#OccupyWallstreet

[Hugo Drax]

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 doesnt 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.

They did not take advantage of their 15 minutes of fame. The media fatigue is already setting in so at some point it wont get much air time and of course the working stiff will no longer notice them, they will end up just becoming background noise.

They spent too much time building a camp city, with a Library, yoga and meditation programs, bongos and music programs etc. they became too insular and the whole purpose of the protest ended up just to protest. And they ended up becoming a Microcosm of society with a poor section,rich section etc.

The Majority of them will just go back to college and of course the parents of the protestors are probably getting tired of the whole affair and might end up threatening to cut the purse springs and monthly allotments the ows protestors receive.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Yet another bonehead that doesn't understand the English language.

Since you seem to have trouble grasping things, let me help you with the the first part of the rules regarding pepper spray:

Original:

1) protect himself, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault);

How you would (incorrectly) interpret this:

Please note the use of the word or and not the word and. Therefore, the officer can only protect ONE person; himself or another person, but not both.

Correct interpretation:

1) protect himself from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault);
OR
1) protect another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault);

The lack of the word and does not mean an officer cannot protect both himself and another person.

 

[airdata]

Originally Posted by monovillage
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.

LOL. Those violent bastards! How dare they sit on the ground and join arms with eachother. How dare they do that in America... wtf are they thinking?!?!

You guys have this air about your posts like you know you're right, and then you keep posting stupid shit like this that just screams ignorance. Keep doing it though. That's one of the only reasons I post in this section of the forums.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well let's cut to the chase again. If these Policemen illegally used pepper spray where are all the lawyer filing criminal charges against them? Could it be they all know that the use of pepper spray is at the Policeman's discretion when effecting an arrest?

 

[Bowfinger]

Well let's cut to the chase again. If these Policemen illegally used pepper spray where are all the lawyer filing criminal charges against them? Could it be they all know that the use of pepper spray is at the Policeman's discretion when effecting an arrest?

Patience, child. Such things take time. For now it is noteworthy that internal measures have been taken in at least some cases. In the NYPD example a few weeks ago, the officer involved was (apparently) demoted and transferred. In the UC Davis case, the two officers involved and the head of campus police were placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So in other words they don't have grounds to arrest them for breaking California law.

 

[airdata]

I did not have sex with that woman, ms louinski.

Sorry... Monovilliages post made me think about Bill Clinton being impeached over the difference between the accepted definition of sex and the definition of sex he had.

+1 bowfinger.

 

[Fern]

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?

I've seen the police trying that on several occasions. It does not appear as easy as you make it sound. The police were having a very difficult time. As soon as they would untangle some protesters arm he would link it right back up. This linking seems to me a clear case of resisting arrest. In fact, the whole point of linking arms seems to be preventing the police from carrying you away in an arrest.

I've seen protests where the police just people picked up and carried them away. But those protesters weren't linking arms or doing anything else to hinder the police.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Reading over the list, it is obvious the list is made up of "or" statements, not "and" statements.

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 AND in bold does not exist in the original. Why did you add it? These statements are obviously OR statements, for pepper spray could only be used if a human turned into an animal during the attack (to satisfy number 5).

 

[cybrsage]

For those who are confused, when you do not cooperate with the arresting officer, but instead resist his efforts to arrest you, you are resisting arrest.

 

[Fern]

http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf

2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest;

NYC, I know, but I doubt that the rules differ that greatly for Davis.......

I'm another who thinks the bolded part of the rules above permits police to take steps necessary to gain control of people trying to resist arrest by linking (and re-linking) their arms. I don't consider linking arms to be "violent", but it's clearly an overt physical act designed to thwart the police trying to arrest someone.

Fern

 

[Ns1]

I'm another who thinks the bolded part of the rules above permits police to take steps necessary to gain control of people trying to resist arrest by linking (and re-linking) their arms. I don't consider linking arms to be "violent", but it's clearly an overt physical act designed to thwart the police trying to arrest someone.

Fern

this

is clearly resisting arrest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Reading over the list, it is obvious the list is made up of "or" statements, not "and" statements.

