What is the proper method of dealing with crowd control ...

[The Gadfly]

pepper spray is the lowest and safest form of force to use against resistance...there is an almost universal and instant compliance rate

did you want the officers to go hands on and fight the kids ?

night sticks ?

no I think what you really want is them just to able to break the law

thusly the death of free expression

Well, no. It's not low, and it's not safe.

They are inflicting pain for minor acts of civil disobedience.

In other words, the lowest, safest form of law breaking.

I want a country where you can engage in civil disobedience without being attacked by the police.

Complete, utter bullshit, of the sort I have come to expect from the Leftists and anarchist fringe of this board!

First of all, these protestors refused a lawful order to disperse, THEN linked arms so as to make it more difficult for officers to remove them. That crosses the line from passive to active resistance, right there, and is ample justification for use of force to effect arrest (as well as adding a charge of "resisting arrest" to any other criminal charges against them). When the police order you to do something, you do it-you can argue the matter before a judge in a court of law later. I guarantee you the court will grant you that right, although it may or may not rule in your favor. The courtroom, not a public street or campus, is the lawful and proper place to argue the validity (or lack thereof) of a police order or an arrest. These people chose to willfully disregard that. Pepper spray and/or CS gas are the lowest thing on the force continuum, with the least probability of injury to the subject(s), to disperse a crowd that links arms and refuses an order to disperse. It is arguably less potentially harmful to the subject(s) than physically separating them in order to handcuff and remove them. If the order to disperse is lawful, so is the arrest, and the (very limited) force used to effect same. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" has been repeatedly held by the courts NOT to include any "right" to refuse to obey lawful orders from police, nor any "right" to resist lawful arrest.

 

[The Gadfly]

Oh my GAWD!! Here we go again... Well, those poor, innocent little victims were just sitting around, linking arms and singing "Kum ba ya" and those big, nasty cops just came right up and abused them!

Really??? And let's say that you own one of those businesses down by Wall Street. Some of those mom and pop shops are being hurt pretty bad. You got maggots walking in and using the restrooms to take 'baths' in. When they leave, the bathrooms are dirty and stinky and trashed up. Just what are the responsibilities of those small businesses in the area? Are they supposed to put up with this crap?

And let's suppose you're one of those cops and the mayor, or someone else in authority tells you that those people "have to be moved." And they don't want to be moved. I mean they have a right to sit on the sidewalk and link arms, but what about the people who want to use those sidewalks to do crazy things like walk to and from class or I don't know, something crazy like go to work to make a living? Who's rights take presedence?

The simple fact is that until you've been there, you don't know squat! Pretty easy to stand on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback. You whining bunch of perennial bystanders NEVER actually do. You wait for someone else to do what needs to be done and then you piss and moan about the way it was done. And to stand there and tell me that ALL cops are bad is just so damn ignorant that I can't even find the words to tell you how really stupid you are.

What would amaze me is if one of you people who stand around and bad-mouth the cops would actually freakin DO SOMETHING to help your community. Oh I don't know, go work in a homeless shelter this Thanksgiving... Or maybe you could work at a Vet Center and listen to some of the stories these guys tell. Or maybe you could ride along with some of those big, horrible cops and help them pull those children out of that crushed mini van. Or you can explain to that mom and dad why that innocent drunk crossed the center line and killed their only daughter while the drunk walked?

No, I didn't think so. Talk is cheap... the kind that this thread engages in is typical do nothing horse shit...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Most of the "armchair critics" here, have never put their sorry butts where their "activism" supposedly is. I haven't heard a single one of you liberal know-it-alls respond to this, and I can't say I'm surprised. You're all for helping the poor-with someone else's money-how much do you give? More to the point, how much of yourself do you invest in your community (beyond political activism)? Well, let's hear it-how many of you walk like you talk?

