# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  University of California cop who pepper-sprayed student protesters awarded $38,000

## St James

*University of California cop who pepper-sprayed student protesters awarded $38,000

*By Steve Gorman, Reuters
A former University of California policeman who stirredpublic outrage by pepper-spraying peaceful student protesters has been awarded $38,000 in worker's compensation for psychiatric damage he claimed to have suffered from the 2011 incident, the university said on Wednesday.
Then-campus police Lieutenant John Pike came to symbolize law enforcement aggression against anti-Wall Street protests at the time when video footage widely aired on TV and the Internet showed him casually dousing demonstrators in the face with a can of pepper spray as they sat on the ground.
Pike was suspended from his job at UC Davis and ultimatelyleft the force in July 2012, but university officials did not disclose the circumstances of his departure.
A scathing 190-page report on the incident found thatuniversity officials and UC Davis police used poor judgment and excessive force in the confrontation. And the incident was widely mocked in satirical messages posted on the Internet in which still photos of Pike wielding his pepper spraywere inserted into famed works or art or pop culture images.
The university last fall agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of the 21 students who got sprayed and later reported suffering panic attacks, trauma and academic problems as a result.
In June of this year, Pike himself filed a worker'scompensation claim with UC Davis over the incident, saying he suffered unspecified psychiatric and nervous system damage, though the document did not explain how he claimed to have been harmed, records show.
On October 16, the state Division of Workers Compensation Appeals Board agreed to resolve his claim by paying him a settlement totaling $38,055, UC Davis spokesman Andy Fell said on Wednesday.
"This case has been resolved in accordance with state law and processes on workers' compensation," Fell said in a written statement. "The final resolution is in line with permanent impairment as calculated by the state's disability evaluation unit."
Fell said he was not at liberty to elaborate on Pike's claim or the circumstances behind it.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Pike had earned more than $110,000 from his job in 2010, citing a database of state worker salaries from the last year for which figures are available.
The newspaper said he had received more than 17,000 angry or threatening emails, 10,000 text messages and hundreds of letters after the video of the pepper-spraying went viral.
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi had asked prosecutors to look into possible criminal charges against the police officers involved in the pepper-spraying. But the Yolo County District Attorney's office determinedthere were no grounds on which to bring a case.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ded-38000?lite=

Now this really pisses me fuckin' off. Gonna have to double down on my PB meds. He gets a REWARD for torturing students with mace and the students are told their Rights weren't violated? Who the hell is running this show?
What kind of emotional stress did that fucker go through by walking down a line of sitting students, who weren't violent, who weren't attacking and who weren't throwing anything, and hosing them down with mace?? What kind of pain and suffering did he go through?
Small wonder... it is a liberal college, after all.
Justice for the police.......none for the citizen................
I can only hope Jesus comes back tomorrow at the latest.
Cops now get money for torturing students...........makes me look real hard at the college I go to.

----------


## Katzndogz

I recall that incident very well.  The man was surrounded and being threatened.  The peaceful protesters weren't exactly peaceful.   They should still be behind bars to this very day.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I recall that incident very well.  The man was surrounded and being threatened.  The peaceful protesters weren't exactly peaceful.   They should still be behind bars to this very day.


You mean, those students sitting on the ground whom he peppersprayed were surrounding him and threatening him?

The tax-fattened, overpaid pig looks horribly endangered here




If the wilting flower encased in protective gear and surrounded by more tax-fattened overpaid pigs can't handle the stress of his employment, he's welcome to seek employment elsewhere. A McDonald's fry cook may be less stressful for the poor fellow.

----------

Mainecoons (10-25-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-25-2013),The XL (10-27-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> I recall that incident very well.  The man was surrounded and being threatened.  The peaceful protesters weren't exactly peaceful.   They should still be behind bars to this very day.


I can't seem to find anything on this. If you have a source, (or even if you witnessed the surrounding and being threatened events personally) I would be interested in the other side of the storyline presented by the media.

 @Katzndogz

----------


## Roadmaster

I remember this and yes the students did do something wrong but they were easy prey. You wouldn't see those cops if a riot started when they might actually be in danger. Rewarding him come on they didn't have weapons.

----------


## RMNIXON

I am torn because if my memory serves the students intentionally trapped the campus police so they could cause an altercation. They wanted a staged incident for the media. 

But *"**awarded $38,000 in worker's compensation for psychiatric damage."*

Seriously!  :Wtf20:

----------


## RMNIXON

And this:

*"The university last fall agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of the 21 students who got sprayed and later reported suffering panic attacks, trauma and academic problems as a result."


* :Wtf20: 


Care to guess how many California Tax payers pick up the tab?  :Angry20:

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-24-2013)

----------


## St James

> I can't seem to find anything on this. If you have a source, (or even if you witnessed the surrounding and being threatened events personally) I would be interested in the other side of the storyline presented by the media.
> 
>  @Katzndogz


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...rotesters?lite

Without admitting the students Rights, under charter agreement; the right to peaceful protest, the school reimbursed the students involved. That means the students were in the right, the cops were in the wrong, and STILL this freakin pig gets comp for mental anguish and debilitating emotional damage.
that's the BIG  :Wtf20:

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-24-2013)

----------


## Matt

The cops we're not in the wrong. Occupy was in the wrong. The cops we're just doing their jobs. While I don't know why the workers comp claim was put in...if the state awarded that much...then clearly there's something we don't know.

----------


## Calypso Jones

little bastards deserved it.  And besides HE, the ossifer is a union member...now you don't intend to deny a union member his due are  you...after he has so diligently paid HIS?

----------


## Perianne

> little bastards deserved it.


 @Calypso Jones          That doesn't sound like you. Why do you think the "little bastards" deserve $1M?  Are you turning soft on us?

----------


## St James

> The cops we're not in the wrong. Occupy was in the wrong. The cops we're just doing their jobs. While I don't know why the workers comp claim was put in...if the state awarded that much...then clearly there's something we don't know.


Ok, let me explain this again................... Under the University charter, the students have the Right to peaceful protest on this campus (emphasis on peaceful)
The university agreed that the students were well within their rights and agreed to pay restitution for the assault and battery against the students. The police heard that a protest was going on and decided they were going to handle the situation and as usual, they took a different kind of stance than the university agreed to. The campus security/cops were only to handle traffic, _not assault the protesters. 
Why would you say they were in the wrong? 
_The event was scheduled so the administration knew it was going to happen and agreed to it. Campus security called the abusers in to break up what was already ok'd by administration.
What don't you understand about the police state? They love picking a fight and arresting people as well as killing as many as they can. You are obviously too young to remember Kent State.
Kids.......................This wasn't about Occupy..............shit dude, do a little reading before you jump into the test

----------

Mainecoons (10-25-2013)

----------


## Matt

> Ok, let me explain this again................... Under the University charter, the students have the Right to peaceful protest on this campus (emphasis on peaceful)
> The university agreed that the students were well within their rights and agreed to pay restitution for the assault and battery against the students. The police heard that a protest was going on and decided they were going to handle the situation and as usual, they took a different kind of stance than the university agreed to. The campus security/cops were only to handle traffic, _not assault the protesters. 
> Why would you say they were in the wrong? 
> _The event was scheduled so the administration knew it was going to happen and agreed to it. Campus security called the abusers in to break up what was already ok'd by administration.
> What don't you understand about the police state? They love picking a fight and arresting people as well as killing as many as they can. You are obviously too young to remember Kent State.
> Kids.......................This wasn't about Occupy..............shit dude, do a little reading before you jump into the test


I was good with your explanation until you got into the cop hate bit at the end....which pretty much blew your credibility with me. Look, forgive me, but I just don't do the cop hate thing. I know it's very un-conservative of me, trust me, I've noted the trend, it disturbs me greatly, but I am not interested in it. In fact when I leave the military I may even apply to the State Trooper Academy because lord knows I have nowhere else to go. So please don't take any offense if I don't take your word on the events. People on forums always blame the cops, always, doesn't matter what the details or facts are. It's frightening our society has fallen so low.

----------


## keymanjim

> I can't seem to find anything on this. If you have a source, (or even if you witnessed the surrounding and being threatened events personally) I would be interested in the other side of the storyline presented by the media.
> 
>  @Katzndogz


This ought to do it:

----------

Canadianeye (10-25-2013),Perianne (10-25-2013),RMNIXON (10-25-2013),Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> I was good with your explanation until you got into the cop hate bit at the end....which pretty much blew your credibility with me. Look, forgive me, but I just don't do the cop hate thing. I know it's very un-conservative of me, trust me, I've noted the trend, it disturbs me greatly, but I am not interested in it. In fact when I leave the military I may even apply to the State Trooper Academy because lord knows I have nowhere else to go. So please don't take any offense if I don't take your word on the events. People on forums always blame the cops, always, doesn't matter what the details or facts are. It's frightening our society has fallen so low.


This is one girl who does not blame the cops.  I support the police.  Sure, there are bad ones, but that is true anywhere.  I have dated several cops and tend to like them and the protection they give me.

----------

Matt (10-25-2013),Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> This ought to do it:


Absolutely fucking amazing. Thanks Key.

----------

keymanjim (10-25-2013)

----------


## St James

> I was good with your explanation until you got into the cop hate bit at the end....which pretty much blew your credibility with me. Look, forgive me, but I just don't do the cop hate thing. I know it's very un-conservative of me, trust me, I've noted the trend, it disturbs me greatly, but I am not interested in it. In fact when I leave the military I may even apply to the State Trooper Academy because lord knows I have nowhere else to go. So please don't take any offense if I don't take your word on the events. People on forums always blame the cops, always, doesn't matter what the details or facts are. It's frightening our society has fallen so low.


so, you're telling me there is no such thing as a Police State? How much history have you devoted any time to? This shit is straight out of 1939 Nazi Germany. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=iXiJ-nuDLFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zEH4ZVMSLOk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=OqCNW_hGiOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ytUl2Ie4E8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=G63FEamhpA0
plenty more where these came from
Take your pick...there's thousands of these out there. It is not a anomly...this is real shit. Don't believe me, confront a LEO and demand your Constitutional Rights and see how fast the bracelets come out. Tell a cop it is his job to protect you. 
A police State exists because LEO does NOT answer to the public general. They are not here to serve and protect. LEO stand for Law ENFORCEMENT Officer, not Peace Officer. There is a difference.
Want to be a LEO, hell that's fine by me. But we don't need anymore LEO, we need true Peace Officers.
I have had my share of incidences with LEO.....every one left a bad taste in my mouth. and these thousands or so only prove my case. LEO will be the cannon fodder when all hell breaks loose. Just remember whose side you're on if and when it comes down to it.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-25-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> This ought to do it:


Friggin twits.  I hate the chanting.  Thanks for posting that, but it won't do any good to people who despise cops.  It is odd that I have live 56 years and never once have been treated badly by police.  

