Well said! In spite of numerous attempts to shift the goal posts, the issue has never been arresting protestors who are breaking the law. That's fine, if the police feel it is necessary. The issue is the use of excessive force, i.e., violence, against non-violent protestors. That is wrong.NP man...
Here's the odd thing. Nobody here was arguing about the arrests... just the means and methods.
These kids were breaking the law, and should have to pay the price for their transgression. But that price should be incarceration (even if no charges are filed in the end). People have to know and respect the authorities and know that they are not allowed to do whatever they want with no consequence.
But they should not be afraid of physical harm if all they are doing is sitting on the ground in protest.
that is what happened in Vietnam (the guy being shot in the head comes to mind) and is what currently goes on in places like China.
it just seems odd to me that people who are so vehemently against nations like China and their treatment of their people are so ready to support similar treatment of our own people by our own authorities....
The key is, that enforcement is always against someone that they do not agree with. that works fine until enough people do not like what YOU are saying and YOU are the next target.
This video shows exactly what the movement is about and their mentality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-LschF82o&feature=player_embedded
Thank you. Perhaps this will help inform those who are sincerely unaware and are willing to learn from factual information. Those who lust for watching "hippies" get beat down will no doubt bleat on undeterred. Nonetheless, the police behavior we've seen at UC Davis and similar situations is excessive, unprofessional, and a breach of those specific officers' responsibility to serve and protect.http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf
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 presentNYC, I know, but I doubt that the rules differ that greatly for Davis.......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.
Interesting. You have an objective, credible source documenting this claim? My understanding is being seated with linked arms is the near-universally accepted standard of non-violent protest (in large part because it is nearly impossible for an unarmed person to commit any form of violence from a seated, interlocked arms posture). I look forward to you showing us otherwise.Linking arms is considered to be actively resisting arrest. It is considered violent by police and is usually treated that way.
Thank you. Perhaps this will help inform those who are sincerely unaware and are willing to learn from factual information. Those who lust for watching "hippies" get beat down will no doubt bleat on undeterred. Nonetheless, the police behavior we've seen at UC Davis and similar situations is excessive, unprofessional, and a breach of those specific officers' responsibility to serve and protect.
2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest;
And I'm not at all surprised you ignore the key qualifier of #2: "... of a subject resisting arrest." Of course you are one I'd expect to "bleat on undeterred."I'm glad you guys keep ignoring #2. It's not illegal to use pepper spray to effect an arrest.
Anyone can find links from OWS and the TP movements that makes both of them look idiotic because there are dim bulbs who have joined either movement because it was "cool".
If you found the smartest ones from both sides who are comfortable speaking in front of an audience I'd wager that we'd get a better debate than most political debates for the past decade.
However it seems like a lot of the reporters look for the the kooks in a big group for lulz.
And I'm not at all surprised you ignore the key qualifier of #2: "... of a subject resisting arrest." Of course you are one I'd expect to "bleat on undeterred."
incapacitating dangerous or violently resisting suspects.
And I'm not at all surprised you ignore the key qualifier of #2: "... of a subject resisting arrest." Of course you are one I'd expect to "bleat on undeterred."
2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest;
People like him would like to consider resisting arrest standing on a sidewalk, sitting on the ground, or sitting on the ground while already hand cuffed.
That document says
Which in the case of it's use at #occupy events has not been the case. When have we seen video of violent protesters being pepper sprayed?
Interesting. You have an objective, credible source documenting this claim? My understanding is being seated with linked arms is the near-universally accepted standard of non-violent protest (in large part because it is nearly impossible for an unarmed person to commit any form of violence from a seated, interlocked arms posture). I look forward to you showing us otherwise.
Let's go through this slowly, I know you highly educated people have issues with the English language.
Please note the use of the word or and not the word and.
2) effect an arrest of a subject resisting arrest;
OR
2) establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest;
Seriously, you are an idiot. Let me spell it out for you:
Which one did you have in mind?Is looking up resisting arrest too tough for you?