Damn right I can lecture you; I've ACTUALLY BEEN a first responder! How many of you know what it's like to run into a burning building? How many of you have treated the victims of a car crash? How many of you have treated a shooting victim in the 'hood, with an angry mob standing around? This is where firefighters and EMTs go every day-and it's where cops go, every day. How many of you ever bothered to get to know these people protecting you and everyone else? How many of you care enough about the wino or the junkie in the gutter, to give them medical treatment? How many of you have helped out, when a disaster struck? You talk about homeless vets-how many of you ever bought one of these guys a meal, talked to him, and took the time to take him to a shelter, huh? How many of you bothered to help a mugging victim who lay bleeding on the street-or did you just call 911, and let them handle it? Did you even offer a word of compassion? Did you care-or do you leave that to the professionals?

People like some of you call me cold, mean, and selfish, and yet, I've done every one of the things I just mentioned, many times; and you....just talk, and complain about the kind of community you have. Oh, you'll work for it-with your mouth; but the hard, nasty, unglamorous and largely thankless job of actually doing something, that you'll leave to someone else, and then you'll criticize the way they do it. I've been on some mean street, and you know, I've patched up more cops who got hurt trying to not use excessive force on a subject, than I have subjects who a cop hurt unnecessarily; but hey, according to you, "they get paid to take it", right? You know, a lot of communities have "ride along" programs where you can ride along with the cops for a shift-you ought to try it, because a lot of you could learn quite a bit; but I'll bet you won't; besides, you're to good to associate with "fascist pigs", right? Come to think of it, isn't that the same name the Left called me and a lot of my fellow vets?

Try doing something constructive, instead of bitching, for a change. Until then, why don't you just STFU!

 

[SAT2]

Complete, utter bullshit, of the sort I have come to expect from the Leftists and anarchist fringe of this board!

First of all, these protestors refused a lawful order to disperse, THEN linked arms so as to make it more difficult for officers to remove them. That crosses the line from passive to active resistance, right there, and is ample justification for use of force to effect arrest (as well as adding a charge of "resisting arrest" to any other criminal charges against them). When the police order you to do something, you do it-you can argue the matter before a judge in a court of law later. I guarantee you the court will grant you that right, although it may or may not rule in your favor. The courtroom, not a public street or campus, is the lawful and proper place to argue the validity (or lack thereof) of a police order or an arrest. These people chose to willfully disregard that. Pepper spray and/or CS gas are the lowest thing on the force continuum, with the least probability of injury to the subject(s), to disperse a crowd that links arms and refuses an order to disperse. It is arguably less potentially harmful to the subject(s) than physically separating them in order to handcuff and remove them. If the order to disperse is lawful, so is the arrest, and the (very limited) force used to effect same. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" has been repeatedly held by the courts NOT to include any "right" to refuse to obey lawful orders from police, nor any "right" to resist lawful arrest.

Bullshit. You're seeking a rationale for abusing citizens for absolutely trivial reasons.

You seek an authoritarian government that is incompatible with a democracy.

 

[Ringel05]

Complete, utter bullshit, of the sort I have come to expect from the Leftists and anarchist fringe of this board!

First of all, these protestors refused a lawful order to disperse, THEN linked arms so as to make it more difficult for officers to remove them. That crosses the line from passive to active resistance, right there, and is ample justification for use of force to effect arrest (as well as adding a charge of "resisting arrest" to any other criminal charges against them). When the police order you to do something, you do it-you can argue the matter before a judge in a court of law later. I guarantee you the court will grant you that right, although it may or may not rule in your favor. The courtroom, not a public street or campus, is the lawful and proper place to argue the validity (or lack thereof) of a police order or an arrest. These people chose to willfully disregard that. Pepper spray and/or CS gas are the lowest thing on the force continuum, with the least probability of injury to the subject(s), to disperse a crowd that links arms and refuses an order to disperse. It is arguably less potentially harmful to the subject(s) than physically separating them in order to handcuff and remove them. If the order to disperse is lawful, so is the arrest, and the (very limited) force used to effect same. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" has been repeatedly held by the courts NOT to include any "right" to refuse to obey lawful orders from police, nor any "right" to resist lawful arrest.