Oh well, opinions vary I guess according to the experiences people have had.  If I had had bad experiences with "LEO", I maybe would not like them either.

----------

keymanjim (10-25-2013)

----------


## Matt

> Diatribe/Youtube


No I am not telling you anything about a police state. You are telling yourself about a police state and then trying to tell me I said those things. It's very rude to put words in someone else's mouth.

Considering I have lived my life in EMS for a decade, worked with cops, been saved by cops, know cops, from personal experience gathered my experience...I think I know where I stand on this matter. It isn't with the cop haters, or any hater for that matter, because I see everyone who subscribes to hate as the same. A cop hater is no different than a KKK hater.

I'm not terribly sure why you took the time to post a whole bunch of a videos that I'm not even going to waste my time watching. I really hope you had them saved on notepad otherwise I might feel bad. I don't know why you went that far. 

Cop hate is not going to sway me, impress me, or even concern me. In fact I value the cops a lot higher than I do the people raving about how much they hate the cops. No offense but your threats are meaningless to me.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> @Calypso Jones          That doesn't sound like you. Why do you think the "little bastards" deserve $1M?  Are you turning soft on us?


they deserved the pepper spray.  I will not likely be going soft.

----------

Perianne (10-25-2013),Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Ok, let me explain this again................... Under the University charter, the students have the Right to peaceful protest on this campus (emphasis on peaceful)
> The university agreed that the students were well within their rights and agreed to pay restitution for the assault and battery against the students. The police heard that a protest was going on and decided they were going to handle the situation and as usual, they took a different kind of stance than the university agreed to. The campus security/cops were only to handle traffic, _not assault the protesters. 
> Why would you say they were in the wrong? 
> _The event was scheduled so the administration knew it was going to happen and agreed to it. Campus security called the abusers in to break up what was already ok'd by administration.
> What don't you understand about the police state? They love picking a fight and arresting people as well as killing as many as they can. You are obviously too young to remember Kent State.
> Kids.......................This wasn't about Occupy..............shit dude, do a little reading before you jump into the test


it's all relative isn't it?   think about the kids whose rights are trampled everyday and it's ignored and even applauded if they happen to be Christian, pro-life, conservative.   OWS-ers are anti anything decent and good.  They'd march your butt to the firing squad in a new York minute if your views didn't coincide and they could get away with it.

----------


## St James

> No I am not telling you anything about a police state. You are telling yourself about a police state and then trying to tell me I said those things. It's very rude to put words in someone else's mouth.
> 
> Considering I have lived my life in EMS for a decade, worked with cops, been saved by cops, know cops, from personal experience gathered my experience...I think I know where I stand on this matter. It isn't with the cop haters, or any hater for that matter, because I see everyone who subscribes to hate as the same. A cop hater is no different than a KKK hater.
> 
> I'm not terribly sure why you took the time to post a whole bunch of a videos that I'm not even going to waste my time watching. I really hope you had them saved on notepad otherwise I might feel bad. I don't know why you went that far. 
> 
> Cop hate is not going to sway me, impress me, or even concern me. In fact I value the cops a lot higher than I do the people raving about how much they hate the cops. No offense but your threats are meaningless to me.


how is showing that we live in a Police State a threat to you? I stated, for the record, there is a vast difference between peace officers and LEO. Leo are all revenue generators for the State, not for the private citizen. I have no use for thugs and brutes.


Then his supervisor tells him it's going to be ok. He should have been disarmed on the spot and jailed. That's what would happen to anyone else. If that had been anyone else, they would have been wearing bracelets on the way out the door. Pigs enjoy Rights the American citizen doesn't have. They DO have the right to shoot and kill anyone they want and have an entire force and UNION to back them up. What does the citizen have? NOTHING!!!!
At least here in Indiana, we can shoot them of they enter a house without a warrant. Hot pursuit is different, but they cannot justify their actions here when they break the law. You do know the laws apply to LEO , too.
They are no exception to the rule of law across the land, but somehow, they can do anything they want. That's not a cop, that's a thug.
Again, I reiterate. I don't have a problem with peace officers. LEO has demonstrated that they can act without compunction. And that's the side you want to be one? Fine...............how many kills are you looking to rack up? how many citizens are you willing to deprive of their rights to meet a quota?
How many cops does it take to issue a fucking ticket? 18? they are cowards. 
You need to look at the history of Nazi Germany to argue with me. Remember, they were only German police that escorted millions to their death. That what you want? Are you willing to line 'em up and load onto cattle cars? 
Here's an even better question: Are you going to report your buddies for illegal drug use? Are you willing to testify against a brother officer when they steal and lie?
Then, if so, that makes you no better than them.
and one last question: Who's going to protect us from you?
You sure you're joining is a good thing for America? how about this shit?
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...-Town-Near-You
This is what you are promoting.

----------


## President Peanut

Given that Californification has stated that all universities are "private" property, despite being public institutions or not, I fail to see the issue. Peaceful assembly doesn't extend to private property, real or otherwise. And given the numerous warnings to move, I think those students should be thankful it was only OC and not fin stabilizer less lethal rounds.

----------


## RMNIXON

> Given that Californification has stated that all universities are "private" property, despite being public institutions or not, I fail to see the issue. Peaceful assembly doesn't extend to private property, real or otherwise. And given the numerous warnings to move, I think those students should be thankful it was only OC and not fin stabilizer less lethal rounds.



Why are these so called peaceful protests called "Occupy" if they don't think they are claiming territory and all lawful authority warned off?  :Thinking:

----------


## RMNIXON

> *Friggin twits.  I hate the chanting.  Thanks for posting that, but it won't do any good to people who despise cops.  It is odd that I have live 56 years and never once have been treated badly by police.*



I was treated badly by cops a few times in my not so perfect youth. I was also witness to some bad behavior. Cops can be corrupt and emotional. They will cross a line at times to be sure.

But that is not even remotely close to an actual Police State. Anyone who would suggest same should get an education as to what a real Police State is all about. 

Plenty of historical examples.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I've seen some sorry cop behavior.    Ive also got a couple cops in the family that I have respect for, professionally, but on occasion their private lives suck by reason of their own stupidity.  They aren't perfect.  No one is.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I recall that incident very well.  The man was surrounded and being threatened.  The peaceful protesters weren't exactly peaceful.   They should still be behind bars to this very day.


This is a flat-out lie. I know several people who were there, one of whom was a student at the college, and they all say exactly what video evidence shows. They were peaceful, and the cop was not threatened.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Given that Californification has stated that all universities are "private" property, despite being public institutions or not, I fail to see the issue. Peaceful assembly doesn't extend to private property, real or otherwise. And given the numerous warnings to move, I think those students should be thankful it was only OC and not fin stabilizer less lethal rounds.


Except university policy specifically protects the right to peaceable assembly on their property.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> This ought to do it:


I've watched many videos and I personally know several people who were there. When were the police attacked or otherwise threatened in any way?

----------

St James (10-26-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> So please don't take any offense if I don't take your word on the events. People on forums always blame the cops, always, doesn't matter what the details or facts are. It's frightening our society has fallen so low.


That's not true. However, it is a fact that many of them are now tax-fatten bullies who serve to uphold the rules created by the political class, even if those rules harm innocent, peaceful people.  It pits them against us. You want to join them, fine. Just whine about it when the citizenry becomes less and less enchanted with your state issued plastic badge, your special privileges, and your mandate to protect yourself at all costs.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-26-2013),St James (10-26-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

They so badly want to retro into the hippies (as they have retroed everything fucking else as having no character of their own)...maybe they should have gone to Kent State.

Acting out juvenile pricks. I would have scattered their teeth.

----------

Perianne (10-26-2013),Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## patrickt

Fortunately, communities get exactly the law enforcement they deserve. I finished dinner in a cafe and went into the bathroom. I was standing at a urinal when some nitwit started ragging me about a wonderful cop getting in trouble for smacking a college student in the head with a flashlight.

"He had no business hitting the kid," I said.
"The kid had no business being at that party."
"Oh, we have felony party attendance now?"

On another case I had to investigate a couple of officers had used unnecessary force. It wasn't excessive force but there should not have been any need for any force. A citizen confronted me in front of my house and said, "That guy deserved to get beat. I saw his picture in the paper."

"Sorry, but if felony ugly was the issue you'd be at high risk."

From the OP: "Now this really pisses me fuckin' off. Gonna have to double down on my PB meds. He gets a REWARD for torturing students with mace and the students are told their Rights weren't violated? Who the hell is running this show?"

No, he got nothing for "torturing" students. He got a Workman's Comp award which is a lot like winning the workers lottery.

This thread isn't about police misconduct. It's about criminally stupid workman's compensation. I know a man who lost both legs and an arm in a construction accident. He deserves compensation. A woman who worked for me hurt her thumb. No surgery required. No permanent pain. No disability. No damage to her career. And she won the Workman's Comp lottery to the tune of $16,000.

I think this Workman's Comp award is not even in the top ten percent for stupid. Close though. The PTSD awards will be awesome.

And, just think, the government now will run your healthcare.

----------

Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## St James

> Fortunately, communities get exactly the law enforcement they deserve. I finished dinner in a cafe and went into the bathroom. I was standing at a urinal when some nitwit started ragging me about a wonderful cop getting in trouble for smacking a college student in the head with a flashlight.
> 
> "He had no business hitting the kid," I said.
> "The kid had no business being at that party."
> "Oh, we have felony party attendance now?"
> 
> On another case I had to investigate a couple of officers had used unnecessary force. It wasn't excessive force but there should not have been any need for any force. A citizen confronted me in front of my house and said, "That guy deserved to get beat. I saw his picture in the paper."
> 
> "Sorry, but if felony ugly was the issue you'd be at high risk."
> ...


thank you very much. That was the target of my post. That this guy claimed debilitating emotional damage and mental anguish and got paid for it. My question was more directed about how and why this cop, who was claimed he was surrounded, suffered so much damage from hosing down some students when he figured he had the situation under control. That's kind of like a guy sucker punching another and claiming afterward that he, himself, had suffered great emotional damage because he sucker punched someone else, then getting a reward for that action.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-26-2013)

----------


## ChoppedLiver

> You are obviously too young to remember Kent State.


The Kent State incident was NOT a mistake in American history. It was a viable solution.

 :Cool:

----------


## St James

... a viable solution? How Stalinesque of you...........

----------


## Katzndogz

> The Kent State incident was NOT a mistake in American history. It was a viable solution.


