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.
I suppose stranger things have happened. If those two purported acts of "active resistance" actually occurred, it might be enough to legally justify using pepper spray against those two students. There is no way it could justify walking up and down a row of protestors sitting peacefully, painting them with pepper spray. That was clearly wrong.I agree with you. Once the group starts actively resisting (instead of passively) they lose all sympathy and should be tazed or sprayed. Raise a fist at a cop, down you go. Pull your arm away, down you go. Sit there and do nothing, nope.
Since there is video of at least two people actively resisting, I would say the campus police will be exonerated by the court system. This is why I suspect it will never be taken to court.
The police were having a very difficult time.
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.
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).
Semantics.
You can protect who needs protection, not at exclusion.
You could be attacked, or someone else could be attacked. So you can use it to protect yourself or another, as the case may be.
Arguing this point is incredibly stupid.
this
is clearly resisting arrest.
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.
They did not resist VIOLENTLY.
Violent resistence is not required.
Active resistense is the limiting factor. Videos show at least two people were actively resisting.
You are comparing what I said to Clinton while Bowfigger is debating what "and" and "or" means? BTW I think you were referring to Clinton's classic phrase.
""It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair"
Partisan much?
He is clearly striking the officer with his sonic scream with the intent to cause him harm.
It is amazing the cops did not immediately shoot him once he opened his mouth like that!!
Again, you are avoiding the core issue. Nobody is saying that people did not resist. They did not resist VIOLENTLY. They posed no hazard to the health or safety of themselves, the officers or anybody else in their resistance.
Violent resistence is not required. Active resistense is the limiting factor. Videos show at least two people were actively resisting.
America is in a sad state, especially when it's own citizen's defend the unjust actions of the justice system against their neighbors.
You are REALLY digging for that one.
Do we need to start quoting ex-presidents to validate the abusive use of a painful agent by authority figures?
Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
Since Monovillage is now attempting to dishonestly twist away from his own words, I just thought I'd remind him what he's running from. This was his assertion, something he repeatedly failed to support with any evidence from credible, objective sources. His final retreating volley was something to the effect that everyone knows this is true, i.e., I believe it must be true so therefore it is. Lame.Linking arms is considered to be actively resisting arrest. It is considered violent by police and is usually treated that way.
That is false.I was just laughing at you and bowfingers attempts to dance around the fact that police are authorized to use pepper spray to effect an arrest. ...
There you go again, making up shit when you're losing an argument. I don't suppose you'd care to cite the quotes where I was fumbling with "and" and "or", or even anywhere I've used "doh" or "d'oh"? I just went back through the thread all the way to the beginning of this particular conversation. The only comments from me about "and" and "or" were agreeing with Cybrsage that his interpretation of the final "and" was correct ... and that nobody was disagreeing with him. I don't see where I used "d'oh" at all.I just ... did a comparison to Bowfingers fumbling with "and" and "or" the only thing he got right was his D'oh.
The one you invented? I'm not sure what your point is, but I don't appreciate people lying about me. If you can't make honest arguments to support your talking points, perhaps it would be best just to STFU.I guess your "D'oh" hit the mark.
More accurately, videos purportedly show two protestors reacting in a way that a retired Philadelphia officer claims could be active resistance. It is his opinion, offered after the fact. Furthermore, it completely ignores the point that there is no evidence the UC Davis officers were trying to arrest either of these people. For the umpteenth time, one cannot resist arrest if nobody is arresting you.
Beyond the issue of pepper spray being deemed excessive force, has OWS accomplished anything else lately?
Airdata never did provide evidence of ANY investors being impacted by the protests, so maybe that's a good place to start in getting this thread back on track?
Or, better yet, any word on OWS doing anything constructive or productive in DC?
Read my link. It addresses acts of violence.
No, "active" is a connotation that attempts to separate it from passive to allow the act. The codes say that the person must be violent, possibly unstable, and a number of other additional descriptive phrases, before spray is allowed.
As in the case shown in the vid. NOBODY SPRAYED WAS EVEN MOVING. Regardless of what people were doing in another location, the officer clearly saw the protesters, walked up to them at no risk to his person, and sprayed them all liberally and point-blank.