Bullshit. You're seeking a rationale for abusing citizens for absolutely trivial reasons.

You seek an authoritarian government that is incompatible with a democracy.

I've been nice so far but now you've just proven you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could you at least once in your life make an attempt at critical thinking. I know it's difficult since it's a technique that's not taught until the third grade but at least try to keep up and squelch the emotive you're spouting.
You either haven't a clue or you're an OWS supporter/protester pushing the propaganda line and that's the only two reasons you refuse to see any other possibility. You know nothing about police training, protest tactics or crowd/mob dynamics and it shows.
So stop playing the bully because now you're getting you ignorant ass pushed back.
And talk about spewing rhetoric!!! Claiming anyone who differs with you supports an abusive authoritarianism. What a pathetic, sick ****.

 

[Amelia]

Tea Partiers and others of us on the right just don't get it.

We've been taught that it's virtuous to do things the legal way. We haven't been raised in a manner which rewards people for breaking the law. It's hard for us to get our minds around creating public hazards as being something admirable.

Bear with us. I'm sure we'll come around someday and see the virtue of tent cities and tuberculosis.

 

[SAT2]

Complete, utter bullshit, of the sort I have come to expect from the Leftists and anarchist fringe of this board!

First of all, these protestors refused a lawful order to disperse, THEN linked arms so as to make it more difficult for officers to remove them. That crosses the line from passive to active resistance, right there, and is ample justification for use of force to effect arrest (as well as adding a charge of "resisting arrest" to any other criminal charges against them). When the police order you to do something, you do it-you can argue the matter before a judge in a court of law later. I guarantee you the court will grant you that right, although it may or may not rule in your favor. The courtroom, not a public street or campus, is the lawful and proper place to argue the validity (or lack thereof) of a police order or an arrest. These people chose to willfully disregard that. Pepper spray and/or CS gas are the lowest thing on the force continuum, with the least probability of injury to the subject(s), to disperse a crowd that links arms and refuses an order to disperse. It is arguably less potentially harmful to the subject(s) than physically separating them in order to handcuff and remove them. If the order to disperse is lawful, so is the arrest, and the (very limited) force used to effect same. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" has been repeatedly held by the courts NOT to include any "right" to refuse to obey lawful orders from police, nor any "right" to resist lawful arrest.

Bullshit. You're seeking a rationale for abusing citizens for absolutely trivial reasons.

You seek an authoritarian government that is incompatible with a democracy.

I been nice so far but now you've just proven you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could you at least once in your life make an attempt at critical thinking. I know it's difficult since it's a technique that's not taught until the third grade but at least try to keep up and squelch the emotive you're spouting.
You either haven't a clue or you're an OWS supporter/protester pushing the propaganda line and that's the only two reasons you refuse to see any other possibility. You know nothing about police training, protest tactics or crowd/mob dynamics and it shows.
So stop playing the bully because now you're getting you ignorant ass pushed back.
And talk about spewing rhetoric!!! Claiming anyone who differs with you supports an abusive authoritarianism. What a pathetic, sick ****.

Again, the pepper spray against passive protestors that we saw on the UC Davis campus is an overreaction. The protestors are sitting. The police officer is standing over them, dousing them. You don't have to know police procedure to see that as an overreach.

Your comments about bullying are peculiar. You might read the post I was responding to. Just a suggestion.

 

[SAT2]

Tea Partiers and others of us on the right just don't get it.

We've been taught that it's virtuous to do things the legal way. We haven't been raised in a manner which rewards people for breaking the law. It's hard for us to get our minds around creating public hazards as being something admirable.

Bear with us. I'm sure we'll come around someday and see the virtue of tent cities and tuberculosis.

The movement you're named after wasn't legal.

Think about it.

 

[Dr.House]

Tea Partiers and others of us on the right just don't get it.

We've been taught that it's virtuous to do things the legal way. We haven't been raised in a manner which rewards people for breaking the law. It's hard for us to get our minds around creating public hazards as being something admirable.