It was.  The students were violent.  Without belaboring the correctness of the action.  Kent State marked the end of those violent student protests.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> It was.  The students were violent.  Without belaboring the correctness of the action.  Kent State marked the end of those violent student protests.


Gunning down college-age kids, violent or not, is never a solution.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-27-2013)

----------


## Katzndogz

> Gunning down college-age kids, violent or not, is never a solution.


Sure it is!  It ended the violent student protests of the time.  That made it the solution to those violent protests.  They were growing, spreading, and becoming even more violent.  The Kent State shooting ACCIDENT though it was, put an end to those protests.  

Like it or not, we are today, prey to anyone who wants to use violence against us collectively or against us individually.  The violence is growing, the latest FBI statistic is that violent crime is up 15% in one year.   Where you find an unwillingness of the people to fight back, you will find a lot of dead and injured innocent people.  The only ill effect of the Kent State shootings is that it came too late.  Had it come earlier, BEFORE the college administrators were browbeaten into accepting student demands, we would not have the deplorable state of today's higher education.

----------

Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Gunning down college-age kids, violent or not, is never a solution.


Sure, it's a solution. It's the state's favored solution against "violent" protest.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-27-2013)

----------


## Katzndogz

The alternative is to allow violence to proliferate until people take matters into their own hands.    Where the law fails, vigilantism sprouts.   

Rather than have student protests met with the police and armed National Guard, it would have been much better if the students who wanted to peacefully attend class had taken care of the matter themselves along with the professors and administrators.   

During the OWS protests in New York, the protesters were allowed to turn Zucotti Park into an open air drug, sex and sewer zone.  The police had to eventually wade in and violently eject the scum.  But suppose the people who were prevented from using the park, or crossing the park to get to work, had lined up with bats and tire irons to take care of the matter first hand.  It would not have gotten so big or so dangerous.   All those rapes, thefts, spread of disease, would never have happened.   

The very cause of the student protests of the 60s was not doing anything and letting it grow until they got so out of hand the national guard had to be called in.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Sure, it's a solution. It's the state's favored solution against "violent" protest.


I like your thinking.  :Cool20:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

So, can anyone show me where the students actually threatened or harmed the police in any way?

----------


## The XL

Cops have far too many privileges in this country.  They were endangered because they were surrounded.  Sure.  And if I'm falsely charged by cops, and I try to walk away, I catch a whopping or get shot.

Fuck police and the police state.  Now cops get bonuses for their brutality.  As if their bloated salaries and pensions weren't enough.

----------


## Katzndogz

The students were ordered to disperse and continued to block the walkway.




Pepper spraying them was entirely too kid gloves.  I would have machine gunned them.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Cops have far too many privileges in this country.  They were endangered because they were surrounded.  Sure.  And if I'm falsely charged by cops, and I try to walk away, I catch a whopping or get shot.
> 
> Fuck police and the police state.  Now cops get bonuses for their brutality.  As if their bloated salaries and pensions weren't enough.


Well, yes.  Your being falsely charged by a cop isn't exactly up to you.  It's not your decision.  You have not been falsely charged until a court says so.   Otherwise, every criminal would say they were falsely charged.

Unfortunately for law abiding citizens, the police are supposed to act with the most non violent method available and pepper spraying is non violent.   It would have been MUCH better had the police just picked these miscreants up and thrown them to the side bashing heads into the pavement.  That's too violent.  With pepper spray, no cop lays a hand on these students.

----------


## The XL

> Well, yes.  Your being falsely charged by a cop isn't exactly up to you.  It's not your decision.  You have not been falsely charged until a court says so.   Otherwise, every criminal would say they were falsely charged.
> 
> Unfortunately for law abiding citizens, the police are supposed to act with the most non violent method available and pepper spraying is non violent.   It would have been MUCH better had the police just picked these miscreants up and thrown them to the side bashing heads into the pavement.  That's too violent.  With pepper spray, no cop lays a hand on these students.


You've made my point for me.  

Tell me, when a cop beats the fuck out of some guy, what happens, if anything?  A paid suspension, tops?  If a civilian beats up a cop, even in self defense, I'd either get killed or some ridiculous prison sentence. 

Law abiding is code word for being the lapdog of cops, and the system in general.  You're doing a fine job.

----------


## The XL

> The students were ordered to disperse and continued to block the walkway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pepper spraying them was entirely too kid gloves.  I would have machine gunned them.


Well, that's because you're a *<<personal attack removed>>*

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Perianne

Maybe it is because I am old, but I see those students as being insolent.  Again, I am 56 years old and have never had any negative interactions with police.  The only ones I know about have been deserving of whatever they got.  Count me in the group who favors police.

Maybe it was an opportunity for those punks to learn a lesson.  If someone in authority warns you about upcoming pepper spray, how about getting your butt up... because something bad is about to happen to your eyes and sinuses.  Geez, that is just common sense.

I understand that different people have differing views based on previous experiences or the angle with which you view things.

----------


## Roadmaster

I never had a problem with the police growing up but they have changed. Their intent is to arrest a person if they stop you for anything. I advise teens not to answer questions these days. Look at the border patrol, the government can't stop illegals but they stop US citizens trying to find anything to arrest them. Police were not like this when we were young. I tell them not to look at the officer because probable cause could mean anything. They can say your eyes looked funny. Could understand if there had been shootings all around or drug deals but they go after all including the ones coming home from Church.

----------


## Perianne

> I never had a problem with the police growing up but they have changed. Their intent is to arrest a person if they stop you for anything. I advise teens not to answer questions these days. Look at the border patrol, the government can't stop illegals but they stop US citizens trying to find anything to arrest them. Police were not like this when we were young. I tell them not to look at the officer because probable cause could mean anything. They can say your eyes looked funny. Could understand if there had been shootings all around or drug deals but they go after all including the ones coming home from Church.


Geez, I hate that you live somewhere like that.  I have been stopped by police before.  Many of them know me and let me off the hook.  The ones who don't?  You just bat your eyes at them, give them your best smile, have a wardrobe malfunction, and they will let you go.

----------

Roadmaster (10-27-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Geez, I hate that you live somewhere like that.  I have been stopped by police before.  Many of them know me and let me off the hook.  The ones who don't?  You just bat your eyes at them, give them your best smile, have a wardrobe malfunction, and they will let you go.


 I have never been arrested or a ticket but have been stopped for nothing. Lol even my friend a officer at Church was stopped. Don't know what's going on around here. It's just making people not like them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Maybe it is because I am old, but I see those students as being insolent.  Again, I am 56 years old and have never had any negative interactions with police.  The only ones I know about have been deserving of whatever they got.  Count me in the group who favors police.
> 
> Maybe it was an opportunity for those punks to learn a lesson.  If someone in authority warns you about upcoming pepper spray, how about getting your butt up... because something bad is about to happen to your eyes and sinuses.  Geez, that is just common sense.
> 
> I understand that different people have differing views based on previous experiences or the angle with which you view things.


I don't believe in punishing (or murdering like Katzndogs) people for not actually causing harm. What everyone is justifying these cops attacking people for is _standing in the way_. What happens when it's all of you protesting Obama, and the cops beat, pepperspray, or kill you or your loved ones for it? You're foolish if you think that will never happen. 

Karma is a bitch, as the saying goes. If you support something, put yourself in that position. If you wouldn't want it to happen to you, how is it right or smart to support it against someone else?

----------


## Perianne

> I don't believe in punishing (or murdering like Katzndogs) people for not actually causing harm. What everyone is justifying these cops attacking people for is _standing in the way_. What happens when it's all of you protesting Obama, and the cops beat, pepperspray, or kill you or your loved ones for it? You're foolish if you think that will never happen. 
> 
> Karma is a bitch, as the saying goes. If you support something, put yourself in that position. If you wouldn't want it to happen to you, how is it right or smart to support it against someone else?


Not allowing anyone to leave is a crime.  I think it is called false imprisonment.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Well, that's because you're Well, that's because you're a *<<personal attack removed>>*


I'm not one of those guys, nor a guy at all.  Don't count on my cowardice.   Some already have and they were wrong.   I don't trust the state to "back" me.  Nor have I ever.  You are correct, I don't have a set of "nuts".

----------


## Katzndogz

> Not allowing anyone to leave is a crime.  I think it is called false imprisonment.


Didn't a bunch of motorcycle riders just find that out in NYC?   And the SUV driver who mowed them down acted appropriately.

----------

Perianne (10-28-2013)

----------


## Matt

> Didn't a bunch of motorcycle riders just find that out in NYC?   And the SUV driver who mowed them down acted appropriately.


Acted appropriately? Running people over is appropriate now? Gee let me just go put on the snow plow...I'm gonna have some fun downtown.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Acted appropriately? Running people over is appropriate now? Gee let me just go put on the snow plow...I'm gonna have some fun downtown.


When you are surrounded by thugs smashing your car and slashing your tires you better bet that running them over is acting appropriately.  That why the driver was never charged.  

There may come a day when non black individuals are required to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their families for black enjoyment, but we have not reached that point yet.

----------

Perianne (10-28-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Didn't a bunch of motorcycle riders just find that out in NYC?   And the SUV driver who mowed them down acted appropriately.


A horrible example. Technically, they were in the right for preventing him from leaving as he was involved in an accident. His leaving constitutes a hit and run. The only thing that makes his flight appropriate is the alleged threat to the safety and welfare of himself and his family. There was no false imprisonment or unlawful detention in that case at all.

----------

Matt (10-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Not allowing anyone to leave is a crime.  I think it is called false imprisonment.


What of my question?

----------


## Perianne

> I don't believe in punishing (or murdering like Katzndogs) people for not actually causing harm. What everyone is justifying these cops attacking people for is _standing in the way_. What happens when it's all of you protesting Obama, and the cops beat, pepperspray, or kill you or your loved ones for it? You're foolish if you think that will never happen. 
> 
> Karma is a bitch, as the saying goes. If you support something, put yourself in that position. If you wouldn't want it to happen to you, how is it right or smart to support it against someone else?





> What of my question?


I don't do illegal things like that.  And if I did, I would accept whatever happens to me.  It would be different if the people were just protesting and got sprayed, but they were acting like punks from the 60's and they got what they got.  I don't understand why that is difficult to understand.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't do illegal things like that.  And if I did, I would accept whatever happens to me.  It would be different if the people were just protesting and got sprayed, but they were acting like punks from the 60's and they got what they got.  I don't understand why that is difficult to understand.


How, though? People keep repeating that, but nobody seems to be able to point out (and show evidence of) what specifically they did wrong.