Hmm, nope, none of those apply. Here's #2, from a site called resistingarrest.com. It certainly seems to match in this case (but I'm betting it's not the reality you had in mind):Resisting arrest is a term used to describe a criminal charge against an individual who has committed, depending on the jurisdiction, at least one of the following acts:
- threatening a police officer with physical violence while being arrested
- physically struggling to get out from being restrained (handcuffed or put into the police vehicle)
- attacking a police officer while being arrested
- providing an officer with false identification (either verbally or by presentation of a false official document, i.e. a fake ID)
Of course there are hundreds of additional links, many from law firms wanting to sell their services, some quoting pages of legalese, and far too many talking about how resisting arrest charges are frequently abused by bad cops trying to cover their butts. In short, way more than I can list here.Although a criminal offense in most jurisdictions, resisting arrest has too often become a de facto charge to cover-up police use of excessive force.
On the contrary, he was exactly right. You are exactly wrong. I'm sure you're used to that so you should move on to new duhversions.Yet another bonehead that doesn't understand the English language.
Thank you...I enjoy watching him test the limits of human rationality.
A two-minute flash mob by Occupy Santa Ana protesters did not seem to have the intended effect, leaving some Wal-Mart employees scratching their heads.
About 20 protesters gathered near the cash registers at the Santa Ana Wal-Mart on Tuesday evening and began chanting a message intended to convey solidarity with employees, urging them to skip work the day after Thanksgiving.
“We believe that it is wrong that the corporation you work for is making you come in to work in the middle of the night when you should be at home with your families,” the group chanted in unison, according to the Orange County Register. “It is wrong that their profits soar while you struggle to make ends meet. ... We strongly urge you to call in sick on Black Friday.”
The group then marched out of the store chanting, “We are the 99 percent.”
At least one shopper joined the group and marched out with them, pumping her fist in the air. Afterward, as the protesters drove away, a handful of Wal-Mart employees gathered outside the store’s entrance, the newspaper reported.
One woman called the protest “stupid.” Another said it was “disrespectful.” A third employee seemed to miss the protesters’ message entirely, thinking they were connected to an effort to unionize workers at the store.
Yes, and ...? I read it. It was the third link on my Google search. Which part do you contend supports your assertion that "Linking arms is considered to be actively resisting arrest. It is considered violent by police and is usually treated that way."?
How does the pepper spray taste? Looks like an easy way to pepper my steak on the grill.
Seriously, this OWS shit is getting way too old. No one really cares anymore.
Had these OWSers done something instead of nothing in the first 2 months I would have agreed somewhat, but they did absolutely nothing for over 2 months and now no one cares,
the media doesn't care,
politicians certainly dont care and the only ones who care are people calling the others idiots. So, yeah, maybe they will regroup in the spring and actually have a real agenda.
Yes, and ...? I read it. It was the third link on my Google search. Which part do you contend supports your assertion that "Linking arms is considered to be actively resisting arrest. It is considered violent by police and is usually treated that way."?
I saw lots of legalese and many examples and qualifiers (resisting handcuffs, resisting being placed in a police car, fake ID, etc.), but I saw nothing supporting you. If nothing else, you seem to have missed a key requirement that in order to be resisting arrest, one must actually have a peace officer trying to arrest you. Unless you can produce something specific, I'm still going with "pulling it out of your ass in a desperate, pathetic attempt to save face for making a false claim.
And DSF wades in again, unable to resist his pathological compulsion to pick a fight. How about you then, Sparky? Anything useful you can contribute? Can you provide the objective, credible evidence Monovillage has failed to provide? Once again, here's his assertion: "Linking arms is considered to be actively resisting arrest. It is considered violent by police and is usually treated that way."Thank you...I enjoy watching him test the limits of human rationality.
"Most reasonable people know"? Really? Everyone knows this, amirite? I can't find any evidence to support my emotional outburst, but I have my faith and I will never be distracted by fact or reason. ROFL!You can masturbate the minutiae all you want, most reasonable people know that linking arms is a form of resisting arrest, is considered a form of violence by police and will sometimes draw a heightened response.