Bear with us. I'm sure we'll come around someday and see the virtue of tent cities and tuberculosis.

The movement you're named after wasn't legal.

Think about it.

TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Can't the Government give the People just one thing? Why does it always have to be about the harassment and control? Get off our backs Government. We're sick of it. This is why all Americans should be for less Government. They always abuse their power.

Give People just one thing?

And that one thing is the ability to pick and choose which laws they wish to break with impunity?

C'mon. You are advocating the government standing back and doing nothing when people are breaking the law.

If you don't like the laws, change them by legitimate means.

If you break the law, accept the consequences. That's how civil disobedience is supposed to work. Maybe this action against these people who were breaking the law will backfire and will result in the more lawless environment you seem to crave.



But if you are going to promote the theory that people should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they can break and the government should stand back and let them go without consequence, I am going to say you are wrong. Point blank.

Civil disobedience is when enough people break a law that it becomes impossible to enforce it.

Like the joke of the Interstate System: Speed Limit 70

 

[Ringel05]

Bullshit. You're seeking a rationale for abusing citizens for absolutely trivial reasons.

You seek an authoritarian government that is incompatible with a democracy.

I been nice so far but now you've just proven you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could you at least once in your life make an attempt at critical thinking. I know it's difficult since it's a technique that's not taught until the third grade but at least try to keep up and squelch the emotive you're spouting.
You either haven't a clue or you're an OWS supporter/protester pushing the propaganda line and that's the only two reasons you refuse to see any other possibility. You know nothing about police training, protest tactics or crowd/mob dynamics and it shows.
So stop playing the bully because now you're getting you ignorant ass pushed back.
And talk about spewing rhetoric!!! Claiming anyone who differs with you supports an abusive authoritarianism. What a pathetic, sick ****.

Again, the pepper spray against passive protestors that we saw on the UC Davis campus is an overreaction. The protestors are sitting. The police officer is standing over them, dousing them. You don't have to know police procedure to see that as an overreach.

Your comments about bullying are peculiar. You might read the post I was responding to. Just a suggestion.

Bull shit, you discount any possibility that the police were justified in this instance based on standard procedure when dealing with law breakers. As the video I posted shows the protesters intentionally were obstructing the police in their duty and were refusing to allow them to leave with those arrested. the police used the minimum of force necessary in an attempt gain compliance and break up what at that moment had become an unlawful obstruction and potential threat to their safety.
Of course they could have called for massive backup and started a real incident, of course that would have suited your purposes.

 

[Ringel05]

Since you decline to see anything but that which you choose to see I will also leave you with this.

He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive
And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe.
William Blake

I have been a fool.

 

[SAT2]

Tea Partiers and others of us on the right just don't get it.

We've been taught that it's virtuous to do things the legal way. We haven't been raised in a manner which rewards people for breaking the law. It's hard for us to get our minds around creating public hazards as being something admirable.

Bear with us. I'm sure we'll come around someday and see the virtue of tent cities and tuberculosis.

The movement you're named after wasn't legal.

Think about it.

TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already....

It's also a reference to the Boston Tea Party. An illegal act of protest.

I been nice so far but now you've just proven you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could you at least once in your life make an attempt at critical thinking. I know it's difficult since it's a technique that's not taught until the third grade but at least try to keep up and squelch the emotive you're spouting.
You either haven't a clue or you're an OWS supporter/protester pushing the propaganda line and that's the only two reasons you refuse to see any other possibility. You know nothing about police training, protest tactics or crowd/mob dynamics and it shows.
So stop playing the bully because now you're getting you ignorant ass pushed back.
And talk about spewing rhetoric!!! Claiming anyone who differs with you supports an abusive authoritarianism. What a pathetic, sick ****.

Again, the pepper spray against passive protestors that we saw on the UC Davis campus is an overreaction. The protestors are sitting. The police officer is standing over them, dousing them. You don't have to know police procedure to see that as an overreach.

Your comments about bullying are peculiar. You might read the post I was responding to. Just a suggestion.