----------


## Perianne

> How, though? People keep repeating that, but nobody seems to be able to point out (and show evidence of) what specifically they did wrong.


They would not let the cops leave.

----------


## The XL

> They would not let the cops leave.


Cops didn't let my brother leave when they falsely accused him of a crime because he fit the ridiculous profile of wearing a green sweater.  I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten away with pepper spraying them, though.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

They were given a legal order to disperse. They refused to comply. Compliance was enforced.

That is pretty much all there is to say about it.

----------

Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> They were given a legal order to disperse. They refused to comply. Compliance was enforced.
> 
> That is pretty much all there is to say about it.


You'd like Iran, I think. No joke.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> You'd like Iran, I think. No joke.


Been there, although that was when the Shah was still in power. I have seen worse places.

Was there some inaccuracy in my post to which you take exception?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Been there, although that was when the Shah was still in power. I have seen worse places.
> 
> Was there some inaccuracy in my post to which you take exception?


There are a number of issues here. One, the dispersal order might or might not have been given. Two, if a dispersal order was given, what right did the party giving the order have to give it and enforce? From where do they derive this legitimate authority? Three, if they had the authority, what legitimate tactics may they use against non-violent non-compliant subjects? Were any of those tactics, other than the pepper-spray, used prior to the pepper-spray incident? Four, according to the video evidence, the pepper spray was actived from a distance of two or three feet. Was that the distance recommended by the manufacturer for that particular spray and did law enforcement regulations call for that distance or, perhaps, a different distance?

There's a lot going on here, and the reason it's called brutality is not because it was not done within the color of statute (which you might deem "law" but I do not consider to be the whole of law) but that it was an extreme measure used against peaceful protesters. Not only was it uncalled for, it was also a violation of their natural and human rights, which come before the alleged authority of stuff written on paper by legislators.

----------


## Katzndogz

> A horrible example. Technically, they were in the right for preventing him from leaving as he was involved in an accident. His leaving constitutes a hit and run. The only thing that makes his flight appropriate is the alleged threat to the safety and welfare of himself and his family. There was no false imprisonment or unlawful detention in that case at all.


You are aware that the motorcyclists are charged with false imprisonment aren't you?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...york-suv-chase
Chance was charged with gang assault, assault, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief and unlawful imprisonment. A judge set bail at $100,000.

----------


## Katzndogz

> There are a number of issues here. One, the dispersal order might or might not have been given. Two, if a dispersal order was given, what right did the party giving the order have to give it and enforce? From where do they derive this legitimate authority? Three, if they had the authority, what legitimate tactics may they use against non-violent non-compliant subjects? Were any of those tactics, other than the pepper-spray, used prior to the pepper-spray incident? Four, according to the video evidence, the pepper spray was actived from a distance of two or three feet. Was that the distance recommended by the manufacturer for that particular spray and did law enforcement regulations call for that distance or, perhaps, a different distance?
> 
> There's a lot going on here, and the reason it's called brutality is not because it was not done within the color of statute (which you might deem "law" but I do not consider to be the whole of law) but that it was an extreme measure used against peaceful protesters. Not only was it uncalled for, it was also a violation of their natural and human rights, which come before the alleged authority of stuff written on paper by legislators.


All you have said is that you have no idea what happened.  But you do know that the officer got a $38,000 settlement.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> There are a number of issues here. One, the dispersal order might or might not have been given. Two, if a dispersal order was given, what right did the party giving the order have to give it and enforce? From where do they derive this legitimate authority?


I think you are being silly with these two. Do you really think the possibility exists that they were not ordered to disperse?
The legal authority of the Police obviously exte nds from the legal authority of the State of California. Are you challenging that?




> Three, if they had the authority, what legitimate tactics may they use against non-violent non-compliant subjects?


The Use of Force Continuum starts with Command Presence. The Police were there, in uniform. That is stage 1.

From there it goes to the use of Verbal Commands. If they did in fact, order them to disperse, that is stage 2.

After that, we escalate to Physical Control measures to enforce. These are things like joint locks, joint manipulation, pressure point manipulation, pain compliance measures. Now, I did not see any of those attempted prior to the dispersal of the OC. However, in crowd situations, that level of escalation is often skipped in order to maintain officer safety. Trying to use joint locks to remove people from a crowd when you re outnumbered is generally not the smartest idea.

So we skip the third level and proceed directly to the fourth. That would be the use of "less lethal" means. This would include the use of batons, chemical agents, rubber bullets, fire hoses and Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). If anything, the Police should be given credit for employing the least potentially injurious of those means, the OC Spray. OC Spray is generally deployed at ranges of 3 - 10 feet and used in side to side sweeping motion. The agent is aimed directly at the eyes, nose and mouth, with the main target being the eyes.

So far, what I am seeing on the video is pretty much in compliance with universally accepted police procedure.




> There's a lot going on here, and the reason it's called brutality is not because it was not done within the color of statute (which you might deem "law" but I do not consider to be the whole of law) but that it was an extreme measure used against peaceful protesters. Not only was it uncalled for, it was also a violation of their natural and human rights, which come before the alleged authority of stuff written on paper by legislators.


Well, you go ahead and use that "natural and human rights" defense in court and let me know how it turns out for you.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Wasn't it reported the lawbreakers got a 2 mill settlement...well WHERE is the Damn JUSTICE in THAT?

----------


## Perianne

> There are a number of issues here. One, the dispersal order might or might not have been given. Two, if a dispersal order was given, what right did the party giving the order have to give it and enforce? From where do they derive this legitimate authority? Three, if they had the authority, what legitimate tactics may they use against non-violent non-compliant subjects? Were any of those tactics, other than the pepper-spray, used prior to the pepper-spray incident? Four, according to the video evidence, the pepper spray was actived from a distance of two or three feet. Was that the distance recommended by the manufacturer for that particular spray and did law enforcement regulations call for that distance or, perhaps, a different distance?
> 
> There's a lot going on here, and the reason it's called brutality is not because it was not done within the color of statute (which you might deem "law" but I do not consider to be the whole of law) but that it was an extreme measure used against peaceful protesters. Not only was it uncalled for, it was also a violation of their natural and human rights, which come before the alleged authority of stuff written on paper by legislators.


How long were the officers supposed to stand there?  Until the "protesters" decided to let them go?

----------

Trinnity (10-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

@Katzndogs, @Pooltablerepairman, @Calypso Jones, so far only Perianne has attempted to answer the question. What are you three afraid of?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> They would not let the cops leave.


Did you see the armored army those cops showed up with? You're telling me they couldn't get passed unarmed college kids with that kind of protection and force?

And anyway, you still haven't displayed where these kids caused the police any harm. Blocking a walkway is not harm, unless you then attack the police, who are unable to leave. That didn't happen. So again, where was the harm?

----------


## St James

Civil protest (non-violent) has been around for 200 plus years now. All of a sudden it's illegal? They should be hung, drawn and quartered then keel-hauled? If it makes you feel uncomfortable you should destroy it (peaceful protest)?
Pepper-sprayed and handcuffed and tossed around like a sack of garbage? How are you going to resist the lib agenda, protest?

----------


## Calypso Jones

you are not allowed to block people from leaving...that would be amazingly close to kidnapping.    You are not allowed to charge someone.   There are laws.   There are no two ways about it....well apparently there is today considering the knowledge of the left concerning law.

----------

Perianne (10-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> you are not allowed to block people from leaving...that would be amazingly close to kidnapping.    You are not allowed to charge someone.   There are laws.   There are no two ways about it....well apparently there is today considering the knowledge of the left concerning law.


Who charged the police? All I see is students standing around the police protesting. The police are not being threatened or harmed in any way. If our police can't handle people standing around them, I'd suggest we find police with a little more bravery than common cowards.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Civil protest (non-violent) has been around for 200 plus years now. All of a sudden it's illegal? They should be hung, drawn and quartered then keel-hauled? If it makes you feel uncomfortable you should destroy it (peaceful protest)?
> Pepper-sprayed and handcuffed and tossed around like a sack of garbage? How are you going to resist the lib agenda, protest?


All the people praising the police and suggesting the police should have done more are refusing to think about what would happen if the positions were reversed, and they were the ones at the pain end of OC spray or a baton, or worse. 

Funny, that. It's almost like they are afraid to put their money where their mouths are.

----------


## Perianne

> Who charged the police? *All I see is students standing around the police protesting. The police are not being threatened or harmed in any way.* If our police can't handle people standing around them, I'd suggest we find police with a little more bravery than common cowards.


And if a bunch of people surrounded you and not let you leave, you would be okay with that?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And if a bunch of people surrounded you and not let you leave, you would be okay with that?


No, I would not. I don't expect the police to have been either. They were not being forcibly prevented from leaving, however. The walkway was just blocked. A little pushing from their armored army would have gotten them out, is my point. No harm was done to them. Their violent action in pepperspraying those students was unwarranted. 

Murdering those students, as some here want them to do, is even more unwarranted, not to mention uncivilized and barbaric.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> @Katzndogs, @Pooltablerepairman, @Calypso Jones, so far only Perianne has attempted to answer the question. What are you three afraid of?


Probably nothing you are capable of producing.

What question?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Did you see the armored army those cops showed up with? You're telling me they couldn't get passed unarmed college kids with that kind of protection and force?
> 
> And anyway, you still haven't displayed where these kids caused the police any harm. Blocking a walkway is not harm, unless you then attack the police, who are unable to leave. That didn't happen. So again, where was the harm?


The "harm" is done to society through the refusal to comply with a lawful order to disperse.

If a cop is telling you to do something he is npt legally empowered to tell you to do, tell him to go away and bother somebody else. However, if he is giving you a lawful order, one he is empowered by law to give, comply with it or understand there will be repercussions.

----------

Perianne (10-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The "harm" is done to society through the refusal to comply with a lawful order to disperse.
> 
> If a cop is telling you to do something he is npt legally empowered to tell you to do, tell him to go away and bother somebody else. However, if he is giving you a lawful order, one he is empowered by law to give, comply with it or understand there will be repercussions.


That does not make the order right, nor the repercussions right. There's a difference between what is and what is _right_. These laws are unjust. They are made to prevent people from becoming too strong to stop the government that is out of control. 

The laws, unjust as they are, exist. They are "what is." They are not, however, "what is _right_."

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You are aware that the motorcyclists are charged with false imprisonment aren't you?
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...york-suv-chase
> Chance was charged with gang assault, assault, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief and unlawful imprisonment. A judge set bail at $100,000.


