would've gotten up and dispersed as they we're directed to do.

After all it was not a peaceable protest at that point as defined by the Constitutional right to peaceably assembly and the Police were therefore on solid legal grounds to call for their dispersment.

It could have also been avoided if law enforcement did not intend to enforce a misdemeanor penal code over the bill of rights, and I think that is why in most people's minds the issues are linked. The reason they came was questionable at best - and their presence is what escalated the situation, ending with protesters being sprayed.

I think if it was a peaceful protest even at that point is still to be decided... no violent threats were made, and no indication of imminent danger existed... If an officer shot into the crowd, would he walk? Doubtful... it will likely be considered a legal application of force because they only deployed OC spray, and it led to no permanent damage. If an officer seriously injured anyone in that situation he would have a hard time proving they posed an immediate threat to his safety.

 

[shibumiseeker]

You are cherry-picking two of the ways in which they were violating the standard of "peaceful.". I mentioned half a dozen ways. The First is not an unfettered right at the expense of all other considerations. It becomes even more muddied when individuals seek to assembly outside the confines of private property. Their behavior is not beyond reproach simply because they are in the process of exercising a single right. We cannot and should not view these circumstances in a vacuum, without acknowledging the role additional factors play in determining legitimacy.

But how can one win an internet argument otherwise???