Bull shit, you discount any possibility that the police were justified in this instance based on standard procedure when dealing with law breakers. As the video I posted shows the protesters intentionally were obstructing the police in their duty and were refusing to allow them to leave with those arrested. the police used the minimum of force necessary in an attempt gain compliance and break up what at that moment had become an unlawful obstruction and potential threat to their safety.
Of course they could have called for massive backup and started a real incident, of course that would have suited your purposes.

Yes, I discount all possibility that this attack was justified. The protestors are seated, and they are being sprayed with pepper spray.

Interestingly, the University Chancellor does not share your view that this was possibly justified, nor do many police officers.

The police overreacted. Kind of like your ongoing accusations that I'm bullying, or that I'm hoping for violence, that violence would suit my purposes. Another overreach. What's more, you overlook the obvious-what the police did could easily have sparked a riot.

 

[Dr.House]

TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already....

 

[SAT2]

Sure. But it's also this:

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[11] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".[12][13]

There's a long tradition of civil disobedience in this country.

Rosa Parks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Amelia]

Tea Partiers and others of us on the right just don't get it.

We've been taught that it's virtuous to do things the legal way. We haven't been raised in a manner which rewards people for breaking the law. It's hard for us to get our minds around creating public hazards as being something admirable.

Bear with us. I'm sure we'll come around someday and see the virtue of tent cities and tuberculosis.

The movement you're named after wasn't legal.

Think about it.

You're right. Like I said, bear with us.

I'm sure that one day soon we'll decide that the system is so broken that our only recourse is to start breaking the law and spreading scabies.


Silly us thinking that things are still fixable at the ballot box and with legal protests.

 

[Ropey]

Since you decline to see anything but that which you choose to see I will also leave you with this.

He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive
And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe.
William Blake

I have been a fool.

I rather like this one.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer - Wikiquote

 

[The Gadfly]

Sure. But it's also this:

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[11] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".[12][13]

There's a long tradition of civil disobedience in this country.

Rosa Parks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes there is, and sometimes it has been both honorable and necessary. That tradition also includes a willingness to take the legal consequences of one's actions, and NOT resisting arrest; you prefer to ignore that. There's nothing sacred or magical about protest; whether it is a good thing or an abuse of liberty depends on why and how it is done. Ringel is correct, in calling you a bully; calling opponents all sorts of names in an attempt to browbeat them into silence is an old favorite tactic of the Left in America. I know your species well; they called me and my fellow soldiers every filthy epithet in the book and then some, when we came home from Vietnam. You are invited to consider just what I think of the Left, as a result of that. Some of your cohorts here have kept the memories fresh, too; I've been called a murderer and a baby killer right here on this board, because I served in Vietnam, and I refuse to be ashamed of it, or say I'm sorry I did. You can call me anything you like; I'll take that as a compliment; the contempt of your hateful kind tells me I must still be doing something right.

 

[Ringel05]

The movement you're named after wasn't legal.

Think about it.

TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already....

It's also a reference to the Boston Tea Party. An illegal act of protest.

Again, the pepper spray against passive protestors that we saw on the UC Davis campus is an overreaction. The protestors are sitting. The police officer is standing over them, dousing them. You don't have to know police procedure to see that as an overreach.

Your comments about bullying are peculiar. You might read the post I was responding to. Just a suggestion.

Bull shit, you discount any possibility that the police were justified in this instance based on standard procedure when dealing with law breakers. As the video I posted shows the protesters intentionally were obstructing the police in their duty and were refusing to allow them to leave with those arrested. the police used the minimum of force necessary in an attempt gain compliance and break up what at that moment had become an unlawful obstruction and potential threat to their safety.
Of course they could have called for massive backup and started a real incident, of course that would have suited your purposes.

Yes, I discount all possibility that this attack was justified. The protestors are seated, and they are being sprayed with pepper spray.

Interestingly, the University Chancellor does not share your view that this was possibly justified, nor do many police officers.