For the purpose of clarity, are we talking about the original stop, in which he had rear-ended a motorcyclist, or the stop after the chase? In the stop after the chase, I will agree that it may be false imprisonment. There's certainly assault and battery going on. At the initial stop, it would not have been false imprisonment. In your post, you implied that it was false imprisonment before he fled. You argue that he "mowed them down appropriately" but that would have been *before* the incidents which you refer to in your links. Perhaps you can make it clear as to what you really meant in your post.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I think you are being silly with these two. Do you really think the possibility exists that they were not ordered to disperse?
> The legal authority of the Police obviously exte nds from the legal authority of the State of California. Are you challenging that?


Yes. Just because someone in a uniform gives an order, even if he believes it to be lawful, does not make it so. I do agree that the result of not complying with an order may lead to serious consequences when the government bureaucrat in a uniform becomes belligerent over his order being ignored. 




> The Use of Force Continuum starts with Command Presence. The Police were there, in uniform. That is stage 1.
> 
> From there it goes to the use of Verbal Commands. If they did in fact, order them to disperse, that is stage 2.


Again, this does not make it lawful or legitimate. Who gave them the order to tell the protesters to disperse? 




> After that, we escalate to Physical Control measures to enforce. These are things like joint locks, joint manipulation, pressure point manipulation, pain compliance measures. Now, I did not see any of those attempted prior to the dispersal of the OC. However, in crowd situations, that level of escalation is often skipped in order to maintain officer safety. Trying to use joint locks to remove people from a crowd when you re outnumbered is generally not the smartest idea.


Right, the all encompassing "officer safety" rule. To serve and protect officer safety. That's yet another reason why more and more people are seeing the true nature of the rising police state. Law enforcement cares nothing for the rights or safety of mundanes if it gets in the way of enforcing legislation or there's even a remote threat to the smallest part of a police officer's person.




> So we skip the third level and proceed directly to the fourth. That would be the use of "less lethal" means. This would include the use of batons, chemical agents, rubber bullets, fire hoses and Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). If anything, the Police should be given credit for employing the least potentially injurious of those means, the OC Spray. OC Spray is generally deployed at ranges of 3 - 10 feet and used in side to side sweeping motion. The agent is aimed directly at the eyes, nose and mouth, with the main target being the eyes.


I don't give bullies credit for anything.




> Well, you go ahead and use that "natural and human rights" defense in court and let me know how it turns out for you.


I will use them in the court of public opinion. Are you suggesting that I need your permission to do so? That would be in line with your authoritarian belligerence. 

The hearts and minds of the populace is what matters. As the people you uphold as virtuous citizens are shown more and more to be the bullies that they are, then my arguments work for me.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> How long were the officers supposed to stand there?  Until the "protesters" decided to let them go?


What's the problem? They get overtime. Lots of it. I'm surprised that they didn't stick around longer so more of them could claim mental hurt over being home late for dinner and collect workmans comp.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Wasn't it reported the lawbreakers got a 2 mill settlement...well WHERE is the Damn JUSTICE in THAT?


It would have been justice if it came out of the pensions and salaries of the cops.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Murdering those students, as some here want them to do, is even more unwarranted, not to mention uncivilized and barbaric.


Getting in the way of a becostumed, tax-fattened agent of the enforcement class, whose job it is to protect the political class, is a high crime in the minds of some, and worthy of summary, lethal "justice."

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

> They were given a legal order to disperse. They refused to comply. Compliance was enforced.
> 
> That is pretty much all there is to say about it.


Those laws, or at the very least, how they are enforced, are illegitimate because their is an obvious double standard and abuse of power here.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

> you are not allowed to block people from leaving...that would be amazingly close to kidnapping.    You are not allowed to charge someone.   There are laws.   There are no two ways about it....well apparently there is today considering the knowledge of the left concerning law.


Cops kidnap people all the time.

----------

Gemini (10-28-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Cops kidnap people all the time.


And bill them for the privilege too.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013),The XL (10-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

> And bill them for the privilege too.


They even offer free ass whippings.  Bargain deal.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It would have been justice if it came out of the pensions and salaries of the cops.


Hmph. Fat chance of that.

----------


## The XL

> Hmph. Fat chance of that.


Right.  They're part of the big 3, the muscle for politicians and Global corporations.  They are the Bishops on the Chess table, we are merely the pawns.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Yes. Just because someone in a uniform gives an order, even if he believes it to be lawful, does not make it so. I do agree that the result of not complying with an order may lead to serious consequences when the government bureaucrat in a uniform becomes belligerent over his order being ignored. 
> 
> Again, this does not make it lawful or legitimate. Who gave them the order to tell the protesters to disperse? 
> 
> Right, the all encompassing "officer safety" rule. To serve and protect officer safety. That's yet another reason why more and more people are seeing the true nature of the rising police state. Law enforcement cares nothing for the rights or safety of mundanes if it gets in the way of enforcing legislation or there's even a remote threat to the smallest part of a police officer's person.
> 
> I don't give bullies credit for anything.
> 
> I will use them in the court of public opinion. Are you suggesting that I need your permission to do so? That would be in line with your authoritarian belligerence. 
> ...


It always amazes me how people like you can use up so much space saying nothing.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It always amazes me how people like you can use up so much space saying nothing.


That post was full of content, and intelligent content at that. As evidenced, of course, by your inability to actually debate it. 

Perhaps next time, @BleedingHeadKen, for his benefit, you ought to just say something along the lines of, "Hurr, shoot 'em all, bang!" Maybe then, he'll understand.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> That post was full of content, and intelligent content at that. As evidenced, of course, by your inability to actually debate it. 
> 
> Perhaps next time, @BleedingHeadKen, for his benefit, you ought to just say something along the lines of, "Hurr, shoot 'em all, bang!" Maybe then, he'll understand.


No it was full of nothing but babble. He addressed no points of the issue. It was nothing more than some rambling, Reader's Digest version of a Malcontent Manifesto.

The fact remains that the law was being violated and the Police took measures to enforce that law. They did so in a manner that was effective, yet non-injurious to the offenders.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The fact remains that the law was being violated and the Police took measures to enforce that law. They did so in a manner that was effective, yet non-injurious to the offenders.


Have you ever been pepper-sprayed? I have. It was a requirement of my job as a security officer. The idea that it is "non-injurious" is pure bullshit. 

Again: the law is unjust, and the force shown was unnecessary. The students were not causing the police any harm. The police, on the other hand, came with intent to harm, as evidenced by the near-military armor they wore and the veritable army they came as. A little pushing and they would have gotten through the students, and the students, who showed no intent to harm the police, would not have harmed them. 

Instead, the police made an already volatile situation even moreso by taking unnecessary, violent action against peaceful people who intended them no harm.

----------


## The XL

An unjust and illegitimate law doesn't deserve to be enforced.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow



----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Have you ever been pepper-sprayed? I have. It was a requirement of my job as a security officer. The idea that it is "non-injurious" is pure bullshit.


Really?

What injuries did you suffer? Detail them for us.




> Again: the law is unjust, and the force shown was unnecessary. The students were not causing the police any harm. The police, on the other hand, came with intent to harm, as evidenced by the near-military armor they wore and the veritable army they came as. A little pushing and they would have gotten through the students, and the students, who showed no intent to harm the police, would not have harmed them. 
> 
> Instead, the police made an already volatile situation even moreso by taking unnecessary, violent action against peaceful people who intended them no harm.


Whether the protestors intedded to do harm to the Police is completely irrelevant. Once they were given the order to disperse and go home, they should have done so. We have legal means to redress grievances in this country and just deciding you are going to take over a piece of ground and hold it is not among them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Really?
> 
> What injuries did you suffer? Detail them for us.


My eyes and skin were on fire. Try dropping hot sauce in your eyes and tell me it's non-injurious. 




> Whether the protestors intedded to do harm to the Police is completely irrelevant. Once they were given the order to disperse and go home, they should have done so. We have legal means to redress grievances in this country and just deciding you are going to take over a piece of ground and hold it is not among them.


University policy and the constitution give all Americans the right to peaceable assembly. State universities are public ground, partially paid for by your taxes (if you live in the state). Thus, constitutionally, a law demanding peaceful assemblies be dispersed is a violation of the constitution.

Besides, again: the law is unjust. It's the right and duty of all citizens to engage in civil disobedience of unjust laws.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> My eyes and skin were on fire. Try dropping hot sauce in your eyes and tell me it's non-injurious.


in·ju·ri·ous
inˈjo͝orēəs/
_adjective_
adjective: *injurious*
*1*. 
causing or likely to cause damage or harm.

Now, you said  your eyes and skin were "on fire". Well, they weren't really on fire, were they? When the effects of the spray wore off, what harm was done to you? What injuries did you suffer?

None.





> University policy and the constitution give all Americans the right to peaceable assembly. State universities are public ground, partially paid for by your taxes (if you live in the state). Thus, constitutionally, a law demanding peaceful assemblies be dispersed is a violation of the constitution.


Go prop your feet up on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, then tell the Feds that you have a Constitutional Right to do so... as they slap you in irons and haul you off.




> Besides, again: the law is unjust. It's the right and duty of all citizens to engage in civil disobedience of unjust laws.


What unjust law were they protesting?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> in·ju·ri·ous
> inˈjo͝orēəs/
> _adjective_
> adjective: *injurious*
> *1*. 
> causing or likely to cause damage or harm.
> 
> Now, you said  your eyes and skin were "on fire". Well, they weren't really on fire, were they? When the effects of the spray wore off, what harm was done to you? What injuries did you suffer?
> 
> None.


I missed "permanent injury" in your definition. Blindness and searing pain, no matter how lasting, qualifies as "causing or likely to cause damage or harm." If I stub my toe, I caused myself damage or harm. It doesn't matter if an hour or two later my toe feels fine. 




> Go prop your feet up on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, then tell the Feds that you have a Constitutional Right to do so... as they slap you in irons and haul you off.


That's a pretty pathetic argument. I have no constitutional right to march into the Oval Office and prop my feet up on the desk.




> What unjust law were they protesting?


Several. One of them was the "right" of the police to harm or murder innocent people just because they were standing around someplace.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It always amazes me how people like you can use up so much space saying nothing.


I accept your surrender.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Go prop your feet up on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, then tell the Feds that you have a Constitutional Right to do so... as they slap you in irons and haul you off.


The Oval Office isn't public grounds.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I missed "permanent injury" in your definition. Blindness and searing pain, no matter how lasting, qualifies as "causing or likely to cause damage or harm."


That is incorrect. 

I thought you were or had been an armed guard of some kind. Surely, you have had at least some form of rudimentary training in the Use of Force?




> That's a pretty pathetic argument. I have no constitutional right to march into the Oval Office and prop my feet up on the desk.


