Police mace the hell out of peaceful OWS protesters

Page 34 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,989
8,701
136
Is that a European way of saying you admit you are wrong?

MotionMan

No but as your argument seems to be to randomly call people liars if it damages your argument there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing.

Sigh, and I thought you weren't going to stamp and pout.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
No but as your argument seems to be to randomly call people liars if it damages your argument there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing.

Sigh, and I thought you weren't going to stamp and pout.

I am not randomly calling people liars. All I said was that it feels to me like she is lying. Accordingly, I will preface all my reactions to her statements with "if true".

You still have not explained why you believe her?

MotionMan
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,989
8,701
136
I am not randomly calling people liars. All I said was that it feels to me like she is lying. Accordingly, I will preface all my reactions to her statements with "if true".

You still have not explained why you believe her?

MotionMan


There is no evidence to show she wasn't telling the truth and no else has come forward to say that she was lying?

Edit: Are you sure you are involved in working with the law?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,989
8,701
136
Do you believe she has a huge motive to lie?

MotionMan

What I or you believe is completely irrelevant. You can pull as many opinions out of your ass as you want, they still mean nothing at all.

Unless you can show that she is lying then your argument is null.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
What I or you believe is completely irrelevant. You can pull as many opinions out of your ass as you want, they still mean nothing at all.

Unless you can show that she is lying then your argument is null.

"I know that you may not believe anything that I am telling you today and you don’t have to. It is my responsibility to earn your trust.” -- Chancellor Linda Katehi

MotionMan
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,989
8,701
136
"I know that you may not believe anything that I am telling you today and you don’t have to. It is my responsibility to earn your trust.” -- Chancellor Linda Katehi

MotionMan


Wow, just wow!

So you've gone from arguing facts and the law to calling people liars and taking quotes out of context.

:thumbsup: Good job.

Sometimes its better to just admit you're wrong, or stop posting.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
Wow, just wow!

So you've gone from arguing facts and the law to calling people liars and taking quotes out of context.

:thumbsup: Good job.

Sometimes its better to just admit you're wrong, or stop posting.

I have not called her a liar. Why do you keep saying that?

MotionMan
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,513
221
106
Well he didn't have the authority unless you can prove that the Chancellor is lying.

If they were enforcing an established law that the Chancellor told them not to enforce, they may not have had permission but that does not remove their legal authority to do so. Just a thought.

I may have missed it, but was it ever determined if this was true?
Police said pepper spray was only brought out when a small group of unusually confrontational protesters refused to get out of the street and stood in the path of MAX transit trains.

Portland Police Bureau spokesman Lt. Robert King said the march had proceeded peacefully along most of the route, with officers trying to keep people on the sidewalk and out of the street.

There was initially "a pushing and shoving match" near SW 5th Avenue and Alder Street, King said in an interview, and again a "pretty intense confrontation" at SW 4th Avenue and Morrison Street.

The most raucous confrontation occurred near Chase Bank shortly after 4 p.m. as officers were trying to remove protesters who had entered the bank vestibule. But police were blocked by hundreds of demonstrators outside. Meanwhile, a core of protesters couldn't be cleared from the street, which is a path for one of the city's major downtown light-rail systems.

"Two of the protesters engaged in some kind of a struggle, a pushing match, with one of the officers, and in the course of that, tensions escalated and ultimately pepper spray was deployed, and that by and large resolved the disturbance at that location," King said.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,989
8,701
136
If they were enforcing an established law that the Chancellor told them not to enforce, they may not have had permission but that does not remove their legal authority to do so. Just a thought.

Could be. I'm not familiar with the concept of campus police, we don't have them here. But the fact that she was able to put them on administrate leave makes me believe they don't have the same authority as regular police (or at least their authority doesn't come from the same source).

If they (the protesters) had been violent against the officer then the argument would definitely be different.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,513
221
106
Could be. I'm not familiar with the concept of campus police, we don't have them here. But the fact that she was able to put them on administrate leave makes me believe they don't have the same authority as regular police (or at least their authority doesn't come from the same source).