The police overreacted. Kind of like your ongoing accusations that I'm bullying, or that I'm hoping for violence, that violence would suit my purposes. Another overreach. What's more, you overlook the obvious-what the police did could easily have sparked a riot.

Well thank you for proving my point. I guess I'll play the fool one more time in a forlorn hope you might see my point. You've tried and convicted in your own court of public opinion, that much is obvious. As for my overreach, eh, you given me no reason to perceive it otherwise. Regardless of whether they were seated or not the video shows what they did was to intentionally block the police and in my estimation intentionally cause an incident, they succeeded and the gullible are buying it.
The best explanation for the chancellors public reaction is CYA and I have no idea which police officers you are referring to. If it's some of the campus police then again the high potential of CYA again comes into play.
If you don't or won't understand that then don't bother replying, this exchange will have run it's course.

 

[Care4all]

TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already....

It's also a reference to the Boston Tea Party. An illegal act of protest.

Bull shit, you discount any possibility that the police were justified in this instance based on standard procedure when dealing with law breakers. As the video I posted shows the protesters intentionally were obstructing the police in their duty and were refusing to allow them to leave with those arrested. the police used the minimum of force necessary in an attempt gain compliance and break up what at that moment had become an unlawful obstruction and potential threat to their safety.
Of course they could have called for massive backup and started a real incident, of course that would have suited your purposes.

Yes, I discount all possibility that this attack was justified. The protestors are seated, and they are being sprayed with pepper spray.

Interestingly, the University Chancellor does not share your view that this was possibly justified, nor do many police officers.

The police overreacted. Kind of like your ongoing accusations that I'm bullying, or that I'm hoping for violence, that violence would suit my purposes. Another overreach. What's more, you overlook the obvious-what the police did could easily have sparked a riot.

Well thank you for proving my point. I guess I'll play the fool one more time in a forlorn hope you might see my point. You've tried and convicted in your own court of public opinion, that much is obvious. As for my overreach, eh, you given me no reason to perceive it otherwise. Regardless of whether they were seated or not the video shows what they did was to intentionally block the police and in my estimation intentionally cause an incident, they succeeded and the gullible are buying it.
The best explanation for the chancellors public reaction is CYA and I have no idea which police officers you are referring to. If it's some of the campus police then again the high potential of CYA again comes into play.
If you don't or won't understand that then don't bother replying, this exchange will have run it's course.

huh? there was a thousand feet of green grass on either side of them* for the cops to pass by if that's what they needed to do, so what are you saying ringel? the cops could just walk around them? seriously?

 

[Ringel05]

It's also a reference to the Boston Tea Party. An illegal act of protest.



Yes, I discount all possibility that this attack was justified. The protestors are seated, and they are being sprayed with pepper spray.

Interestingly, the University Chancellor does not share your view that this was possibly justified, nor do many police officers.

The police overreacted. Kind of like your ongoing accusations that I'm bullying, or that I'm hoping for violence, that violence would suit my purposes. Another overreach. What's more, you overlook the obvious-what the police did could easily have sparked a riot.

Well thank you for proving my point. I guess I'll play the fool one more time in a forlorn hope you might see my point. You've tried and convicted in your own court of public opinion, that much is obvious. As for my overreach, eh, you given me no reason to perceive it otherwise. Regardless of whether they were seated or not the video shows what they did was to intentionally block the police and in my estimation intentionally cause an incident, they succeeded and the gullible are buying it.
The best explanation for the chancellors public reaction is CYA and I have no idea which police officers you are referring to. If it's some of the campus police then again the high potential of CYA again comes into play.
If you don't or won't understand that then don't bother replying, this exchange will have run it's course.

huh? there was a thousand feet of green grass on either side of them* for the cops to pass by if that's what they needed to do, so what are you saying ringel? the cops could just walk around them? seriously?

That's not what the news reported and not what I saw on the lead up video. Apparently the police were surrounded and not allowed to leave unless those arrested were released. Just relating what I saw and what was reported.