The police peacefully sprayed the protesters with pepper spray, they did not strike the protesters with batons or use their tazers.
Wait, you are claiming they were not told they would be sprayed if they continued to resist prior to them being sprayed? Can you support this?
All about the same thing.
Which banned troll using a new name are you?
Really? You've experienced all three?
The point is that IF she disobeyed any officer's lawful order, then it was actually SHE who "did not follow the law" -- hence the possible charge of negligence.
If it can be proven that the police did not lawfully order her to move before taking action, then you'd be correct.
However, I think you already know how it played out, and who it was that actually disobeyed the law...
Does not matter. If she trespassed, that is an infraction, but it did not give the cop the RIGHT to break the rules himself.
One transgression does not absolve the other.
So, exactly what options existed between the REPEATED warnings of "move out of the street now, or you'll be sprayed and arrested," and actually spraying them? Which tactic, technique, or procedure did the officers supposedly skip?
I'm genuinely curious.
I really doubt you'd be saying the same thing or said the same thing when the protesters were the right to life protesters that were blocking access to clinics.
I really doubt if you'd be saying or said the same thing about the Hillsboro Baptists or any other similar groups when they protest funerals.
At least I have the same opinion about all of them, that if they break the law, even when protesting, even when proclaiming their non-violence, that the police have the right to use force to remove them and to arrest them. That includes using pepper spray.
Are you that ignorant.
It has been mentioned a dozen times at least.
1st, the threat of pepper spray should never have been used. The analogy being the threat of ANY illegal action does not justify its use (If you do not move, we will shoot you.... OK >bang<).
2nd, the proper, but more difficult method is simply picking them up and dragging them out. You split the arm-link like cops have been taught since before the 60's and you arrest them.
What law did he break? She didn't obey a lawful order, he used the force needed to resolve the situation. Problem not found.
It is not illegal for the police to use pepper spray on non-compliant offenders.
Which is why pepper spray is now use.
It is NOT "illegal" for police to use tear gas and pepper spray to break up crowds and effect arrests. Pepper spray is used to lesson a perp's desire and ability to resist, therefore preventing additional bodily injury to either party once the officer(s) move in to effect an arrest.Are you that ignorant.
It has been mentioned a dozen times at least.
1st, the threat of pepper spray should never have been used. The analogy being the threat of ANY illegal action does not justify its use (If you do not move, we will shoot you.... OK >bang<).
2nd, the proper, but more difficult method is simply picking them up and dragging them out. You split the arm-link like cops have been taught since before the 60's and you arrest them.
It is not that difficult, why does everyone seem to forget?
Are you that ignorant.
It has been mentioned a dozen times at least.
1st, the threat of pepper spray should never have been used. The analogy being the threat of ANY illegal action does not justify its use (If you do not move, we will shoot you.... OK >bang<).
2nd, the proper, but more difficult method is simply picking them up and dragging them out. You split the arm-link like cops have been taught since before the 60's and you arrest them.
It is not that difficult, why does everyone seem to forget?
It is NOT "illegal" for police to use tear gas and pepper spray to break up crowds and effect arrests. Pepper spray is used to lesson a perp's desire and ability to resist, therefore preventing additional bodily injury to either party once the officer(s) move in to effect an arrest.
Please link to any legitimate statute that shows that the officers' use of pepper spray is/was "illegal."
The spray is designed for use as less-than-lethal force, adequate for incapacitating dangerous or violently resisting suspects.
Patrol Guide 212-95 lists five situations in which an officer may use pepper spray. Pepper spray may be used when a police officer “reasonably believes” that it is necessary to:
1) protect himself, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault);
2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest;
3) establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody;
4) establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP); and
5) control a dangerous animal by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons or animals present
The Patrol Guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who passively resist (e.g., going limp, offering no active physical resistance). It further cautions that if possible, pepper spray should not be used against persons who appear to be in frail health, young children, women believed to be pregnant, or persons with known respiratory conditions.
Excessive not found. The criminals were given ample time to comply with a lawful command.
Took 2 minutes on google.
Why didn't you search it?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf
NYC, I know, but I doubt that the rules differ that greatly for Davis.......
2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest
I stand corrected. Go ahead and charge the cops with excessive force.http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf
NYC, I know, but I doubt that the rules differ that greatly for Davis.......