If they (the protesters) had been violent against the officer then the argument would definitely be different.

I'm not familiar with their structure over there either, but based on the little that I have seen I I would guess that the police department is under her administrative umbrella.

The authority of the police to enforce laws comes from the state, but internal personnel and policy issues can be different (and handled administratively like this). I may go hunting for more articles tonight and see if I can find a little more info.
 
Last edited:
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
My take is that Loghman's claim that he has "...never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents” completely invalidates his opinion. For example, the use in the Lundberg case was way more inappropriate and improper. So either he is full of crap or he has a limited basis for his opinion. If his opinion on that subject is without basis, how can you rely on anything else he says?

Also, was Loghman privy to the actual guidelines for the police department in question? And he said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person. Has he reviewed the use-of-force manual for this department? What do the actual manuals say?

Is he an expert in Constitutional Law?

Maybe I am just being nit-picky. How do you analyze expert opinions?

MotionMan

I appreciate your input...I haven't formed an opinion myself at this time because I haven't had the change to read the case in question. Of course, Loghman's lack of constitutional training and he clear hyperbole will factor into any conclusions I draw.
 

ChAoTiCpInOy

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2006
6,446
1
81
Hate to resurrect a thread that has been stagnant for a couple days but there have been some videos that have surfaced that show more of the beginning of what happened. The police arresting the people occupying then preparing to leave then the students circling and threatening the police.

I've been watching this thread from afar but MotionMan seems to have this case all thought through especially with the actions of the police.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,151
5
61
Hahahaha they sell that same bottle of pepper spray on Amazon. Check out the user submitted images and reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Techno...pr_product_top

omg..


Despite Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's assurance that this harmless vegetable mist is a "food product", I found it wholly unsuitable for eating. It caused an extraordinarily painful burning sensation in the mucous membranes of my upper respiratory tract and the tissue surrounding my eyes, resulting temporary blindness which lasted from 15-30 minutes, inflammation of the skin which lasted from 45 to 60 minutes, and upper body spasms which forced me to bend forward in fits of uncontrollable coughing that made it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 and 15 minutes. While there are many pleasurable ways to ingest fruits of the genus Capsicum, a nice New Mexico-style green Chile sauce on a stuffed sopaipilla for example, I found this product unsatisfactory.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
Before you guys continue to bicker, please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y

Disclaimer: Clearly someone is supporting the police in this video and the captions describe this. So just let the video do the talking.

Summary:

This video is a compilation of other videos of what happened leading up to the pepper spray incident. It's easy to show a video of the pepper spray go down and to bitch and moan about it. Just like if you saw someone getting shot. But without context and seeing what happened before/after, how can you judge? Here's the footage.

First we see the cops giving 3 sets of warnings to protestors to get out and clear out tents. People are arrested peacefully for the most part. But as most cops do, they give clear warnings.

Next we see the students confronting the cops. To be fair, I don't think they initially wanted to surround the cops and not let them go. But it ends up being surrounding the cops, who are processing those who were arrested earlier.

At 7:00, we hear Lt John Pike going to the students telling them that force will be used if they don't clear this area.

At 8:00 we hear

"If you let them go, we will let you leave. If you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully."

So the students admit they are not letting the cops leave. Now, you can't really do that. That's pushing it. Expect to get hurt. The second part of the statement implies they AREN'T protesting peacefully. That's certainly up to debate. Some people think that non peaceful protest = fighting and riots. But either way they're placing peaceful protest on the condition that the cops release the students. I really disagree with threatening here. The minute you start holding cops hostage (even if it's not using violence, but using a human wall), then this is ridiculous. EXPECT to get hurt.

The police repeatedly warn the students. Lt. John Pike warns them a 2nd time, and then a 3rd time by going to individual students sitting on the ground at this point.

At 11:00

Someone shouts "don't shoot students." Honestly, do riot police carry guns? Did the cops go threaten then saying we're going to shoot you? I can't tell. I doubt it, but we can't hear. It's clear some cops have paintball markers. I'm guessing they're filled with peppers or tear gas-like stuff. Maybe they did tell the students they might get shot by non lethal weapons like that. Of course if you heard "don't shoot students" being chanted you'd think about firearms and bullets. Clearly this could be misleading.