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 AND in bold does not exist in the original. Why did you add it? These statements are obviously OR statements, for pepper spray could only be used if a human turned into an animal during the attack (to satisfy number 5).

I'm pretty sure everybody already understood that. The debate about "and" and "or" centers on their use within each point.

 

[Bowfinger]

For those who are confused, when you do not cooperate with the arresting officer, but instead resist his efforts to arrest you, you are resisting arrest.

As I pointed out before, even if your view is accepted, you still need to show that the people assaulted were being placed under arrest. One cannot resist arrest unless an officer is trying to arrest you.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, ok. So this is how I see it:

If any of the items in the list are met, the use of pepper spray is authorized. It is basic boolean logic:

If 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 is true, then the use of pepper spray is true. If all items are true, then the use of pepper spray is true. Only if all are not true would the outcome, the use of pepper spray, not be true.

 

[airdata]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S880UldxB1o&feature=player_embedded#!

Must see.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah, ok. So this is how I see it:

If any of the items in the list are met, the use of pepper spray is authorized. It is basic boolean logic:

If 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 is true, then the use of pepper spray is true. If all items are true, then the use of pepper spray is true. Only if all are not true would the outcome, the use of pepper spray, not be true.

Yes, nobody is questioning that. (Though I'd clarify that the list gives conditions where an officer may use pepper spray, not where he is required to use it.)

 

[cybrsage]

As I pointed out before, even if your view is accepted,

Which it is, since the use of AND was not actually part of the original post...and it being impossible to use AND in the list (unless werewolves are real).

you still need to show that the people assaulted were being placed under arrest. One cannot resist arrest unless an officer is trying to arrest you.

That is true. What was the reason for the officers going to the park? I mean, not what we think, but the actual reason for dispatch there? I do not know, just asking.

However, regardless of that, I found this:

After reviewing the footage, Key said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques, he said.

"What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Key said.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9r5d...-officers-use-of-pepper-spray-at-protest.html

The protestors were obviously resisting arrest. The question is not whether they were allowed to use the pepper spray, for they obviously were allowed to use it. The question is whether it was smart to use it.

IMO, they were not smart to use it. They should have known that edited video versions of the events would paint them in a horrible light. With that in mind, they should have cordoned off the area and waited them out. No food or water permitted in the area by outsiders. Those in the cordoned off area would surrender soon enough. Anyone trying to enter the area would be arrested for it, as it is an active police area.

Even better would be to have a table laden with lovely smelling food and drink several feet away...so those who want it have to walk to the police where they are arrested and taken away.

 

[Oyeve]

Which it is, since the use of AND was not actually part of the original post...and it being impossible to use AND in the list (unless werewolves are real).



That is true. What was the reason for the officers going to the park? I mean, not what we think, but the actual reason for dispatch there? I do not know, just asking.

However, regardless of that, I found this:


http://www.newser.com/article/d9r5d...-officers-use-of-pepper-spray-at-protest.html

The protestors were obviously resisting arrest. The question is not whether they were allowed to use the pepper spray, for they obviously were allowed to use it. The question is whether it was smart to use it.

IMO, they were not smart to use it. They should have known that edited video versions of the events would paint them in a horrible light. With that in mind, they should have cordoned off the area and waited them out. No food or water permitted in the area by outsiders. Those in the cordoned off area would surrender soon enough. Anyone trying to enter the area would be arrested for it, as it is an active police area.

Even better would be to have a table laden with lovely smelling food and drink several feet away...so those who want it have to walk to the police where they are arrested and taken away.

"Cake or death?"

 

[AnonymouseUser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S880UldxB1o&feature=player_embedded#!

Must see.

Hypocrisy at it's finest. America is in a sad state, especially when it's own citizen's defend the unjust actions of the justice system against their neighbors.

 

[Genx87]

Apparently when we shop on black friday we are only contributing to the 1%. I had no idea people working the shops were the 1%.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t3

 

[cybrsage]

I know, I cannot understand why people are defending the unjust resistance of the occupy crowd. But this is America, and people have the freedom to be wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Which it is, since the use of AND was not actually part of the original post...and it being impossible to use AND in the list (unless werewolves are real).

That is true. What was the reason for the officers going to the park? I mean, not what we think, but the actual reason for dispatch there? I do not know, just asking.

However, regardless of that, I found this:

http://www.newser.com/article/d9r5d...-officers-use-of-pepper-spray-at-protest.html

The protestors were obviously resisting arrest. The question is not whether they were allowed to use the pepper spray, for they obviously were allowed to use it. The question is whether it was smart to use it.

IMO, they were not smart to use it. They should have known that edited video versions of the events would paint them in a horrible light. With that in mind, they should have cordoned off the area and waited them out. No food or water permitted in the area by outsiders. Those in the cordoned off area would surrender soon enough. Anyone trying to enter the area would be arrested for it, as it is an active police area.

Even better would be to have a table laden with lovely smelling food and drink several feet away...so those who want it have to walk to the police where they are arrested and taken away.

With all due respect, this post is a perfect example of the emotion-driven cognitive dissonance of the far right. You cherry-picked that one quote, from a former police officer no less, out of a long article generally critical of the way police handled the UC Davis incident. Even worse, you then ignored the very next part of the article, essentially showing how his opinion contradicts the courts:

The federal courts have ruled on such cases. At the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers courts in nine Western states, the cases have centered on whether or not the protesters were involved in what is called "active resistance".

The court used the term in considering a case about another highly circulated video of a group of passive demonstrators being swabbed with pepper spray in 1997. The protesters had linked arms on the floor of a California congressman's office to protest the logging of old-growth redwood trees on California's North Coast.

Because demonstrators were using a metal sleeve to prevent police from separating them, police argued their "active resistance" left them no other way to get them to move than dabbing their eyes with Q-tips soaked in pepper spray, said Jim Wheaton, an attorney who assisted the prosecution of the civil case.

The 9th Circuit ruled that the protesters weren't in "active resistance," and because they were sitting peacefully, the use of pepper spray was excessive.

"Pepper spray is designed to protect people from a violent attack, to stop somebody from doing something," said Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project. The Davis police "were using it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that's exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive."

So in this more extreme case, where protestors did not merely lock arms, but actually used metal sleeves to prevent separation, the court nonetheless ruled it was a peaceful action that did NOT justify the use of pepper spray. That seems pretty definitive to me. Thank you.

 

[cybrsage]

Even worse, you then ignored the very next part of the article, essentially showing how his opinion contradicts the courts:

So in this more extreme case, where protestors did not merely lock arms, but actually used metal sleeves to prevent separation, the court nonetheless ruled it was a peaceful action that did NOT justify the use of pepper spray. That seems pretty definitive to me. Thank you.

The court case is listed to show that simply not responding to the orders is not reason enough to pepper spray them. In order to use pepper spray, there must be active resistance

In this case, two of those who were resisting were actively resisting. In the court case mentioned, no one was actively resisting.

Since active resistence is required to use pepper spray, the police were justified in using it at the school, but not in the court case.

EDIT: Had none of the protestors actively resisted (which was apparently caught on film as proof), then the campus police would have been wrong to use the pepper spray.

 

[Bowfinger]

The court case is listed to show that simply not responding to the orders is not reason enough to pepper spray them. In order to use pepper spray, there must be active resistance

In this case, two of those who were resisting were actively resisting. In the court case mentioned, no one was actively resisting.

Since active resistence is required to use pepper spray, the police were justified in using it at the school, but not in the court case.

EDIT: Had none of the protestors actively resisted (which was apparently caught on film as proof), then the campus police would have been wrong to use the pepper spray.

That is, at best, a huge stretch based on one former cop's opinion. It sounds suspiciously like the usual rationalization for excessive force. As I quoted earlier, "resisting arrest has too often become a de facto charge to cover-up police use of excessive force." It also presumes the officers were attempting to arrest the students. The article you link suggests otherwise.

If this does, indeed, go to court, we may get a definitive ruling. Regardless, contrary to what so many in this thread have claimed, sitting peacefully with linked arms does NOT constitute active resistance and does NOT justify the use of pepper spray. That's the legal ruling of the 9th Circuit court.