Why not? The Oval Office is completely funded by taxpayer Dollars. It belongs to all the People of this nation. Isn't that pretty much the same argument you used to support the seizure and occupation of ground on a state university? Explain the difference to me.




> Several. One of them was the "right" of the police to harm or murder innocent people just because they were standing around someplace.


Are you sure about that? I suspect it would take me all of a minute or so to determine what they were protesting. Are you really going to make me waste a minute of my life to demonstrate that you just pulled that out of a bodily orifice?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> The Oval Office isn't public grounds.


Who owns it?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I accept your surrender.



You can't accept what has not been offered. 

In order for me to even consider surrender, you have to prove yourself to be a formidable enemy. So far, that just ain't happening.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

So, it turns out they were actually protesting a tuition increase. They didn't want to have to actually PAY for their education. There goes the idea that they were protesting _the "right" of the police to harm or murder innocent people just because they were standing around someplace_.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That is incorrect.


Not really, no. Look up the definition of "injury." There are several, and none say the harm or damage has to be permanent. One definition even says it is the "instance of harm," which necessarily implies it is not lasting.




> I thought you were or had been an armed guard of some kind. Surely, you have had at least some form of rudimentary training in the Use of Force?


Yep. In the words of my supervisor, "If someone comes onto the property, tell them in as mean and tough of a voice as you can to get the hell off your property. If they come after you, run like hell inside, lock the door, and call me and the police." 

That was just when I did commercial security, though. When I worked for Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), I actually got to carry my OC spray and a weapon. I couldn't pepper-spray or beat the hell out of/shoot someone who came up and shook the Senator's hand, though.

None of this controverts the fact that your definition of "injury" and "injurious" are ridiculous and unfounded, however.




> Why not? The Oval Office is completely funded by taxpayer Dollars. It belongs to all the People of this nation. Isn't that pretty much the same argument you used to support the seizure and occupation of ground on a state university? Explain the difference to me.


A constitutional right is a right enumerated in the constitution. Please point me to the part of the constitution that says I can march into the White House any time I want and set up shop. You won't find it. While the White House is certainly maintained via taxes, it is still the private property of the sitting President. The President lives there. I have no more right to march in there than I do to march into your home. 

I can, however, protest outside his home and yours as long as I remain on the sidewalk.




> Are you sure about that? I suspect it would take me all of a minute or so to determine what they were protesting. Are you really going to make me waste a minute of my life to demonstrate that you just pulled that out of a bodily orifice?


By all means, go right ahead. You won't find any information to contradict what I have put forth, which is that they were protesting several issues and laws, and the act of remaining on the property after your thugs in blue demanded they leave was a defiance of an unjust law.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So, it turns out they were actually protesting a tuition increase. They didn't want to have to actually PAY for their education. There goes the idea that they were protesting _the "right" of the police to harm or murder innocent people just because they were standing around someplace_.


So, if you protest an increase in taxes, it means you don't actually want to abide your civic duty and pay taxes for the benefits you enjoy?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-28-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> A constitutional right is a right enumerated in the constitution.


No, it isn't. A Constitutional Right is a right not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution grants you no rights. The Government grants you no rights.

If you are going to lecture me on the Constitution, please read it first.

I will address the rest of your post a little later. I have to step out for a while.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No, it isn't. A Constitutional Right is a right not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution grants you no rights. The Government grants you no rights.
> 
> If you are going to lecture me on the Constitution, please read it first.
> 
> I will address the rest of your post a little later. I have to step out for a while.


This is all semantics. The constitution, via the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, establish the rights of the people. They are legal rights, not natural rights, so yes, they are essentially dependent on enumeration.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-28-2013)

----------


## St James

legal Rights are not Rights, as such. Legal implies privileges granted by some act of legislation. Your Right to speak your mind, worship as you please, to protect yourself and your family, and to be safe in your own home ARE natural Rights, and at least recognized as God-granted  by the framers of the Constitution. To be treated as an equal either in law or work...these are natural Rights. The reason Congress cannot infringe or encroach upon those Rights is because the Supreme Court agreed.
That sure hasn't stopped them from trying and taking very small bites.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> This is all semantics. The constitution, via the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, establish the rights of the people.


No, it doesn't. That is not even close to being correct. There are NO rights enumerated in the First 10 Amendments of the Constitution. There are only prohibitions against government infringement.

*Amendment I* *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

No rights granted there. Only a prohibition against government infringing on your rights.

*Amendment II* 

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed.

*No rights granted here, either.

*Amendment III* 

*No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without  the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be  prescribed by law*.

Again, only instructions telling Government what it CANNOT do.

*Amendment IV* 

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall  not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*An affirmation of preexisting rights and more instructions on what Government CANNOT do.

*Amendment V 
*
*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise  infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,  except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,  when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any  person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of  life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a  witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,  without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for  public use, without just compensation.

*More tightening of the leash on governmentbut no rights granted.

Maybe we'll find one of those right granting Amendments in the next five, or maybe we can just skip straight to number 9, which pretty much says all you need to know.

*Amendment IX 
*
*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be  construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

*I was really hoping you would do better than you have been.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No, it doesn't. That is not even close to being correct. There are NO rights enumerated in the First 10 Amendments of the Constitution. There are only prohibitions against government infringement.
> 
> *Amendment I* *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
> 
> No rights granted there. Only a prohibition against government infringing on your rights.
> 
> *Amendment II* 
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed.
> ...


The ninth amendment confirms what I said. I said the constitution enumerates rights. The ninth says the constitution enumerates rights.

Now, are you done deflecting from the topic at hand, or are you going to keep trying to distract me?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> The ninth amendment confirms what I said. I said the constitution enumerates rights. The ninth says the constitution enumerates rights.
> 
> Now, are you done deflecting from the topic at hand, or are you going to keep trying to distract me?


That is not what it says, but if it makes you feel better, I won't spoil your illusion.

Topic at hand... OC spray is a non-injurious chemical agent. It is an inflammatory agent or short duration that causes great pain but results in no injury to the subject sprayed. An acute reaction to the spray is not unknown, but it is a rare occurrence.

I don't know what the rules are in Tennessee, but in most states, you would have to know that before you could carry it as part of your duty kit.

Now, you still have not explained to me how the Oval Office differs in principle from the sidewalk of UC Davis, not have you explained what right the protestors have to occupy ground and interfere with the free transit and movement of other citizens.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That is not what it says, but if it makes you feel better, I won't spoil your illusion.


So, "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights" means something different than "the constitution enumerates certain rights?" Explain how that works.




> Topic at hand... OC spray is a non-injurious chemical agent. It is an inflammatory agent or short duration that causes great pain but results in no injury to the subject sprayed. An acute reaction to the spray is not unknown, but it is a rare occurrence.
> 
> I don't know what the rules are in Tennessee, but in most states, you would have to know that before you could carry it as part of your duty kit.


Incorrect. I have to know that it is non-lethal and won't cause any lasting harm. I do not have to know your unfounded, subjective definition of "injury." 

But no, that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the actions of the police and whether or not they are moral or justified, and on what basis. 




> Now, you still have not explained to me how the Oval Office differs in principle from the sidewalk of UC Davis, not have you explained what right the protestors have to occupy ground and interfere with the free transit and movement of other citizens.


Yes, I have. I'll repeat myself just one more time:

1) The Oval Office, and the White House as a whole, are not public ground. The sidewalks are. The White House is a government building and more specifically, the private home of the President and his family. 
2) The students were not interfering with the free transit and movement of other citizens, and both the constitution and policy of UC Davis give them the right to peaceable assembly.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-28-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

[QUOTE=Sinestro;153498]So, "the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights" means something different than "the constitution enumerates certain rights?" Explain how that works.

The English is plain. You just have to read the WHOLE sentence.




> Incorrect. I have to know that it is non-lethal and won't cause any lasting harm. I do not have to know your unfounded, subjective definition of "injury."


Alright. I won't waste any more time trying to make you not look foolish. 




> But no, that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the actions of the police and whether or not they are moral or justified, and on what basis.


The question is whether the actions were legal and within the norms of established Police procedure.




> 1) The Oval Office, and the White House as a whole, are not public ground. The sidewalks are. The White House is a government building and more specifically, the private home of the President and his family.


Yeah, you have already said that. What you have not explained is what intrinsc differences exist between public lands in the UC Campus and those of the White House grounds. YOU made the argument that because they were paid for with taxpayer Dollars, the grounds of UC Davis belonged to the public. Well, the White House is also paid for by taxpayers Dollars, so according to your own standard, it too is "public property". Now, if limitations can be set on access and public use of the White House, tell me why they cannot also be set for the grounds and sidewalks of UC Davis.




> 2) The students were not interfering with the free transit and movement of other citizens


Yes, they were.




> and both the constitution and policy of UC Davis give them the right to peaceable assembly.


Is that right absolute and unlimited?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The English is plain. You just have to read the WHOLE sentence.


I did, the rest of it doesn't controvert the fact that the amendment acknowledges that certain rights are enumerated in the constitution. 




> Alright. I won't waste any more time trying to make you not look foolish.


I have looked foolish a few times in my life. This isn't one of them. The dictionary supports what I've said, not you.




> The question is whether the actions were legal and within the norms of established Police procedure.


Where was that question asked? It looks to me like most of us were discussing whether this was morally correct.




> Yeah, you have already said that. What you have not explained is what intrinsc differences exist between public lands in the UC Campus and those of the White House grounds. YOU made the argument that because they were paid for with taxpayer Dollars, the grounds of UC Davis belonged to the public. Well, the White House is also paid for by taxpayers Dollars, so according to your own standard, it too is "public property". Now, if limitations can be set on access and public use of the White House, tell me why they cannot also be set for the grounds and sidewalks of UC Davis.


I already explained this. So, once again, I'll repeat myself once more. The White House, while paid for and maintained by taxpayer dollars, is acknowledged by all to be the private home of the President. The same cannot be said for the sidewalks that surround it.

UC Davis is the same way. The university grounds are public, they are nobody's private home. I cannot go into dorms that are not mine without invitation for the same reason I can't go into the White House without invitation. It is possible for some public property to be private.




> Yes, they were.


Show how they were. As I mentioned before, I know trustworthy individuals who were there. 




> Is that right absolute and unlimited?


No. If they are not peaceable and are destroying public or private property, that is the limit.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> No. If they are not peaceable and are destroying public or private property, that is the limit.


You are half right.

The "No" part was correct. If the second part were true it would be perfectly permissable to occupy the Oval Office. The fact that it is not shows that limitations on the right to peaceably assemble are routinely imposed for reasons other than violent or destructive behavior.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You are half right.
> 
> The "No" part was correct. If the second part were true it would be perfectly permissable to occupy the Oval Office. The fact that it is not shows that limitations on the right to peaceably assemble are routinely imposed for reasons other than violent or destructive behavior.