At 12:00

Lt John Pike brings out the pepper spray, shakes it for a longass time. Students are preparing for this. They tell each other to close their eyes, don't breathe it in.

At 13:00

Cops come in from the outside and clear a small path. They try to get the ones sitting to clear, but they refuse. I'm pretty sure the cops here are ready to spray already, and the additional cops on the outside are to protect Lt. John Pike as he goes and does the dirty work. They know there's gonna be outrage and they're here to crowd control. At this point it's pretty much THE LAST CHANCE to GTFO for the sitting guys.

13:10

Cops back up. Lots of people discuss this, but it's obvious the pepper spray is going down. They back out of the way of the fumes because it's going down.

13:25

All hell breaks loose and students are telling the cops not to do it. Then why did you all chant to cover your eyes and to not breathe it in? If you think you can fight the pepper spray then MAN UP like FPSRussia and take it like a bitch.

13:45

AFtermath. Students say they will give the cops PEACE and let them leave. Oh, so after getting sprayed, you now allow the cops to leave? Smart.

Personal take:

The cops were surrounded. Were they surrounded by an angry mob with sticks ready to beat them? Nah. But they were surrounded. They also chanted they would NOT let the cops leave unless their demands are met. Last time I checked the cops don't just yield to these things, and nor do you have the right to demand anything. Sure the demands aren't like "give me a million bucks," but it's still threatening and demanding something OUT of their control.

The cops weren't in a seriously threatening situation. They could've stepped out if they wanted, but then there are those that are arrested that they need to escort out. Do you expect the students to sit there peacefully in a 1-2 person deep circle and let the cops step over them single file line and also carry out those arrested along with them? Honestly no. Even if we didn't use pepper spray, SOME SORT of crowd clearing/barrier opening tool needs to be used. This means man handling them or whatever.

I'm pretty sure if they took that squad car and drove it at 1mph at the students, people would be just as stupid and sit there and get run over and then cry "police brutality." The point is they weren't going to leave until someone got hurt.

Students are stupid. When you think about this thoroughly, they were clearly in the wrong. You can still argue pepper spray is inappropriate and that, but it's pretty darn clear from this video that they shouldn't have been surrounding the police.

The captions make a good point. Students were originally protesting like OWS about jobs and the 1% rich and tuition hikes. This is no longer about those things. This is about forcing cops to let people go when the whole thing is in the hands of the law already.

I'm willing to accept that pepper spray is inappropriate. I listened to the whole 1 hr segment on our local NPR station about this and they brought in experts who said that NYPD is specifically trained NOT TO USE PEPPER SPRAY when dealing with passive protestors who refuse to move. Of course they never detailed HOW ELSE to remove the protestors, but that's probably why NPR is biased. They never addressed the cops being surrounded and did not interview anyone who would address how else the students could be moved.

I do think however that pepper spray is fine. The students were warned. This is no Oakland. They didn't shoot rubber bullets and tear gas. There's plenty of military training around the world where you're taught to put up with tear gas and pepper spray.

FPSRussia can take pepper spray. Granted he admits its bad, I say to the students "don't be beech"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8IGDIujijQ

Regarding Mainstream Media & Idiotic Youtube/Facebook/Twitter reactions

It's easy to show a video of the pepper spraying going down, but how about do some research and find out about WHAT happened? Everyone loves to take "non violent protest" and put pepper spray on the other side. Sure the students weren't being outright "violent" but this isn't the same as someone sitting on the sidewalk at say a bus stop and getting pepper sprayed for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. People are far too easy to manipulate.

I went to a UC school and I can bet there are thousands of people on my Facebook who are like "omg the cops are stupid." I wish people did some research. I can see how SOME of their points are correct, but I can bet 99.9% of their points are based on no research and just the clip of the spray going down. Most of the knee jerk reactions are just based on senseless accusations and idiocy.