Well, I repeated myself as many times as I care to. You either lack reading comprehension, or you're deliberately ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your argument. Either way, I don't see how we're going to be able to move on in a way that is edifying to anyone who reads, so I guess we're done here.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Well, I repeated myself as many times as I care to. You either lack reading comprehension, or you're deliberately ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your argument. Either way, I don't see how we're going to be able to move on in a way that is edifying to anyone who reads, so I guess we're done here.


We were done a long time ago. I was just enjoying watching you flounder.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> We were done a long time ago. I was just enjoying watching you flounder.


If that's what you want to believe happened, you go right ahead  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Who owns it?


The government. That does not make it public grounds. It is not open to the public.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You can't accept what has not been offered. 
> 
> In order for me to even consider surrender, you have to prove yourself to be a formidable enemy. So far, that just ain't happening.


Apparently, you could not answer the arguments posed, but instead chose to engage in ad hominem. I consider that surrender.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-28-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> The government.


The PEOPLE.




> That does not make it public grounds. It is not open to the public.


That is the point of this whole discussion. Access even to publicly held properties is not necessarily free and unfettered. That includes the grounds and sidewalks of UC Davis.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The government. That does not make it public grounds. It is not open to the public.


Stop, that's too complicated for him.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Apparently, you could not answer the arguments posed, but instead chose to engage in ad hominem. I consider that surrender.


"ad hominem"

What "ad hominem" would that be? Do you even know what that means?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Stop, that's too complicated for him.



You don't even understand you defeated your own argument, do you?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You don't even understand you defeated your own argument, do you?


Please. You can't even show you understand my argument. Now I'm supposed to believe that, according to you, I defeated my own argument. 

You're obviously new at this.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Please. You can't even show you understand my argument. Now I'm supposed to believe that, according to you, I defeated my own argument.


I understood your argument. I dismissed it as weak and uninformed.




> You're obviously new at this.


I am new HERE. That is why I have gone so easy on you.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The PEOPLE.


Right....A document signed by a bunch of people 226 years ago stating that "We the people, blah blah blah" means the "The PEOPLE" own the government. It's lovely rhetoric, and that's all that it is. Maybe you also believe that Obama is gonna save you $2500 on your healthcare insurance because, after all, the legislation was entitled the "Affordable Care Act" and how it can be other than affordable???




> That is the point of this whole discussion. Access even to publicly held properties is not necessarily free and unfettered. That includes the grounds and sidewalks of UC Davis.


No one here has claimed that it was entirely free and unfettered. That is your hyperbole to avoid the original argument.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I understood your argument. I dismissed it as weak and uninformed.


Yes, because you're ignorant. It's okay, though. It's something that can be fixed, if you have the will.




> I am new HERE. That is why I have gone so easy on you.


Oh, you don't have to do that. I've been a hardened debater for ten years. This is what I do. Hit me with your best shot.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen
> 
> 
> Apparently, you could not answer the arguments posed, but instead chose to engage in ad hominem. I consider that surrender.
> 
> 
> "ad hominem"
> 
> What "ad hominem" would that be? Do you even know what that means?


This is what you wrote:
_"It always amazes me how people like you can use up so much space saying nothing."_

People "like you". That implies that I am of a certain type. That has nothing to do with the argument and everything to do with my person. Ad hominem.

Ad hominem doesn't bother me. I love the heated discussions here. However, if that's all you've got, then I have to assume that you gave up for a lack of intellectual capacity to read and then craft a reply.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> This is what you wrote:
> _"It always amazes me how people like you can use up so much space saying nothing."_
> 
> People "like you". That implies that I am of a certain type. That has nothing to do with the argument and everything to do with my person. Ad hominem.


Eh, that is stretching the definition quite a bit, almost to the breaking point. Was my comment on your propensity for saying nothing in as many words as possible being used to negate whatever arguments you were trying to make?

No. 

It was a comment and an observation regarding you personally, but that does not make it an "ad hominem".

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Yes, because you're ignorant. It's okay, though. It's something that can be fixed, if you have the will.


I will admit ignorance about a great number of things, but not of anything we have discussed thus far.






> Oh, you don't have to do that. I've been a hardened debater for ten years. This is what I do. Hit me with your best shot.


So far, there has been no reason. As I said earlier, I was really hoping you would do better. You have been somewhat of a disappointment.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

*<<response to trolling/off topic removed>>*



> Actually, your boy did. He claimed that access to "public property" was unrestricted unless someone was engaging in violent or destructive behavior. Of course, he didn't address the issue of places like public parks that have set operating hours or require an entry fee, or any of a thousand other exceptions to his "rule".


He wrote: "_University policy and the constitution give all Americans the right to peaceable assembly. State universities are public ground, partially paid for by your taxes (if you live in the state). Thus, constitutionally, a law demanding peaceful assemblies be dispersed is a violation of the constitution."
_
I don't see anything about unrestricted access. The *policy* of the university states that there is a right to peaceably assemble on the property. The first amendment to the COTUS enumerates the right to peacefully assemble. This is not "unfettered" access, but a specific purpose allowed for under the COTUS and the university policy.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Matt

> So far, there has been no reason. As I said earlier, I was really hoping you would do better. You have been somewhat of a disappointment.




This coming from a noob squabbling like two 10 year olds who can't decide who should rule the monkey bars on the playground. ROFLMAO.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Eh, that is stretching the definition quite a bit, almost to the breaking point. Was my comment on your propensity for saying nothing in as many words as possible being used to negate whatever arguments you were trying to make?
> 
> No. 
> 
> It was a comment and an observation regarding you personally, but that does not make it an "ad hominem".


Interesting, you accuse me of not knowing what "ad hominem" means, then you deny the very definition of it. Do you need some help? 

Ad hominem, or, more specifically, "Argumentum ad hominem" in Latin, means "Argument to the person." It is an informal fallacy. It does not have to be insulting or abusive. 

Since you used it in response to my arguments, I take it as ad hominem. However, it was the only apparent reasoning in your post, so perhaps it was just a plain insult. If that is the case, then I apologize for implying that you were even capable of fallacious arguments, let alone any argument, and then I would ponder how idiotic it seems to visit a discussion forum in order to avoid engaging in legitimate discussion. You really are like Dujac.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I will admit ignorance about a great number of things, but not of anything we have discussed thus far.
> 
> So far, there has been no reason. As I said earlier, I was really hoping you would do better. You have been somewhat of a disappointment.


Good for you, Sparky. 




> Actually, your boy did. He claimed that access to "public property" was  unrestricted unless someone was engaging in violent or destructive  behavior. Of course, he didn't address the issue of places like public  parks that have set operating hours or require an entry fee, or any of a  thousand other exceptions to his "rule".


Fail. "No one here has claimed that it was entirely free and unfettered," says BleedingheadKen. "Actually, your boy did," you reply. "He claimed that access to 'public property' was unrestricted _unless someone was engaging in violent or destructive behavior_," you continued. 

Anyone else see the colossal fail here? Now this, Mr. Repair Man, is what it looks like when you defeat your own argument. You claim I said that it was entirely free and unfettered, and then quote me almost verbatim to show that I did say it was not entirely free and had some fettering. 

Ohoho, you're cute.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Been there, although that was when the Shah was still in power. I have seen worse places.
> 
> Was there some inaccuracy in my post to which you take exception?


They have a thing for gunning down peaceful protesters, I hear.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> This coming from a noob squabbling like two 10 year olds who can't decide who should rule the monkey bars on the playground. ROFLMAO.


The "noob" shut you down in about half a second on the SERE issue, didn't he?

The simple fact of the matter is that you have a couple of people here who profess to know a great deal more about certain issues than they actually do. I really do not want to make this about personalities. That just leads to petty bickering and is really of no benefit to the forum.

Let me lay this particular issue out for you. The actions of the Police at UC Davis were consistent with accepted Police practices nationwide. It isn't necessary to like them, but to pretend the protestors were just innocent little children brutalized by heavy handed cops is just plain wrong.

The secondary issue, whether the protestors had a "right" to occupy that piece of turf and refuse to disperse is also really not something that needs to be debated. "Public" places have always had limits placed on their use. They had no more of a right to occupy that piece of ground at UC Davis than they would have had to occupy the Oval Office. The entire reason I brought the Oval Office into the discussion is because one of the posters here made the claim that because that space at UC Davis was bought and maintained with taxpayer Dollars, that gace the protestors a right to take it over. Using that argument, the protestors could just as "rightfully" occupied ANY taxpayer purchased and funded property, including the Oval Office. It wasn't until I threw that into the discussion that somebody started finding exceptions to the original statement.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that because you or anyone else has been on this particular forum longer than I have, that your experience and knowledge levels are automatically superior. I have no doubt that in some areas, they are, but they are most definitely not in the areas under discussion tonight. When a discussion is under way in which your expertise is greater than mine, rather than sit there and snipe at you, I won't hesitate to defer to you. I am much more interested in learning than I am in stroking my ego.

Tonight was just an example of two people who were not well versed in a particular subject thinking that if they both hammered the "noob" as you referred to me, I would back down. If they had been right, I would have, but they were not. You will find as time goes on (unless you guys just bore the Hell out of me) that I do not mind discussions in which I do not happen to be the SME (Subject Matter Expert). By the same token, I am not likely to just nod my head for the sake of going along to get along if someone is throwing out information that is incorrect and I know it is incorrect.

I will tell you now, I doubt very much there is anyone on this forum (although I have been rather impressed by usafan) who is more conversant in the subject of small arms, the military, particularly infantry and special operations tactics, or law enforcement tactics and procedures than I am. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. When we get out of those areas, I can probably learn a lot from some of you and actually look forward to doing so. I have read numerous threads on this forum in which I have not commented because I didn't think I could give an informed opinion or someone else had already expressed ideas similar to my own, but probably did so in a more clear and concise manner than I could have.

I am not here to butt heads with anyone, but I have learned over the years that life is too short to spend time trying to placate the egos of others just to avoid conflict. Now, we can either engage in civil, reasoned conversation, or I can spend my time just making you look stupid until get bored or the Mods decide enough is enough. I certainly prefer the former, but it does take at least two to make a conversation.

----------


## Trinnity

> Cops have far too many privileges in this country.  They were endangered because they were surrounded.  Sure.  And if I'm falsely charged by cops, and I try to walk away, I catch a whopping or get shot.
> 
> Fuck police and the police state.  Now cops get bonuses for their brutality.  As if their bloated salaries and pensions weren't enough.


Cops do sometimes abuse their authority, but not in THIS case. Those "students" totally trolled the shit outta those cops, BLOCKED them, and ignored repeated pleas and warnings to disperse. They got what they deserved.

----------


## Trinnity

> The students were ordered to disperse and continued to block the walkway.
> 
> 
> Pepper spraying them was entirely too kid gloves.  I would have machine gunned them.


Well, that's ridiculous - sorry, but it is. They should all have been arrested after the pepper spray though.

----------


## patrickt

> Gunning down college-age kids, violent or not, is never a solution.


Really? Had the police entered Columbine High when they arrived they should have shot the students who were shooting other students? Had a police officer been in the class at Virginia Tech where the college-aged person killed 30+, he shouldn't have gunned him down? Or, at the theater in Arvada, Colorado, or the school in Newtown.

Liberals have a new protected species.

----------


## Trinnity

> Have you ever been pepper-sprayed? I have. It was a requirement of my job as a security officer. The idea that it is "non-injurious" is pure bullshit. 
> 
> Again: the law is unjust, and the force shown was unnecessary. The students were not causing the police any harm. The police, on the other hand, came with intent to harm, as evidenced by the near-military armor they wore and the veritable army they came as. A little pushing and they would have gotten through the students, and the students, who showed no intent to harm the police, would not have harmed them. 
> 
> Instead, the police made an already volatile situation even moreso by taking unnecessary, violent action against peaceful people who intended them no harm.


I disagree. The "students" were taunting the police and refusing to comply with a lawful order. They were given multiple chances to abide. Then they went beyond the pale by shouting false allegations of being threatened with "shooting them", and calling themselves children. This is trolling in the real world and I'll have none of that crap. The got what they deserved because they made it repeatedly clear that the police had no choice but to carry out the force that the students escalated the police into. For the police to back down would represent an abandonment of BASIC law and order. THAT IS NOT police brutality. 

And I'm dismayed that some of you here don't know the difference!  :Shakeshead:

----------

Calypso Jones (10-29-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> I disagree. The "students" were taunting the police and refusing to comply with a lawful order. They were given multiple chances to abide. Then they went beyond the pale by shouting false allegations of being threatened with "shooting them", and calling themselves children. This is trolling in the real world and I'll have none of that crap. The got what they deserved because they made it repeatedly clear that the police had no choice but to carry out the force that the students escalated the police into. For the police to back down would represent an abandonment of BASIC law and order. THAT IS NOT police brutality. 
> 
> And I'm dismayed that some of you here don't know the difference!


What would happen, if a police station is holding a person of interest, and the mob demands their release, or no one goes in our out of the police station until the mobs demands are met, for release. The police station is public property, as are the sidewalks and streets surrounding it. They could be armed (as could be the mob at the university), or they could be unarmed.

Should the police relinquish the person that the mob is demanding to be released?

I think by asking these questions, it is observable that some people believe strongly in mob rule. I think that is pretty clear. Some people don't believe in mob rule, which is pretty clear. I think some people dress up their mob rule mentality in a flimsy garment of anti-authoritarianism....but it is pretty weak and ain't flying with some.

Mob rule, rule of law, social justice have been around for a very long time playing out in our social contracts. Some people, dangerously....want to go backwards...progressively.

----------


## Calypso Jones

The Bible addresses Mob rule.   We discussed it briefly in Bible STudy last nite.  I'll have to look at my notes again.   But that the time we were discussing it, it was like WHOA.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Well, that's ridiculous - sorry, but it is. They should all have been arrested after the pepper spray though.


They should indeed have been taken into custody. I find it difficult to picture a scenario in which the use of OC would be authorized that did not include grounds for arrest. Normally, subjects who are sprayed with OC are taken into custody, not only for whatever action caused them to be sprayed, but for their own safety, as well. If for some reason, criminal charges are not pressed, they get released after they are decontaminated.

----------


## The XL

> Cops do sometimes abuse their authority, but not in THIS case. Those "students" totally trolled the shit outta those cops, BLOCKED them, and ignored repeated pleas and warnings to disperse. They got what they deserved.


They were in so much danger.  Oh wait.

And I'm sure I have the same right to self defense if I get stopped by cops.  Oh wait.

Can't justify this bullshit double standard.  Sorry.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> What would happen, if a police station is holding a person of interest, and the mob demands their release, or no one goes in our out of the police station until the mobs demands are met, for release. The police station is public property, as are the sidewalks and streets surrounding it. They could be armed (as could be the mob at the university), or they could be unarmed.
> 
> Should the police relinquish the person that the mob is demanding to be released?


NO, absolutely not.

----------


## Trinnity

> They were in so much danger.  Oh wait.
> 
> And I'm sure I have the same right to self defense if I get stopped by cops.  Oh wait.
> 
> Can't justify this bullshit double standard.  Sorry.


<meh> If that is the position you take on this particular case, you're wrong. That's all I have to say.

----------


## The XL

> <meh> If that is the position you take on this particular case, you're wrong. That's all I have to say.


Your opinion on the matter doesn't have much worth if you're not going to elaborate and explain why I'm wrong.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

I am curious.

What "double standard" is it you perceive to exist?

----------


## The XL

> I am curious.
> 
> What "double standard" is it you perceive to exist?


Pretty obvious.  In this situation, the cops were held "hostage" and exercised force to defend themselves.  However, when a cop abuses their authority, we have no ability to protect ourselves.  To do so would result in a vicious beating with a prison sentence, or just death.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Pretty obvious.  In this situation, the cops were held "hostage" and exercised force to defend themselves.  However, when a cop abuses their authority, we have no ability to protect ourselves.  To do so would result in a vicious beating with a prison sentence, or just death.


Why do you assume that?

You have every legal right to defend yourself against a law enforcement officer engaging in illegal activity.

If the actions of the cop are not actually threatening, but are an abuse of authority or unethical in some other way, there are means of working within the system to rectify the situation. If his actions are unlawful and physically threatening, you treat him like you would any other threat.

----------


## Canadianeye

These types of incidents will only cause further problems. I can envision, lengthy and completely comprehensive written directives for all situations being demanded by local police and campus police before any action whatsoever is taken. Cleared by their union lawyers prior to any action being undertaken will probably be a result as well.

This will force all their subordinates to a signatory acknowledgement of the directives given them, should something happen in the variety of different directions of the incident(s) they finally respond to. One direction of course, exceeding the directives, would have them held accountable. One direction, would protect them should something happen due to any non action included in their directives. Meaning, as example in this OWS case, the university chancellor requested the police to address the OWSers, citing health and safety concerns as the reason regarding the tents. I would think they would have to protect themselves when the university authority says take no action....and someone dies from that inaction. In that event, the chancellor and school would be on the hook for the non action, leading to injury or death.

That would probably produce, health and safety concerns _for the law enforcement officers_, regarding imposed non discretionary actions that amplifies their risk in situations.

Lots and lots of new and handcuffing regulations, procedural and beyond, involving teams of lawyers on all sides....just what the libertarians ordered. And in the pure spirit of failure, it will lead to non responses (paperwork ain't taken care of), worthless responses (stand around and observe them breaking the law) and incredibly late responses to incidents (it's finally all signed, but the incident is over).

Then the lawyers will get to work again...on the fallout of those failures.

----------


## Trinnity

> Your opinion on the matter doesn't have much worth if you're not going to elaborate and explain why I'm wrong.


I already have. Read my previous posts_ and_ watch the viddy in post #14.

----------


## Gemini

> Why do you assume that?


History teaches us this is so.




> You have every legal right to defend yourself against a law enforcement officer engaging in illegal activity.


Not in the eyes of the court.

If you are arrested or harmed unlawfully and you defend yourself from a cop, you will be beaten, kidnapped, and possibly killed for your efforts.  And the court will side with them nearly every time because they have the evidence, and time to get their story straight.




> If the actions of the cop are not actually threatening, but are an abuse of authority or unethical in some other way, there are means of working within the system to rectify the situation. If his actions are unlawful and physically threatening, you treat him like you would any other threat.


Same action above.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I disagree. The "students" were taunting the police and refusing to comply with a lawful order.


A lawful order made to protect the government against the people. 

And "taunting"? Really? So that's a crime now?




> They were given multiple chances to abide.


They have no responsibility to abide. 




> Then they went beyond the pale by shouting false allegations of being threatened with "shooting them", and calling themselves children. This is trolling in the real world and I'll have none of that crap. The got what they deserved because they made it repeatedly clear that the police had no choice but to carry out the force that the students escalated the police into. For the police to back down would represent an abandonment of BASIC law and order. THAT IS NOT police brutality.


Show me where they were threatening or causing harm to the police, and I'll agree. Until then, you have no case.




> And I'm dismayed that some of you here don't know the difference!


I'll remember this thread when police are beating and arresting Tea Party protesters and you throw a hissy fit. It's easy to support something when it's not your bacon on the line.

----------


## Trinnity

> They have no responsibility to abide.


They do. This was an OWS encampment that was illegally on the campus and they were told to dismantle it, and that call to clear out was appropriate. The event from start to finish was designed to get media attention.




> I'll remember this thread when police are beating and arresting Tea Party protesters and you throw a hissy fit. It's easy to support something when it's not your bacon on the line.


 Tea Party members won't be arrested. They're not gonna give the police any "fuck you" tactics. It's not in their nature, and frankly that sort of behavior is juvenile and trollish anyway. 


> Show me where they were threatening or causing harm to the police, and I'll agree. Until then, you have no case.


It is _YOU_ who have no case.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> History teaches us this is so.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the eyes of the court.
> 
> If you are arrested or harmed unlawfully and you defend yourself from a cop, you will be beaten, kidnapped, and possibly killed for your efforts.  And the court will side with them nearly every time because they have the evidence, and time to get their story straight.


I'm sorry... I seem to have misunderstood. I thought you lived in the United States of America.

----------


## Gemini

> I'm sorry... I seem to have misunderstood. I thought you lived in the United States of America.


I don't think anybody lives there anymore.  This has been the ISA for some time now - The Incorporated States of Amerika.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-29-2013),Gerrard Winstanley (10-30-2013)

----------


## keymanjim

> I don't think anybody lives there anymore.  This has been the ISA for some time now - The Incorporated States of Amerika.


Since 1913.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-29-2013),Gemini (10-29-2013),St James (10-29-2013)

----------


## St James

we are literally a corporation, ruled by a board of governors led by the most powerful CEO that can found. how can this possible end well?
It isn't the Dem way or the Repub way, not even the Tea Party way........... it is the corporate way. Communism is such a distasteful word, rather call it corporate, that is an easier word to the palate.

----------