I remember when students got beat at Berkeley, people said that the chancellor's email said the students were violently protesting. People overreacted thinking that the chancellor believed the students were attacking the cops. They kept saying that chanting is non violent. But when you read the actual email which I just pulled up, it says:

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.

When you read this paragraph in detail it makes more sense. You can't prevent the cops from doing their work, and the fact that people chose to be arrested peacefully where others decided to oppose the cops and get beat... well, that tells you something. Nonviolent civil disobedience means you refuse orders by the cops, but it doesn't mean you engage in disruptive behavior. I agree with the chancellor, but I can see how students can interpret this as thinking he's calling them out for assault, but the email doesn't imply that at all. Just because he crossed out non-violent, doesn't mean he's comparing them to a violent Oakland riot. Sigh, knee jerk reactions of hippie students.
 
Last edited:

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
I appreciate your input...I haven't formed an opinion myself at this time because I haven't had the change to read the case in question. Of course, Loghman's lack of constitutional training and he clear hyperbole will factor into any conclusions I draw.

Any further thoughts?

MotionMan
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
With my ADD, reading comprehension problems and lacking legal skills, I was only able to find the following from the Lundberg cases:

"The facts reflect that: (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors; (2) the officers could safely and quickly remove the protestors, while in “black bears,” from protest sites; and (3) the officers could remove the “black bears” with electric grinders in a matter of minutes and without causing pain or injury to the protestors."

"The three other protesters, including one who announced that she had asthma, then voluntarily released."

"Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” "

"t would have been clear to any reasonable officer that defendants' refusal to wash out the protestors' eyes with water constituted excessive force under the circumstances....In two of the protests, officers threatened that they would not provide the protestors with water to wash out their eyes until they released themselves from the “black bears,” and in one of the protests, the officers did not provide the protestors with water for over twenty minutes. Spraying the protestors with pepper spray and then allowing them to suffer without providing them water is clearly excessive under the circumstances."

"As we have repeatedly said, whether the force used to effect an arrest is reasonable “is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” ... Although excessive force cases can be decided as a matter of law, they rarely are because the Fourth Amendment test for reasonableness is inherently fact-specific. ... It is a test that escapes “mechanical application” and “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” ... and thus naturally favors jury resolution."


These cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis and are very fact specific. They are determined by juries, not public opinion. Nothing has been determined and the result of any trial is not a sure thing for either side. However, the facts of the present cases differ enough from Lundberg that Lundberg may not apply at all.

BTW, in Jackson v. City of Bremerton (2001) 268 F.3d 646, 625 FN3, the Court said the following:

"We did not decide whether the use of pepper spray constituted excessive force in that case (Lundberg). Instead, we considered whether the district court erred in directing a verdict for the municipal defendants in light of the evidence in the record. Because the record in that case contained “vigorously disputed” facts and raised substantial questions regarding the reasonableness of using pepper spray against a small group of passive demonstrators, we held that on the record the district court erred."

MotionMan, Esq.


We are all still waiting for Phokus to respond to this.

MotionMan
 
Apr 17, 2003
37,622
0
76
just in case anyone still gave a shit, the settlement is pending approval from the court, which should happen shortly:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/local/la-me-uc-pepper-spray-20120914

Jonathan Stein, the UC student regent, said the settlement was warranted. "We did an injustice to our students that day at Davis, and some amount of recompense is appropriate. More importantly, it's time for us as an institution to publicly acknowledge that's not the way we should treat our students; we were wrong, and we are moving forward," he said.

IIRC, they spent close to 700k on the investigation...lol.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,312
12
81
just in case anyone still gave a shit, the settlement is pending approval from the court, which should happen shortly:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/local/la-me-uc-pepper-spray-20120914

The task force described campus Chancellor Linda Katehi's leadership during the protests as inadequate and said she should have made it clear that she wanted police to use little or no force. Her failure to do so "substantially undermined the goal of avoiding a physical confrontation," the study said.

Which contradicts what she said at the time:

My instructions were for no arrests and no police force," she said. "I explicitly directed the chief of police that violence should be avoided at all costs."

It turns out that my Spidey Sense was dead on.

MotionMan
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |