More Police Brutality (in Debates)

Didn't we have a discussion on police brutality directed at Occupy protestors a while back? Well I can't find the thread. So look at this bull poop:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-police-pepper-spray-students_n_1102728.html

For those of you who oppose the Occupy movement, any of you want to take a stab at defending this?

:(

That's screwed up.

Wow... unloading a can of pepper spray on people just sitting there.

Holy crap that is ridiculous!

How about we wait for a full investigation of what really happened before jumping on the "police brutality" bandwagon?

If it is proven that the police abused their power, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. As should anyone who abuses any power they are given.

Duke Lacrosse anyone? In the US it is innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. It is not the other way around even though the court of public opinion typically gets it backwards.

Yeah, I'm all for not falsely accusing... but I'm curious as to what mitigating circumstances could possibly be discovered for explaining why the cop walked along a line of people sitting peacefully and soaking them in pepper spray.

IDK,

Maybe they were throwing things at the police. I would like to see the results of the formal investigation and hear both sides on this before we make judgements.

Funny, you'd figure that would show up on the video... you did watch the video right?

A spokesperson for the police claimed it was for reasons of safety and that the police were surrounded and cut off from their other team members. That casual walking around, like he's spraying the lawn, that's really urgent right, they're presented with immediate danger from a bunch of protesters sitting down.

My thought exactly.

And I'll trust my own eyes before I trust any internal investigation meant specifically to cover their colleague's behind.

Ditto, but it's pretty difficult to imagine a reason why he would need to do that to people just chillin' on the sidewalk.

I think we're past the point of arguing whether it was excessive; from my point of view that has been proved. What matters now is, who's going to do something about it? Because most police departments have shown time and again they will go to great lengths to protect their officers and reputation.

Man, I can't believe those guys on wallstreet are paying those cops so much to do that...

Why is this a dicatomy... I think pepper spraying students for no reason is wrong (if this was the case); and I disagree with occupy wallstreet's beliefs(some/most).

I choose not to follow the movement too closely because it just doesn't make sense to me and reading about it just annoys me. It seems that they would have little impact on the 1%. What they do for sure is make it harder for the working man to keep working, get to his job, or get home to his family. I know of people who couldn't leave work for three hours because of protesters blocking the parking garage. I got delayed in traffic for a half hour because the port closure.

I am also pretty sure that no matter how peaceful they intend to be if left unmonitered by some form of law enforcement, some people would end up causing problems. It puts additional strain on the resources and finances of the city's where the protests are going on, and only serves to hurt the less fortunate.

So what do you do if saying please leave doesn't work? What about the guy who was late for a job interview because if it? Some people have nothing better to do with their time, but the rest of us just want to get on with our lives with as little hassle as possible. Sometimes it can be tough enough to get through the day as it is. The 1% got the message and drawing this out won't do much more. It's like the Free Tibet movement. China doesn't care what a bunch of hippies in America think, and all the concerts and bumper stickers in the world won't change that.

I grew up in Sacramento, and UC Davis students are pretty lame. I've has several incidences over the years of them being jerks for no reason (asking for directions and being sent to the complete opposite side of the campus, while walking and this happened more than once, as recently as 5 years ago when I was installing equipment in their photo lab). Reading the article made me smile. Thanks for the link.

There are appropriate levels of force and then there are excessive levels of force.

:(

It's shameful how often this link becomes relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkmQZjZSjk4

To me, it doesn't matter what the protester excuse is. The cops asked them to leave peacefully or get arrested.

The protesters made their decision, at that point I don't really feel sorry for them anymore, the cops are going to spray them because there is a bunch of them gathered in one spot and they want to prevent them from fighting back against them while they are being arrested.

It's easier to get them one at a time while they are pepper sprayed than it is to get them when they are not. These cops have no idea how the protesters will react when they start arresting them, but they do know how they will react if they pepper spray them first.

Oh and before you all get all uppity about it, let's reverse this.

You are the cop, and your superiors tell you to get these people cleared out of the area in the next hour. If they will not leave arrest them or you lose your job. How are you gonna get them out with as little hassle as possible?

Why, just throw them in an oven, and if they still twitch, put a bullet to the back of their skulls, of course. Afterall, you're just following orders. Amirite ? Eh ?

There's a big space between kill them and spray them with pepper spray.

There's a much larger one between "doing the right thing" and "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons".

Remind me never to go to Mikel's for a party, especially when it's time for everyone to leave!

You know, I think it would have been a whole lot better if they had tried to arrest them and THEN pepper-sprayed them if they became violent. You know, some sort of novel 'presumption of innocence'.

Would you think it was ok to tazer the folks sitting on the ground too, because that would make them easier to handle as well.

Ill have to ask this, is its illegal to protest in the USA ?

No, but when the police say move, you move.

Ranger so its is pratticaly illegal to protest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

No, it is not illegal to protest.

However, when the police ask you to move and disperse, that is what you do. If you have a problem with it, you THEN get a lawyer or activist and use the appropriate legal channels to complain.

As assembly is a right, 2+ months occupying a public park when asked numerous times to leave is not a right.

Yeah, they cleared out the 'Occupy Victoria' squatters here and it didn't particularly bother me.

The US Davis folks weren't there for months though were they?

I do not see what the big deal is here. The police were called in by school officials. Not like the police just randomly showed up and began to bully people. Anyways this video was comical. Hippies are back?

Ranger not guilty until prove otherswise right ?? then would its not be the school official or city official to get a court injunction ?

ok I gotta say something here. As a person working in the security industry I have to say this was not as bad as some people make it out to be. Protesting is fine until you do two things.

1. If you have been told by owners of land or their representatives thereof to leave. Making it trespassing if you don't comply College/University or not.

2. You cause those around you to become riled or agitated thereby making them possibly violent. Even if you are peacefully protesting this does not mean those around you are doing the same.

In either of these instances officers of the law (Private or Public) can use the appropriate level of force necessary to remove you from the premises. Honestly they were taking the best route, in my honest opinion, to keep from having to break bones and to control the crowd by extension.

So until I know for sure they did not ask for these people to leave then I wholly believe them to be in the right. Video's usually only show one side, I'll wait for their own camera crew to pop out their video and watch that one. In case you didn't see it there was a professional camera crew there.

I used to be a bouncer in a nightclub (a couple actually) and when it was time for someone to go we walked over and told them that.

If the argued we'd make it clear that it wasn't a request. They still argue and they are physically guided to the door... if they become violent or resist, well then it is arm-bar/headlock time.

We didn't just walk over to someone and say "you've had too much to drink you must leave" wait 2 minutes for them not to leave then throw an arm-bar on them and ram them through the door.

If a bunch of barely above minimum wage bouncers can show that level of restraint I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the police to.

They should have tried arresting people before pepper-spraying them.
It is the right way to do it (not the easy one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Davis

I am not expert on this but if its a states own/run/manage its become public ground no ?

This occupy movement is BS. These protestors are about as annoying as Bonds and roids or Tiger Woods sleeping around the world. Look, If these tree hugging hippies want anything done, Id suggest they learn from other countries. Standing on a sidewalk chanting stuff empty handed is a waste of time.

You forgot caveat #2 it would still apply since those around you could become violent and cause personal/private/public damage which is of course illegal.

Zenai you answer is so vague its would give to right to break any protest that official want to. When ben laden was annouce to be dead and there were mass gathering in front of the white house i dont remember any police or official claiming its was ''again'' public order.

Wait, so I should be pepper sprayed for the behaviour of other people? Why wouldn't you pepper spray them instead?

Officer, that guy is really pissing me off. He's getting me riled up and agitated, and there's no telling what might happen next. You'd better pepper spray him now while you still have the chance!

Because they are in support of you, if indeed a public/private place you are told to leave and you don't then you get what is coming to you. As opposed to what just let those around you become more and more destructive? No you leave if you are indeed peaceful then those around you either disperse or are dealt with accordingly. Passive aggression is still aggression and should be notably dealt with period. Cut the head off of the snake and it dies is the name of the game.

sitting cross-legged on a sidewalk is not passive aggression.

The cops are saving these idiots time. Not like they are going to accomplish anything

Worked really well with Martin Luther King didn't it...

So, if you have a peaceful protest and people who disagree with you show up and become rowdy and violent then you deserve to be sprayed, because if you weren't there then the other people wouldn't be a problem.

I don't even know where to begin with what's wrong with that logic.

(it shouldn't matter if the by-standers agree or disagree with you if your presence is inciting them right?)

Not even in the same ballpark and quite frankly I am offended by your correlation between the two. Bad bad bad attempt serious bad dude.


If you are asked to leave by the proper personnel and you don't leave then you are to be removed by any means necessary. In this instance it was pepper spray don't get your panties in a twist over it. In some places you can be shot honestly I prefer burning mucous membranes over an extra hole or two in me. How about you?


You have never dealt with crowd control so no you wouldn't even get the idea now would you? Ever been in a riot before? Had a badge on to boot? Doubtful. I have though and it is scary as hell no matter which side I was on. The crowd develops a life of it's own. Control it or there is a good chance you go to the hospital or die along with many other good people both public servant and private citizen. I have seen the after affects and regardless of your foolish idea of right or wrong in this situation it makes no difference.....dead is dead and you can never bring them back. The only thing that seems to boil to the surface each time is that if something had been done differently lives could have been saved. Have people go crazy and cause all of this or pepper spray the people in charge, so to speak, of the situation. Screw you I'm pepper spraying people end of my side of the discussion.

The "you should be thankful they only used excessive force, they could have used DEADLY force!" argument is generally only reserved for the unstable. Are you sure you want to make that one?


Hey, I recognize this sentiment, it's the same as the cops in the video!

1) There was nothing wrong with the King comment... someone tried to cut the head off the snake and it didn't work... historically I would say that is the case more often then not. Ergo it isn't a valid tactic.

2) Take a breath... no need to get personal and start hyperventilating because you have seen horrors of crowd control that you think my tiny mind couldn't possibly comprehend.

Pepper spray has a place and a use, I don't think this was it. Incidentally, I am usually on the 'lock-em-up' side when you get things like the G-8/G-20 riots like what happened in Toronto.

Please calm down, this debate had been fairly civil so far.

OB you really want to troll or do you want to discuss? Have you ever dealt with this kind of thing before? If not seriously go and get some experience it is the only way you are truly going to understand. If trolling is your aim then keep on thinking you are right in your mindset I'll wait for the lights to come on if/when the epiphany happens.

Excessive force what a damned laugh! Those officers could have dropped every single one of them to the ground and cuffed them in the harshest way taught if they attempted to resist instead they sprayed them and calmly took most of them away. Seriously you need to go and learn the use of force continuum before you speak especially since they were hugely outnumbered in this instance. I would be in fear of serious bodily harm or death and would use appropriate force necessary to negate it as is my god given right to protect my own life and those around me if possible.

Yeah things escalate quickly OB and when in the thick of it mindsets change namely your own. It gets to the point of you or them what would you do in that instance huh? Oh they don't deserve to be treated this way I am the bad guy I deserve whatever I have coming to me oh and screw my family needing me and the same to those working with me too? Yeah whatever dude sure you are right no question about it at all that is definitely the best course of action. Sure Sure Sure.

Have a good day OB I am done talking to you.

Just out of curiousity Zen, have you ever actually been pepper-sprayed?

Of course it is not valid Loch there was many many many other things involved in the Civil Rights movement. This tiny protest has not connection with the principles thereof.


No that your mind is tiny Loch this was not my aim in the comment. Just that you do not see it from the officers side.


Exactly you think, you don't know for sure. So instead of taking a side find out. In my opening statement I said they had their own camera crew so I would like to see that video. If the officers did not tell these ppl that they have to leave then I have a problem with them but if they did then I am with them.


This is exactly the type of thing that these officers were trying to stop from occurring. Slight use of force is usually a deterrent to crowds from escalating things to where use of deadly force becomes necessary. If you do not stand your ground things can get ugly fast and honestly if you are wearing a uniform and badge it is on you if people get hurt or die.


Wait this is in Debates? No it is in Off-Topic and I have been Civil. Just because I have a "No Nonsense" Policy as far as things of this nature is concerned does not meant I am being unfair or rude to anyone.

Loch yes I have. Every single time I go through Pepper Spray Courses it is a requirement to be sprayed or I cannot pass and get my license even if I get 100% on the test.

Perspective is an interesting thing.

The official statements say things like:

"...a group of protesters stayed overnight Thursday despite repeated notices by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were told to disperse...."

"...On Friday morning, the protesters were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression..."

"...police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. Protesters were warned repeatedly beforehand that force would be used if they didn't move..."

"..."There was no way out of that circle," Spicuzza said. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."..."

That's very different than your bouncer analogy, Loch. In this case, a lot went on leading up to the event, that increased the volatility. That includes repeated warnings of escalating nature that the protesters would be forcibly removed if they failed to comply with university policy.

It's easy to look at specific moments in what is a much larger situation. Now, the chancellor did admit to the videos being chilling. And in fact, they are. But they do not tell the whole story.

Perhaps the pepper spray was too much, perhaps not. However, it's clear that there is a lot more going on with these occupy protests than media outlets like to sensationalize.

As an example, a local protest group stopped the city of Philadelphia from starting a big renovation project that put a giant pile of union jobs on hold -- the exact opposite of what they wanted to accomplish. But that doesn't sell as many advertising spots as police using pepper spray.

*EVERY* time????? Wow... what's that like? How often?

Sorry, I mistook the 'Screw you' for discourtesy... lord knows why.

As for the perspective of the police, well it was pretty clear they did not perceive imminent threats. Officers were not 'at the ready' at all times and in protective formations. They were discussing how to clear out the people as they had been asked to do and they decided on the pepper spray as it was 'easiest'.

I don't think law enforcement should decide to inflict pain because it 'would be easier' If they'd attempted to cuff some people and met with physical resistance then sure, spray away, but not before.

Oh, and I've been in (and spectator to) a good number of violent crowds. That was not a violent crowd, nor was it showing much inclination in that direction.

As for this thread being in off-topic, well, I guess don't live my life to the strictures of forum labels... rebel to the core eh?

I agree NS, that it is a very different situation but it doesn't change my opinion that it was handled badly.


That quote is hilarious given that the original video shows officers step across the line of sitting people without interference a few times. Cut off is a bit of a stretch.


Incidentally, my criticism of the Vancouver riot this summer was that the police didn't react harshly enough when trouble started, lest anyone take me for bleeding heart liberal.

All arguing aside, the comforting thing is that we know, right or wrong, that someone somewhere is getting sued by somebody for something because of this. It is the American way after all.


Oh, and I often wonder if people who sneer at the legal system then turn round and sue because their rights were violated are aware of the irony.

The State requires every 2 years, my company requires every year. Honestly it sucks, imagine getting jalapeno juice in your eyes. Now remember the burn times it by 1,000 and you are getting there. It affects every mucous membrane it touches and usually does not wear off for 45 Mins to an hour. It can also, even with scrubbing, lightly burn for days in the affected areas.(kind of like salt in a cut.)


Wait they were repeatedly told to leave and refused to do so, pffft spray and haul them to jail. It's better than trying for physically move them beforehand and getting into a twenty on one fight. You don't want to get sprayed crowd then get out of the way. Spot on for them I'm glad it didn't get worse than it already was.

Wait, you never let me answer! I was still trying to decide!


Zenai, getting hit by a train hurts a lot, but it isn't 100% guaranteed to be deadly. You might not believe me, but that's only because you haven't had the experience.

;)

Apparently OB you think I give a damn about you trolling me. You would be wrong. Go find something else to do or don't but honestly your efforts are futile. Still waiting to see if you will ever grow up and see things from others perspectives. I might be waiting in vain I think. Eh whatever do what you do OB you are gonna do it anyway and not one person in CB Land will stop you. Go ahead OB do your worst show me just how much of a moron you can be I will sit back with a bag of popcorn and laugh at you like I always do when it comes to things like this.

Sounds good!


Yeah, what a laugh! Just think, some punk kid on the street could mug me and then shoot me afterwards, but instead he'll just mug me and take my stuff. I should be thankful for his leniency. It's not wrong if you choose to take the path of lesser evil! Also take note of "if they attempted to resist" - so in essence, you're talking about punishing people for what they potentially might do, rather than what they have done.

Seriously, the thought that a guy like you is out there "protecting" the public is...horrifying, frankly.


Have you ever been in a mall, Zenai? It's pretty rough. People outnumber you, and they're all around you, potentially cutting off your escape. Hell, if they got violent, they could seriously harm you. Seriously, basing the use of force on "there were a lot of them, and they weren't doing anything violent NOW, but they could" is just dumb, man.


Except things weren't escalating. Chillin' on the sidewalk is not a situation escalating. What you are talking about - the use of force when the situation escalates - is entirely different from walking in front of a line of people, waving your pepperspray can above your head so everyone can see it, then walking down the line and spraying a group of calm, seated individuals.


Oh please, you and I both know better. ;)

Semantics OB you are arguing without knowing a damned thing which is the norm I guess. Keep on acting like a Moron I'm getting an awesome laugh out of this really I am! Let's see just how far you can push it before you get this thread closed too because of your ceaseless moronic antics in a futile attempt to make yourself right.

I don't think that words means what you think it means. ;)

Unless you're trying to construe people sitting on a sidewalk as an "escalating situation," in which case I'm Happy to Continue thinking Like a Moron.

Personaly i fell that how the police handle protest now not worse that the others. Here is not the question do you or not agree with there claim , i could not careless. My point is what is the legal ground to dismental the protest. They are not under arrest, they just get move/disperse cuz someone decide that they have to move. This is not a court injunction or order there is no legal action again them. Every reason seem to be good and give the right to put a end to any protest.

Every protest in this year as been put to a end each time they claim X factor for the reason. If you can claim X factor for X protest its in practice illegal to protest unless its get approve by X official and that call a police stats. Where order prevail in front of individual right.

Ill like to remind you its not a question do you agree with them or not. They were on public ground, a states own land is public ground. There protest seem legit.

It means exactly what stated it for OB being an Idiot Savant I would have thought you able to read in between the lines but I guess not. Fair enough I will explain it yet again my mentally deficient non friend.( I know you are acting but hey why not go along with it right?)

They were told repeatedly to leave OB, there mere presence was trespassing at that point AND they were causing the crowd, by there passive aggressive stance to not comply with orders to leave by peace officers, to become increasingly aggressive. Long story short if they had stayed inside the situation it would have become much much worse. So physically remove them and cause a riot or scare the crowd with a display of light force......hmmmm cause a twenty to one fight or spray and cuff? not a difficult choice to make OB.

You want to split hairs as in your future profession that is your choice but when dealing with a situation where your life could be at stake at any moment it is best to act instead of playing devil's advocate it may save your life and those around you. Was the crowd necessarily that bad? No, but forethought of expect the best be prepared for the worse is a damned good policy. Until you can see that they stopped a potentially volatile situation from becoming a life or death situation just take a back seat junior. Oh and by the way it is people like me that keep people acting like morons (like you) alive in situations like that, put that in your precious little semantic peace pipe and smoke it.

Watch it Zen...

I am obviously not a lawyer. But.

To the best of my knowledge, you can't "trespass" on public areas (except highways in certain circumstances, and airspace which would not apply here), only on private property or restricted government installations, and to the best of my current knowledge, even the sidewalks leading to and the quad of a *private* university are considered to be public areas, not private land.
Please correct me if you know for sure I am wrong.

If what I said is correct, at most, they could be regarded as "loitering", but that could actually also be legal.
Bottom line, it is questionable whether the police even had the right to attempt to move the students from the location they were sitting in, let alone the timing of and the methods chosen, which is another story altogether (but the one most of this thread has been almost exclusively focusing on).

I think it depends where the sidewalk was. I think sidewalk can be private. I may be wrong, I'm not sure.

Duke:

http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/ccnv.htm

They can set limits on how long they stay to prevent people from essentially living there temporarily. Whether or not a prolonged protest falls under this, however, would certainly be up for debate.

Z:

I thought you weren't going to let me troll you, but then you resorted to name-calling. This pleases me. :)


But see, the thing is, we call things like this a Slippery Slope.


This link could help you out too:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Slippery%20Slope

See, the problem is that generally when you are trying to argue a point, calling someone an idiot savant or mentally deficient actually undermines your own argument. Trolling is actually a useful argumentative tactic in this case, because your opponent becomes emotionally attached to the topic of debate and commits himself to using fallacious tactics such as Ad Hominem attacks and Slippery Slope arguments.

I hope this helps you argue effectively in the future, Z! :D

As long as you do not cause a disturbance of the peace or violate policy of the landowners. They were and did as stated when they were told repeatedly to leave after being apprised of the policy of the campus. They WERE in the wrong OB as such they were treated as Trespassers plain and simple. It could have been much much worse.

This would imply that you actually understand what is being said in the first place OB. Constantly I find that you refuse to step back and say "Oh maybe I do not know about this enough to comment." This is a field into which I am well versed OB, I have hundreds of hours of training and constantly go back to learn more with continuing education. For once back off and listen, read the ENTIRE thread then go do some reading yourself. After all of this is said and done then you should have something to actually say. If all you are going to do is try to troll then well I will treat you how you act. I think that is fair enough since the Admin police don't do squat anyway right?

lolololol


I think I'm the only one of the two of us that provided Supreme Court case documentation regarding the legality of protestors spending a prolonged period in a public area. So what's your argument against that?


Oh, right.

Really OB this is the best you've got? Seriously? I probably should leave it at that.

Play nicely everyone...

If you have a point to make then make it, don't try to bait each other.

Not what I posted.

I said a few things more one of which I am going to repost and add to:

I pray that one day you get into a situation like that and I am there to save your sorry existence so I can rub it into your face for the rest of your pathetic life. We'll see if your crappy perspective changes just a tad.


Still though OB if you HAD in fact read the Thread you would have seen the part where NS posted excerpts. Aside from that I know that you know better OB you just want to troll because it's fun for you to do.

I really wish the Admin Police would Forum Ban you. I really don't care if I go down as long as you come with me. Forums are better without you OB.

More tales from the G-Man's side:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

"When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."

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


** Z, look here! **
Z, is that first paragraph right? Pepper spray is allowed to be used on non-resisting people?


As another interesting development, the guys that did the spraying are now taking a break from work while the IA-equivalent evaluates whether they handled themselves in accordance with policy.




Final thoughts on the matter -- this little incident, and a select few others like it, are detracting from the bigger picture. That is, these profitable stories are making the real effects of the occupy movements sit underexposed. The Philly events I reference earlier hits a little more close to home, but is a great example of the whole idea of protesting backfiring. The city had to pay millions to clean up the disgusting mess that the protesters left when they trashed City Hall, and tons of workers lost their jobs when the construction had to be delayed.

There's a right way and a wrong way to protest. This occupy stuff is the wrong way.

I think the ideals are sound, and I'm always supportive of people being motivated to enact change. However, that doesn't mean it's good to be stupid about it.

I will close with this.

People in this country often talk about "Free Speech" and the 1st Amendment, and use that to justify all sorts of melarchy. That right that we have and hold true to the entirety of American founding does NOT grant you the right to do whatever you please. You have the right to practice your own religion, provided you are screwing over anyone else in the process (to wit, my religion requires human sacrifice of my annoying neighbor). You have the right to speak openly against the government. That doesn't mean you have the right to spew libel. That's a very punishable offence. You have the right to publish information via the press that is not government controlled. That doesn't mean you can spread treasonous lies in your tabloid. You have the right to petition the government. I think people really stretch this one without knowing what a petition really is. But finally.... that first amendment says that you have the right to peacefully assemble.

What is peaceful?

Here's a hint -- just because you're sitting there not moving or looking at anyone or saying anything does NOT mean you are being peaceful. When you start screwing over all those around you, your peaceful assembly will soon acquire a new prefix of dis. See, people seem to think that "assemble" means "protest". It does not. It means that you can in fact gather a group of your friends together and plot your governmental overthrow. But you need to be fully cognizant of the planet around you and the effects you are having on others. You still need to abide by the law. The amendment says that congress will not make a law restricting that right. It does NOT say that you can ignore laws to express what you think is your interpretation of that right. That's for the courts to decide if you want to take it that far.

I went to the scene in Philly. It was anything but peaceful. It was a cacophony of sludge -- human waste, rampant crime, rape, flowing seas of trash. Those people destroyed what was prior an absolutely beautiful part of a city that gave them the freedoms they don't understand. They took that gift and trashed it, and weren't even lucid enough to understand why.

These occupiers are disgusting remnants of would-be visionaries that got lost in their own bloodthirsty orgies.

Frankly, If I were in charge, I'd have had the nation guard clean them all out.

/rant.

Yes it is true but there are many definitions of resistance and noted further down in your thread(eat crow OB have a huge helping please)

In this instance it is called passive aggressive resistance. Just because you do not physically resist does not mean that is the end of the resistance. Failure to follow a direct order by a peace officer is a violation of the law and considered resistance. Those officers did order these people to move and even gave them a chance to do so while brandishing the pepper spray in front of them. It's basic move or get sprayed, oh you refuse to move alright here you go *spray spray spray* and arrest is a common place thing thereafter unless the officers deem it to be far too risky to do so.



I would rather spray a person and cuff them while they are compliant than to be forced to wrench, dislocate or even break a bone. It's sad to even have to get to that point but when you only have a choice between the bad and worst path I would rather the bad.

As far as the officers involved under investigation that is just a publicity stunt as much as the news coverage and videos were. They were in compliance and everyone in law enforcement and security that is worth their salt knows it this is just a formality.

That is some quality ranting NS :-)

A local radio DJ made the point here that the 'costs' associated with these protests are not incurred by the 'banks' (or whatever) that being protested, but by the rank and file tax paying citizens (on who's behalf they are allegedly protesting).

It reminds me of a girl who got fired from where I work because her protest for being scheduled for less shifts was to not show up to the ones she did have... and then she would phone in and complain of lack of hours.

Wow, seriously? Pulling your arm back, or curling into a ball warrants pepper-spraying, baton strikes, and pressure-point techniques? This is really not helping my perception of what's going on here. If a police officer is acting out of line here, that's one thing. But if they're actually legally allowed to use this extent of force just because someone jerked back their elbow when they were grabbed? That's just a bit ridiculous.


Lol, you're not the first to offer it. I live in Alabama, remember? In any event, as per the Supreme Court decision I posted a link to earlier, it's honestly not a cut-and-dry case that these people have to leave. I still feel strongly that these actions by the police were inappropriate.

I agree with you, NS, that a lot of this has turned the corner from what is allowable. I agree with their complaint, and disagree with their actions often. In this particular case, the one that I am talking about, however, the police acted wrongly. There's no excuse for walking over the line of people, walking around them, waving the pepper spray for everyone to see and then calmly walking down the line spraying them. That's just ridiculous.

Z, you say that it's an appropriate use of force. You also say this regarding its effects:


You seriously think that's an appropriate response to someone sitting cross-legged on a sidewalk and not moving when told?

OB if they are not complying then yes. Did you even read NS's post? It is true and to the letter of the law. I was not joking when I said if your presence is causing a problem and I an authority tell you to move and you do not then I have a right to make you comply. I can even arrest you for resistance and trespassing. Anything you leave behind can be deemed as litter and I can ticket you for that as well.

Point being here is simple they were given a chance, hell if I can make people comply with simply showing people a can of pepper spray or even pulling my gun out of it's holster(if you have a weapon in hand) then I am happy this was all it took.

If they don't then I have to follow through or the crowd will become more aggressive and possibly hurt or kill me and my fellow officers and possibly fellow protestors(even by accident it has happened). It is a hard decision to make but given the choices at hand I prefer to choice the lesser path until I am forced to take the higher path in the use of force continuum. If I feel that I am in imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death I will use the appropriate level of force necessary to negate it as is my God given right to preserve my life or of those around me if possible.(including the protestors themselves at times)

It's not easy being out there dealing with these kinds of situations you are bound by many things and even with the freedom to use certain things it is inside a boundary so small that you pray you do not make a mistake when forced to use it. It really is a razors edge.

i wonder if it were a group of christian grandmothers protesting outside of an abortion clinic that this had happened to, how many of us would feel the same way about it?

Now that sounds like entertainment!

If they were told to remove themselves and the did not or incited a crowd then I would take the same steps. I follow my job as the law dictates, if I can avoid the worst then I will but I will not cower to the opposite if I have no other choice.

I would certainly be a tad bit less upset about it.
Those grandmothers surely would have had it coming.

:P

Arrest them for squatting or lose your job.... Mikel, that's bordering fascist.
Zen, I've seen an America's Dumbest blah blah 4 scenes where beach patrol, not in force and without riot gear, made arrests without casually blinding students who got uppity. The MLK reference is perfectly relevant. The hose was the spray of that day. Also your spray training isn't so relevant if you condone the liberal use of what went into your face. Don't pretend they lacked options and don't say "I will not cower" when part of your former argument was how scary a crowd is. The end does not justify the means because tree huggers had you tinkle a little in your trousers. That's never worked out in the past. We'd judge you for coloring their faces before arresting too. Probably call you a wimp on the side for using granny's bus defense on the homeless. And another thing! This one to Mr. Kelly. You have to handle the perps afterwards in the mist! Equal or opposite reactions too. That act of chemical warfare could have just as well caused violence and riot.
Splinter, the hippies got you to notice a complaint now didn't they.

Even though the cops are in the right, that does not mean they were right. Did they even announce to the crowd what was about to happen? Worst of all, as Zen pointed out, there was a freaking camera crew. They should have known better three fold as that stuff in a high dose could have lead to a lawsuit by a person on the sidelines.
The problem isn't they were relocated or if they had the right to sit there or if Occupy Tent City is doing any good. Kids were face-maced for literally nothing. They were not violent or physically resisting in an aggressive manner. Think about the other crimes these men had to deal with before this group loitering charge. The cops had pepper spray obviously so they had less to fear as it's a fair crowd control. Saying they were terrified is a silly basis as they appeared at ease watering the eyes. Carelessness. The cops are to be the betters and they weren't in this instance. If they were, this might have never seen a headline. Notice no one here is asking for sensitivity training or lay offs, but we are disappointed to see complacent policing standards.

Gud normally I would say you have valid points but since I am in the know so to speak you do not. Point here is that everything you have said has already bee answered even before you posted. Go back re-read the thread then post no offense in tended but you are not up to snuff in the convo bro.

I haven't read all of this yet, but I wanted to point out that the protesters all (except for a few dolts) had their faces partially covered to protect themselves from the spray. So this tells me that they knew it was gonna happen and still refused to cooperate. Notice once sprayed, some of them broke the line with out the police touching them.

I'm sorry that some of you can't understand why it is important to obey the authorities, but when you break the law there are consequences. In this case, those that didn't move got pepper sprayed. Maybe these kids mom and dads should've spanked them when they broke the rules so they could've learned this earlier in life.

Dude...that "I am right and you are wrong, period, okay, so shut up" attitude is getting so, so old.

NS By not leaving as instructed, they've already shown that they will resist.

OB seriously you have a problem with anyone but you being right. Just go eat your crow in a corner. You know very well that I am not saying shut up I am saying go back and read then post just like I told you. It's not mean nor is it harsh in any way.

Honestly, I could say the same about you.

Only on certain things when I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am right. On this I am and you know it, even NS stepped in and gave you a healthy helping of crow and yet you still have the nerve to run your mouth? Enough is enough OB stop trolling for crying out loud grow up and take your lumps maybe you'll get me next time or something.

You keep making reference to eating crow, but I've no cause to do that.

Z, what is this security experience that you keep making reference to, anyway? You know, that makes you right "beyond a shadow of a doubt?"

OH and the cop was clearly waving the can above his head before he sprayed them. He was warning them what was going to happen if they didn't move. They didn't move, so they got sprayed. Playing chicken with cops is never a good idea.

As I did read some earlier posts that the protesters had been asked for several days to move and kept resisting.

OB I have been in the Security Industry for 5+ years now add my Military experience which was also in Security that makes it 10 years. That is my expertise, and yes you have quite a bit of cause to eat crow OB you just refuse to see it because you do not like being wrong. Especially when it is me that is in the right. You are simply trolling now OB I do hope you are enjoying your game.

But what is "in the security industry?" I'm just saying, there's a difference between a rent-a-cop and a policeman. Seriously, chill out, I'm not even trolling you at this point, I'm just curious.

There is a difference between a Rent-a-Cop and a Security Professional and a Peace Officer OB. Now In the Military I was in Aviation Operations with Special Tactics as my primary job as the Tactical Information Communication Officers personal Body Guard. I have been the Lead Supervisor for a Security Firm for 2 years, Supervisor for 2 and an OIC for 1. The Advanced Rent-a-Cop doesn't have my references and a regular one is not even in my ball park. I am above all of this 4 years a Personal Protection Officer(Professional Body Guard) and have been a consultant on Crowd Control Measures and have assisted in multiple cases with local law enforcement concerning security. This is what I do for a living OB.

Wait, Z, I thought you worked in a school?

I do I am Head of Security for a Private School owned by an International Umbrella Scholastic Corporation.

omgud....no wonder you hate the 99% lol

Better watch out for the T virus!

I see what you did there.

Really? Seriously? You guys just have to go there?

Fine to hell with you all.

The first question is, DID they really break any laws ?

Let's for the sake of argument pretend that they were NOT breaking any laws (or at least that THEY were convinced they were not breaking any laws), but that it was inconvenient for somebody else to have them there and those people asked for the police to remove them.
So the second question is, if the police asks you to cease doing something that you are fairly sure it is fully within your rights to do, WHY EXACTLY should you blindly comply ?

And the last question is, how exactly is using pepper spray better than simply arresting them ? Couldn't it possibly be that they had not enough reason to actually arrest them ? Or if they had a good enough reason to arrest them, what stopped the police from simply cuffing each one of the protesters ONE AT A TIME ?

Ok, now Sickone, for the sake of the argument, assume they *were* breaking the law. What would you say then?

if the article is correct, the chancellor called in security to make sure the tents were taken down for the safety of the students. i am not sure how things progressed from the original goal to then spraying the students with pepper spray and how that ensures their safety but it will be interesting to see the fallout for the chancellor on this one.

? I actually thought Titan's Umbrella/Resident Evil joke was funny.

Authorities would say no unless there was a threat to public safety.


It's better to be safe than sorry in an instance like this if a Peace Officer give you an order comply. If you think they are wrong do it anyway but get name and badge number. Find out for sure later and if they were in the wrong then report them. If this does nothing then go to the media they will have a field day with it.


It's far easier to arrest a person when they are compliant. After being sprayed trust me you are compliant because you just want the burning to stop. Besides to be honest this is a crowd control tactic, they may not have been physically resisting but his does not mean they were compliant which give those around them in support a uplifting. Spray and this shows the crowd you will follow through with your ultimatum. With masses if people things can get volatile in a flash make them understand you are not joking and they will respect the fact that you will act if necessary.


No if the peace officers acted it was because they had cause to do so. With their own camera crew there they had better toe the line or lose their job.


It's not that simple when there is a large crowd. Time is your enemy, one arrest at a time is too time consuming. Do what you came to do as quickly and painlessly as possible. Since they had to do it quickly, spray cuff and go. If they had arrested slowly then they left themselves open to a quick trip to the hospital for themselves or protesters if the resisted. Inside of the use of force continuum they used the lowest end of it barring pressure point techniques which is time consuming.

Demi: I did not think it funny at all hence my comment. Do not in one breath defend my job in chat from others pseudo bashing/joking about it to doing it yourself in forums. It's bad form and honestly unwelcome.

I would say that you DO NOT just pepper spray people that have not already become violent just because you THINK it may save you time (or some other similar things).

When yours or other lives could be at stake trust me you would spray too. It's all a matter of perspective when in the thick of it everything changes.

come on, they were in the thick of nothing. Thanks for the insight into the paranoid workings of the security pros mind though.

It's a matter of perspective RD. The problem is that you don't see it because you do not want to or cannot.


Better to be safe than sorry, I have seen perfectly calm protests turn into something from a demented horror movie director's vision in no time flat. So in a sentence: To hell with chance, make a ultimatum and follow through with a consequence if they don't comply.


By the way if not for us paranoid security pros as you like to call it(same with law enforcement) then more people would die each year than what is already abhorrently high.(even one life lost is a terrible price to pay) Think about that next time you decide to bash those of us who give a damn about what we do and bust our backs making sure your life runs as smooth as it already does.

I'm not debating their response, just your perception that they were in the thick of it.

RD when you have a badge and uniform on you have to treat every situation as if it will be able to become worst case in the snap of a finger. You take anything for granted and it can cost lives so you don't period. There is a difference between paranoid and realizing and respecting that life is unpredictable and being as cautious as possible. If it doesn't turn out to be worst case scenario then hallelujah but if it does at least you are partially prepared and you can actually do something to possibly prevent loss of life.

they were taking a big risk waiting so long to spray then I guess.

They were a big bunch of police in the middle of what looked like a pretty calm large crowd.
If anything, USING the chem warfare agents should have been MORE dangerous for those people than NOT using it, because a noisy but calm gathering would have had the potential to turn into an angry mob, throwing any non-fastened object into policemen's heads from a distance to avoid the pepper sprays.

Within the time frame they did take a bit longer than they should have(imho)but with a camera crew in my face I probably would have conferred as well (just a bit more quickly).

If you notice NS's post they were given ample time to get their butts in gear and leave. They were notified multiple times and were even given more chances to leave and chose not to take it.

To *REALLY* put things into perspective...



...those guys have shown slightly MORE restraint and compassion than the policemen in that movie clip.

Kind of makes you wonder which one is the actual evil police state, doesn't it ?

Have you ever see a calm crowd turn into a mob? I have so honestly Sickone your point here is completely Moot.


No attempting to arrest people who would have resisted in a crowd, which out numbered them greatly, who supported them would have made it worse for them and possibly force them to resort to deadly force.


Leave when you are told to do so and if you are peaceful then it would not be a problem. Follow the guidelines given and nothing should escalate to even close to getting pepper sprayed. See simple.

Sickone: You are truly skewed in this. That protest group was warned repeatedly, given guideline and even asked politely multiple times to vacate. What you want law enforcement to plead? If this is to be the norm then do away with any type of enforcement period. Let's see how you like it when you get mugged, robbed, and beaten while an officer is standing next to your assailant pleading for them to stop like you would prefer for them to do with that crowd. I would love to see how your perspective is then.

No, no it doesn't.

Speaking of perspective... this is a ridiculous analogy.

I'm not entirely convinced by the "this is the most humane way to remove these handleless people" I agree it is going to result in less injuries and at worst is a relatively minor excess.

What concerns me more is the militaristic mindset applied to problems of social disorder. Black and white, do unto them before they do unto us approach is not always what is called for.

You know what, I don't even know why I care (probably my allergy to hypocrisy), I don't live over there and I never actually seriously considered living over there either.
Keep deluding yourselves that you're living in a free country with a non-abusive police and government if that's what it takes for you to not hate living there.

Will do Sickone, will do. I <3 the Police

You are aware that you can love "the Police" as a whole and honestly believe they do good overall, but still condemn some of the particular actions of some of its members, aren't you ?

I have read all of this and just boggles my mind some of the analogies in play here.

I was trained in the military and had some training in riot responses. This was uncalled for. If there was an immediate cause for concern then the police officer wouldn't have walked around so slowly and deliberately showed the can of spray. If he was in danger or worried for the safety of himself and his team he would have used the spray quickly to control the situation.

As you keep saying using the spray showed the crowd that they meant business that is just crazy in of itself. If anything the crowd got more incensed and upset after the spraying which would have caused more panic than anything else.

My training showed to use spray, rubber bullets and other means as a last resort. Not a first resort as to something that might happen. If the training has changed so much I'm very glad I'm not in the field any more. This was blatant over use of power. They could have easily tried to arrest one person with their fellow officers standing by and then if there was resist gone to further measures.

You are comparing riots of other things to this. Yes they weren't compliant but that doesn't require pepper spray or other uses to stop it. A riot that has already started or mobs of people pushing their way forward, yes I can see quick response. This was nothing like that and not even close to coming to that. Yes you can say, "it could have happened" but a person "could have pulled a gun and changed the whole situation". That doesn't mean you react to a possible outcome before any proof that that situation will present itself.

Now if a response to my post is that I just don't understand I will answer that before it happens. I do understand. As I stated I have had previous training in riot situations and know how things are supposed to happen and what to watch for and how to protect my fellow military personnel. So I do have an idea of what happened there and again i disagree with what they did and how they did it. I am sure in the end a few people will be fired, or at least re-trained and disciplined for their actions because it was over the line.


As a response to the person that posted that one person pulled their arm back and another curled into a ball. That response was after they were sprayed and probably couldn't see who was grabbing them or what was happening because the police officer sprayed and caused the crowd to get much louder and people screaming and not being able to see. Its amazing how a person would say that is resisting when after being sprayed at close range in the face with pepper spray would cause anyone to curl into a ball or pull their arm back after being grabbed because they can't see anything at that point and are very disorientated.

Long post. I hope it is read and not just replied to without actually taking the time to read through it.

Yes, I am aware of this; but *no* website or video I have watched has given me enough information to make an assessment that this act was worth condemning. It might be, I even said that in like the 10th post of this thread. There's cops that make bad decisions. There's also people that do nothing and sit in front of wall street all day who are 30+ while me, a 20 year old, is working 40+ hours a week making a living...

@Loch:

I got a little excited. You can tell, as the typos increase :)


Your DJ put it a lot more succinctly than I.

Just as ridiculous as the comment that spurned it.



Alright you would think humane is having to hurt one of these people and possibly getting the crowd out there with them for support involved. Sorry bro but I would rather spray them, less people get hurt and they deal with a burning face for an hour or so and whoever touches them get contaminated and deals with the burn too.(the arresting officers of course)


It could have been much much much worse I fail to see how this was such a thing to clamor over in the first place.


Sometimes this is what it takes unfortunately. I'm not saying it is the best thing just that sometimes it is the only thing.



Say this when others lives may depend on that decision.




Hypocrisy is saying let everyone do whatever they want.....except what I personally think is wrong. Which is basically what you are saying.



Yeah and because of the Crime rate, which by the way is the highest in the world, would dictate we be even more lenient? yeah ok sure.


As with any group there are some who are there and shouldn't be or they make a mistake. It happens we are human too in case you have forgotten.



Not really, breaking a few arms or beating the protestor and crowd with batons would have been uncalled for. They we pepper sprayed after multiple times of being told to vacate by the University(both verbally and in written form) AND the Officers and they still refused. they got what was coming.


Crowd control tactic bro it's as common as military personnel brandishing M-16s at guard shacks.


They also had a camera crew in their face bro I would have conferred too. I admit though they did confer for a bit too long but I have said this before.



To hell it is not, you give and ultimatum and if they do not comply you carry out the consequence give. Basis guard duty 101 Sign and Co-Sign. Halt who goes there? what is the Password. If you do not answer I will have to fire! Sound familiar?



Some responses are not always what you would like them to be that is the razors edge unfortunately.


When Letters of guidelines are hand delivered, request to vacate, and verbal commands are not enough then what? They used the next lowest tier of the use of force continuum bro.


No it was not, there are 5 levels of use of force. Inside those 5 levels two of them are multi-tiered. they used the least amount of force the could without causing serious harm. It was a temporary burning of the affected areas the world is coming to a freaking end.


Dude seriously any number of things could have gone wrong. They sprayed people wow so horrible when honestly they could have forcibly yanked every single one of them to the ground and cuffed them. What they did was not that freaking bad for crying out loud.


It's the idea that no matter how peaceful a crowd is they can easily get violent in the blink of an eye. Take nothing for granted people will turn on you in a second.


Yes as a matter of a fact legally they are required to remove those people.


Of course


Point is that it could have plain and simple.



Sure but does it have to get to that point before you say oh it's time to act. there are procedures in place and they followed them.


Time in a situation involving lots of people is the enemy. you don't simply wait for something to happen and react to it, you take charge of the situation and set forth the rules and consequences for not following them.


To a point sure.


This was civilian so some of your training does not apply which is why i said to a point earlier.


You are more than welcome to your opinion.


Fired for following the guidelines they were told to follow or get fired bit of a catch 22 there I would say. Guidelines reset and possibly everyone getting retrained ok I could go for that as a part of continuing education this happens all of the time.


Kind of agree, if they were given verbal commands prior to them doing that then yes it is resisting. If they were not given verbal commands first then I have a problem with it and would fight it.


Still a back and forth


Still a back and forth, remember it affects some people to a higher or lower degree so in the thick of that mess it could be anyone's guess. Not to mention that they were sitting and were told that they would be sprayed and removed so they knew it was coming BEFORE they were disoriented.


However I still have to say ALL of them were resisting from the start when they were told multiple times to leave both in writing and verbally by peace officers so ALL of them that refused to comply from the start should be in jail.

C&P didnt go the way I wanted it to. here is the corrected version:



To hell it is not, you give and ultimatum and if they do not comply you carry out the consequences given. Basic guard duty 101 Sign and Co-Sign. Halt who goes there? What is the Password? If no password given or it is incorrect(a few days old)you make them stay where they are. If they advance stop or I will have to fire! Sound familiar?

Every situation has procedure and protocol they followed theirs. Now as far as agreeing or disagreeing with it over all you are welcome to your opinions but saying they are legally wrong is in itself wrong.

This doesn't seem to be about riot control, it's about removing people who won't leave on their own after being asked to do so.

The police had to know or would be stupid not to assume that this was being captured on video by someone. There were also probably hundreds of eye witnesses to the event. Would they be willing to risk their jobs and reputation by doing the wrong thing? To risk law suits to the department and to the city by abusing a couple of dozen people?

I'd bet these people were warned of what was going to happen and they sat there willing to let it happen. And, what's the point of a protest if you don't stand your ground? You have to know and be willing to accept consequences like this. If all you have to fear is some finger shaking and lectures by the police while you sit around trying to make a point, it makes what you are doing, the "protest" pretty ineffective. This is about all my 4 year old has to fear from me. That and maybe "no desert tonight, you're going to bed early". These people were not children.

On the other side, if the police make a threat and don't follow through they will loose any bit of control or sense of authority they might have had. They could try to drag them off, one by one. Moving 150 pounds of limp flesh is not easy or safe. How many people do you think they could drag away before they were too tired to fight off the one who decided to resist? I ate my daughter's Holloween candy in front of her, didn't give her any, gave her a bath and put her to bed. She will be nice to her little brother next time I tell her to, at least for a while. If I didn't follow through, what's the point of the threat?

Actions and consequences. We all know what we are getting into.

wow. with Z his post i could get a 10 for whatever i got..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-davis-police-chief-leave-pepper-spray.html

So.. I guess I might be more right than others seem to think. Chief put on administrative leave and 2 officers, one being the one that sprayed the most, on administrative leave also.

This was a overnight thing, not a days on end thing, and they went over the line. They weren't in fear of their lives and should have attempted to arrest first, then spray as needed. This spray first and arrest when compliant isn't the way it is supposed to be done. After doing some research into different police enforcement policies this is how they are supposed to do it. State for the person to comply, attempt to arrest if compliance isn't done, if arrest isn't peaceful then other measures are used as in spray or taze.

I haven't found one where the spray comes to make them compliant then arrest.

I'm glad some people are doing this the right way. I suspect in the end the police on administered paid leave will end up losing their jobs. I hate to say it, but they deserve it for how they acted.

Click here.

Hay it's not something to say you are right bro! I kno w the policy and guess what they did follow it. Under some circumstances you are right but for this no. Why you ask? Those protesters were INSIDE of a supportive crowd. Those officers were outnumbered at least ten to one. No matter now peaceful they may seem that is not good odds if the crap hits the fan. They were justified.

Now as far as the administrative leave? Absolutely hilarious this is common practice , any officer involved in an incident is under investigation and can be put on leave. If nothing else a ploy for those in higher position to place blame and keep the heat off of them because of the media.

Yeah this unfortunately happens all the time...

Actually the police estimates had it at around 50 protestors, 200 bystanders and 30+ cops (it's linked somewhere above).

Not quite 10 to 1 and I'd wager that sociological studies say not all those bystanders would get involved...

Well Zen, you can believe how you want.. That is your right. I also can believe how I want. I have multiple friends in the police force in different states around the county and the ones I talked to said the force wasn't warranted. I also think in time we will see a few of these people lose their job. Especially after more info comes out. I like the information that he used a spray gun that the distance recommended to fire at someone is 6 feet and can fire from upwards of 15 to 18 feet and yet he used the spray at a distance of lets say 3 feet or less. Some of the spray from under a foot.

More info coming out and yet it keeps looking worse toward the officers, or at least in my mind it is.

what i really want to know is what was the goal of calling in the university police force in the first place. if it is as the original linked article stated to remove the tents, there were at least some claims that the tents were gone when the force arrived. the escalation at that point was not within the main mandate in my opinion.

if they were called in to disperse the protesters as many in this thread seem to be assuming, then i would likely have a different opinion as well.

furthermore, do all universities have full riot gear for their campus police force?

what size university do you work for z and how much riot gear is on the campus?

Being too close I can agree with unless they were worried about spray dispersal into the crowd. To the actual use of force not a chance it was light those kids could have gotten beaten down with batons easily. Oh and you are not the only one with friends in law enforcement that lean towards my mind set on this so that point is moot to say the least. Btw the red canister is not the strongest and you need to remember it is pepperspray they could have used CN/CS Gas which is much worse. Just a tidbit of info for you to assimilate.

No they do not at least not the ones which are usually calm and problem free. A couple sets are usually standard issue for a department though.


College Prepatory IB World Private School which is owned by a Scholastic Umbrella Corporation. Not a university but works on the same principles but with more strict rules. I have 3 Sets of Riot Gear on hand as standard issue.

Administrative leave is all well and good, but I'm still of the mind that appropriate action would be firing them. Nonetheless, I'm fairly biased on the issue and I do think that this is at least a step in the right direction. Good links.

what is the student population at that school? do you have pepper spray in house? what age group are your students? how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

Zenai, to keep saying what they could have done doesn't mean anything. The did something. We are talking about what they did. They actually used the red canister with the orange label, which is 0.7% which is still high grade in as opposed to most police forces use a much smaller pepper spay unit at about 0.3% or less for crowd dispersal. So yes. I can spert off as much info and read and spew off more. This was over done. If it wasn't. There wouldn't be such a harsh reaction. Even on the news info about this a lot of people, including police people are saying the campus police here were wrong in their actions.

So you saying you know people that think like you and I know people that think like myself, yes that is moot. I am ending this with one last comment. It seems that more and more are saying the university police were wrong in their actions. This is from news, other police people, and most important, a lot of people. Since the police are supposed to protect the people and do the will of the people, I'm thinking that even if these police did what was correct in the books, then a lot of books might be changing. This isn't the type of behavior that people want or expect.

Oh and before you say it could have gotten worse. This isn't a riot on the streets or other place where things could get so out of hand. As was written on a link I read, this was college kids on a campus. A place where kids of that age learn how to protest and how to go about a peaceful protest in an environment that should be safe. This wasn't the lesson that was meant to be taught, which is why I think there is such a harsh reaction to it.

Oh and also. I have read every post you have written in this thread and some of it I understand, but looking at this instance some of your examples are moot and the reaction was overboard. Again, this is my opinion and I'm sure you disagree.

1;200


Yes


Pre-K - 12th Grade


3 as Mr. Owl stated.

all that i can say for certain is that if my daughter were a freshman there i would very seriously be considering pulling her out of classes and demanding my money back to get her into a different school. you send your kids to college hoping for certain things and worrying about many others, you really shouldn't have to be worried about the university police force and whether they will pepper spray your kid.

dudemus: I think you should not only consider doing so, I think you should transfer her to my college immediately.

For her safety.

you have less than 20 kids per grade level on average yet you have 3 sets of riot gear and pepper spray on campus? how many officers do you supervise there?

Let's put this into a massive perspective:

If those kids as you call them had done what they were told to do in the first place then none of this would have happened in the first place period.

Could the officers have taken it too far in my personal and professional opinion no in others opinion yes. Could rule books change as a result? Sure they change all of the time so why not, I re-up everytime something changes via continued education. Should those officers lose there jobs no at worst the should be disciplined and sent through training again which is procedure anyway. 9/10ths of this is media fall out and honestly is a load of crap but whatever. You get a few minutes and judge everything on that sure that's fair and right.

Z, do you also approve of the tactics police used on protestors during the civil rights movement?

Your math is off 1,200 students and growing as well as faculty, staff, boarders and visitors. It's standard issue and I am proud to say have yet to use them in 5 years.


On average 6, during events 10 or more depending. Note this is on campus I have officers at many other locations.

they took their tents down, the chancellor supposedly sent the police force in to accomplish that and it was already done when they got there. can you link something to the contrary?

LB this is not even in the same ballpark so I refuse to give you an answer other than to say I am offended in this attempt to correlate the two.

i would check your original punctuation before faulting my math. i wasn't sure what 1;200 meant! ; )

less than 100 students per grade level is still not enough to warrant that kind of gear, were the former students at the same school that river tam attended or something?

No, hypocrisy is doing something that you preach against. Or failing to do what you preach about. More generally, pretending to have principles which you do not uphold.

Saying "everybody can do everything they want as long as they don't directly harm another person, in which case, proportionate harm can be inflicted on them" is not hypocrisy. It's self-consistent.
DOING something that harms another person then being outraged when somebody applies harm to you WHILE pretending to believe that above, now THAT is hypocrisy.
Pretending to have the best interests of the students in mind, then doing something that harms the students more than it protects them, THAT is hypocrisy.



Just because some number which not necessarily appropriately describes the crime rate is high doesn't give you the right to apply certain radical measures to people who barely even begin to fit the description of "criminal".
It certainly gives you a flimsy EXCUSE to, but it certainly does not justify it.



So why are you defending those that made a mistake, pretending they didn't ?

It's standard issue and I have in 5 years never had to use it on campus. Student population is not all of what it is intended for. Most of the time it is intended for large turnouts of gatherings if it turns nasty. To be blunt I have had more problems from parents and visiting family than from the students. They are awesome and I'm glad to say I treat them like they are my own.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-president-appalled-at-uc-davis-pepper-spray-incident.html

Sickone: I do not agree with you and no matter how you attempt to twist my words I will STILL not agree with you.

In short this is for everyone my mind is set I have defended it even had back up from several sources. How much more can I say to get all of you to understand this is where my line is drawn?

Stop attempting to make me agree with you it's just not gonna happen.

How is this not? Civil rights protesters were ordered by police to cease, they occupied property they were asked to leave, sometimes private property, and they were subjected to dogs, hoses, and probably more I'm forgetting. Please tell me how you differentiate the two.

Also, you can be offended all you want. I had no intention of attacking you or starting an argument. It was an honest question to see where you stand, and that's all.

To quote the most relevant parts of that article...

" ﾓFree speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history,ﾔ Yudof said. ﾓIt is a value we must protect with vigilance. I implore students who wish to demonstrate to do so in a peaceful and lawful fashion. I expect campus authorities to honor that right.ﾔ "

" ﾓI spoke with students this weekend, and I feel their outrage,ﾔ Katehi said in a statement. ﾓI am deeply saddened that this happened on our campus, and as chancellor, I take full responsibility for the incident. However, I pledge to take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again.ﾔ "

You're not exactly completely agreeing with yourself either.
On one hand, you imply everything the police did during that incident was justified and you would have done the same and you totally support their decisions, but on the other hand you also admit that they might have made some mistakes since "they're just human".
So which one is it ? Did they act to the best of their abilities given the situation or did they make some mistakes in that particular instance ?
If they did the absolute best they could, how do you explain the administrative leaves, the public apologies and so on and so forth ?

Sickone: Let me be clear in this, there are a number of circumstances here that we just simply do not know. So for what I did see yes I agree with what they did. How they went about it remains to be seen whether I change my mind or not.

Point to be made: Not a single one of us knows everything that happened from a video that was a few minutes long. Hell let's say it was slightly windy spraying as close as they did could be justified as they you were targeting the protest group and not the crowd. Plus with a camera crew in their face I seriously doubt they would screw up or make a moronic decision.

By the way just to wrinkle you a bit when were you perfect according to someone else's view?(no need to answer it's rhetorical)

Sickone: It's called media fallout. Sometimes you have to say I'm sorry I was wrong even if you were not because it is in the best interest of the department. It's unfair and stupid but it is what it is. Sometimes you have to take one for the team so to speak that's just the way it goes.

Media fallout only comes for stuff that's supposedly "wrong". Emphasis on the "supposedly".

And I'm going to actually sideways-answer your "rhetoric question".
I do not pretend to be perfect, and usually own up to my mistakes as soon as I become aware of them.
It does not bother me that I do not fit anybody else's definition of perfection, nor do I claim to want to become the embodiment of that or any other perfection.

Or to put it another way, there's that fragment of a saying... "erring on the side of caution".
Those policemen didn't.

so when the president of the university system says he was appalled by the actions you think it is more likely that he secretly thinks they were called for but is just saying this because this whole thing blew up on youtube?

Public apologies and administrative leave, "I'm apalled by this" and other statements are all PR. When you are in the public eye like that, you do whatever you need to do so save your butt. Somewhere I recall reading that they called for the Chancellor's resignation. You better believe she wants to keep her job and will do what it takes to look good to the public.

This is in California, and at a public school. Students here are allowed to get away with anything, they are never wrong, just troubled. My friend was a substitute teacher at a high school. After taking role, a student got up to leave. He told the student if he leaves, he will be marked absent. The student threw a chair at him and told him to "bug" off. My friend lost his temper (bad on his part) and cursed at the kid, but that was it, said a bad word or two. He just dodged a chair and wasn't too happy about that. Guess who got reprimanded? It wasn't the student.

So, what of the students and their choice to disobey law enforcement? Is it so hard to stand up and walk away? The cops and the school weren't asking much. It's your right to not move? Maybe, but is it such a huge violation of your rights for someone to ask you to because you are being a nuisance. "Please leave", a simple request that is easily accommodated, we all do it several times a day. It's their fault they got sprayed. They could have easily done something to prevent it. Stand up and walk away. They made the decision not to. A conscious choice with consequences.

If you choose to disobey law enforcement, unpleasant things will happen to you. There is no hardship, no pain, no loss to anyone to get up and leave. It's not a lot to ask so just do it, or pay the price and don't complain, because you had your chance to go back to your dorm, get stoned, and watch Adult Swim, but you chose not to.

i fully understand pr. what i do not understand is that you think that the university pepper sprayed its own students friday and wasn't concerned about the pr that would cause but now is all of a sudden doing the pr thing.

Couldn't have said it better Fishead.

Sickone: Stop I said I do not agree with you deal with it.

Whenever there is any kind of use of force PR is gonna happen. I'm figuring they did not expect the situation to snowball like it did.

Dodging my question Z?

Lord Bob, you seem to have forgotten.



Your question is unimportant, what matters is that Z is right and he'd pepper spray his entire school if need be. It's not that Z is participating in this debate. His mind is set. He's only here to tell you why you're wrong.

Let's do some extremely simple math here with another one of my pointless recaps.....

Ultimatum = Peace Officer
Camera crew + excessive spraying = toe the line
Camera crew + peaceful sitters = life threatening
cop personal safety > public safety
cop personal safety < time on the job
crowd control > public safety
calm gathering of onlookers = worst case scenario
worst case scenario = every moment you spend around anyone
protesting students = murder machines that poop, rob, and rape in the streets
not doing what told - calm crowd = cuff'd
not doing what told + calm crowd = face'd
cuff'd = broken arm
zen = bro in the know
soxjr = not understand
titan = better than unrelated persons
pepper spray =/= painful
ends = means
land of the free = most crime ever
police threats = law always
being arrested < burning face
chief taking the blame = PR ploy
bear spray =/= hospital visit
CNCS Gas = worse and in use
blame kids > blame cops
60's student protester arrests =///= '12's student protester arrests

And then I stopped when Zen said he won't agree with sickone, because Zenai shouldn't be allowed around a school except to learn.

i do think it is within the realm of possibility that the president of the uc system is actually appalled by what went down. if you cannot see that then there really is no sense in debating the topic.

Gud/OB to hell with you. I do not have to agree with Sickone or anyone else for that matter. I gave my personal and professional opinion and have had to defend it as if I were on trial which honestly is bullcrap.

How about this for a rule:

If a police officer asks you to do something that is not obviously illegal you do it?

Or as in other threads, do we get to pick and choose what laws we wish to obey that day?

You don't have to agree with anyone, but for the love of pete...
Acknowledge the cops might be wrong on this one and without bashing the kids like you have a baton at your desk!

Captain Sit'n'Spin has returned. Drop that line, Ranger. It's disturbingly stupid as it was months ago.

Apparently you don't even have to agree with yourself :P

Just because you dislike what I have to type Gun, does not make it wrong. In fact, since you disagree, it most likely is the right thing.

I have no idea right now if the cops were correct or incorrect based on this and only this video.

But I do know that if the police tell me to leave an area, I do so as quickly as possible. My parents taught me to respect authority and not to poke the bear.

I guess for you, the end justifies the means. Just disregard what the police say in this instance since it is a noble cause.

PS: I do get a chuckle out of your nicknames for me. Captain Sit'n'Spin is a hoot. Seems you have too much time on your hands to think these up. *smile*

Gud/Sickone/OB you are not debating you are pseudo trolling in an attempt to try and discredit others to make yourself seem right.

To be fair.

In the beginning Sickone and OB did have very valid and lucid points on the subject.

Gun however, has contributed nothing constructive.

I guess it comes down to a few points:

1) Did the police used excessive force if seen in a vacuum? Based upon the video evidence alone, likely. But all the evidence has to be considered before you fry these police officers in the court of public opinion (which may be already too late).

2) Should the protestors have left when asked by the police? I resoundingly believe so, although I get the impression others in this thread do not.

3) Was the police response appropriate for the situation at hand? I have no freaking idea.

please keep it civil and respectful folks.

On the contrary, those were direct pastes where you yourself said you are absolutely firm on your stance and will not be swayed whatsoever. You're not here to debate; you are just here to tell other people they are wrong.

I argued with you on the topic until I realized that was the case, and then yes, I just trolled you because quite frankly it was not longer a discussion. It still isn't. It just has that facade to it.

Ranger the point of this isn't about if they followed the law, it is about how the law went about controlling the situation.

If the people didn't listen to a law request then by all means arrest them, but don't try to say that the pepper spray to the face in the means it was done was necessary or deserved. All they had to do was roll them over and put the twisty tie cuffs on them and haul them to jail, and then if something happened like a resist of some sort or something from the crowd then by all means deploy the spray or tazer or whatever else is needed to control the situation, but to pre-emptive strike the people is completely off base.

Oh and to say this is all pr is funny as all out. If their response was correct this response wouldn't be happening. I have seen and read about other instances of pepper spray and tazing and no pr response, because it was used when needed. This was over the line plain and simple.

I have asked a couple police officers I know. They have given different and various responses to this scenario.

However, more than 1 stated that the use of pepper spray to "soften up" the protestors to make it easier to remove them was within standard police guidelines.

The reason this has gotten excessive press was for a few reasons. They include that it occurred at one of the most liberal universities, occurred at a liberal activist function and they were students.

With all the rapes, theft, rioting occurring at the Occupy events, I am sure those who embrace the Occupy movement were looking for anything to get some positive and sympathetic press.

At least that is how I view this situation.

In fact, the chancellor of the university asked the police chief to remove the protestors. After they would not move, the police decided to use pepper spray to lessen the chance for an altercation and physical injury to the police who were just trying to do their job. In the middle of what appeared to me as a hostile situation that could possibly have progressed to bedlam.

Again with comments like, could have, maybe, response shouldn't be based on what could happen, but maybe what does happen. Soften them up?? How terrible. If that is how our police take things, then something should be changed. No wonder a lot of people, and even law abiding people dislike police and their tactics. You can't treat everyone like a rapist and hooligan just because a few are.

I mean I personally would love to get shot in the face with a propellant meant to be shot from 6 feet or more distance as close as a foot from my face.. Sounds like a blast. I personally would have moved. So I'm not disagreeing that action should have been taken, but this action is wrong. If morally you don't think that is correct then I hope maybe you are never in a situation like this.

I am also wondering like someone said earlier. Everything I read said the chancellor was asking for the tents to be removed. I read nothing about people. The tents were gone so therefor the job was done. Seems to me some people went a bit further than was asked.

Debate is not necessarily if I talk enough the other guy will change his mind. It really about people coming together to discuss a point. No where in any rule of debate does it say one side or the other must concede.


And not a damned thing will come about from you doing so. OB the CB golden child does nothing wrong.


I can discuss why I think your side has no grounds while not wavering on mine. It's sad to think that this must happen just because you think it must be. I have a right to my opinion both personal and professional just like you do. I respect your side while completely not agreeing to it, why is it so hard for you to do the same?

where do you get that info from, i have read that they were called in to remove the tents and that the tents were already gone.

i LOL'd really hard just there.

take it to private messages ob and zen please.

What do you expect OB you were trolling me as soon as you got a chance and what you expect a cookie because you can quote. Pffft whatever you are right this stopped being a debate when you and Gud started trolling and then Sickone decided to join the party and as it seems now so is Soxjr. Ranger attempted to come in and be a voice of reason and oops that was a mistake as Gud decided to pop up with some choice trolling.

Sad to see that no one but the majority has a right to an opinion way to goo CB and Admin Police.

Ranger : I withdraw my bid on everything of yours if this id what is left of CB I want no part of it.

PS: To all of you who Trolled I do hope Karma beats you into submission.

just WOW.

Seriously Zenai? I have been very pleasant and haven't said anything rude towards anyone. I have stated my opinion and quoted some fact that I felt helped my opinions. If you are getting upset enough at others that you mistake my comments as trolling then you might need to step back and relax and re-read some comments.

I have never and will never troll in any thread I post in. Look at my thread response history. I keep everything civil and try to stay as calm as possible even when I don't agree with what others say.

Enjoy your leaving on an over-reaction on another thread on cb forums because people haven't taken your comments and just accepted them as fact. This has happened before. Yes these last comments are a bit rude, but I feel they are appropriate since you grouped me in with the other rude comment people.

I seriously can't believe I read that correctly. Even with my disputed comments with ranger he has commented on my comments with courtesy because I have given him the same courtesy and respect even when I didn't agree with his comments. This is shocking.

Have not read that one in a while :)

But.. but all I did was ask a question. *sad face*

You're getting a very different picture from what I've been getting listening to my cousin who's been with a couple different occupy movements over the past couple months has been telling me.

If you read conservative news, the OWS people are just a bunch of homeless criminals looking to destroy capitalism.

Seriously, at my work we get the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times every day, and I read them. Then I go read some articles from other news sources and I find that the conservative news outlets always have a special spin on them that the other ones don't. That spin seems to be "OWS is ruffians!", "drug dealers", "murderers!", "rapists!", etc.

The fact is, these OWS people have been basically living in the downtown area for a while, and it's no surprise some crime has happened there. Big cities have crime, they all have crime, it is INEVITABLE. The thing that's dishonest is that the conservative newspapers have taken those stories and ran with them, looking to paint all the protesters as criminals. I don't really need Ranger or any other "conservative" viewpoint to validate that this is happening. I have validated it myself by reading both the conservative and liberal news articles.

My only question is, why are conservatives not more supportive of these people and their cause? Both liberals and conservatives got screwed by all the bail outs and failed bank regulations.

It's the same mindset that thinks people on welfare are lazy good for nothing scroungers and using legal tax avoidance loopholes (effectively getting free money from the government) are not.

Here's a good piece, yes left leaning, but an accurate representation of the sort of thing that is driving the Occupy Movement. Perhaps noticeably in the UK the church is not so aligned with the Right, unlike a lot of the US. We already have high up Christian figures coming out in support of the Occupy movement, some resigned rather than sanction violence against protestors occuping the grounds outside of St Pauls Cathedral in London.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/21/the-corporate-welfare-state/

There are a lot of conservatives who agree with the basic principles of the Occupy movement.

However, when such a movement takes over a public park for 2 months and refuses to leave that is a problem. When they riot as in Oakland that is a problem. When they feel the need to have rape free zones, that is a problem. When they crap on police cars that is a problem. When they block traffic that is a problem. When they do damage to local businesses I have a big problem. When they keep drumming at all hours keeping the local residents up at night, yes, I have a problem.

propaganda is very effective, which is why it is still used.

The truth is just as effective.

the truth is that those are individuals, not the movement. yet you described them in the paragraph above as actions of the movement.

do you think that the bombings of abortion clinics and the murdering of abortion doctors were actions of the pro life movement or of individuals?

The failure to leave the parks, the drumming at all hours, the damage to local businesses, the riot in Oakland were not done by individuals. It is done by the movement itself. The need to set up "rape free" tents shows an innate problem with the congregation of the people.

The blocking of traffic was not done by individuals but was condoned and administrated by the movement itself.


These are acts of individuals not in a group or mob setting unlike what is happening at the Occupy sites. I would have thought the differences were obvious.

so these things are going on at every occupy gathering in every city then?

No, but they are not isolated events. They are happening at more than 1 event.

@dude:

Not directed at me, but in a word, "Yes"


Different people are concerned about different things. e.g., the president didn't spray them.


My cynical self would wager that the president is secretly wishing that the students rioted, so they could have used more force and done so with more justification.

I don't put a lot of faith in my fellow man :(

It's also probably a manifestation of how I would have approached this kind of thing, swayed heavily by what I experienced locally.

I would imagine that that last paragraph applies to most people :)

So... if OB pitches a tent that doesn't have a "rape free" sign outside.... does that make what he does inside it ok?

:)

Heh heh. You said...

Oh great. Give OB more shirt ideas.
A horrific thought which can't be true. Principle of an elementary school perhaps. Not college nuh-uh.

Someone c&p chat before I was killed and mail it to me.

i read a study in psychology that basically says we use different criteria in regards to things that disagree with our viewpoint and those that mesh with it. when i read that i thought, surely we aren't that transparent. it was at this time that i really started questioning my own thought processes and watched for this happening.

watching these "debates" on cb really shows how this is in fact true. we all watch the same video or are faced with the same facts regarding what happened yet we draw vastly different conclusions based on our experiences or mindsets.

some of us may change our minds as more data comes in while others will find some way to continue justifying their first impressions. after this exchange, all i can hope is that i can be one of the former and not the latter and i will work towards that!

On first viewing of the video I was shocked. But then I wanted to wait till all the information was available before making judgement on whether the police acted appropriately.

I feel saddened that some in CB rushed to judgement solely based upon this video without waiting for all the information to come out.

Again, Duke Lacrosse anyone?

What I choose to do with the tent I pitch is perfectly legal as far as I know.


I noticed the same thing and was discussing it with one of my professors. He linked me to two articles as a way to understand why people characterize OWS in those terms:

http://icelandquest.com/downloads/sppc07.pdf
http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/Literature/TS%20KesslerMummendey/Nick%20Haslam%20on%20dehumanization.pdf

Well not *everything* you can do in that tent is legal; but I know what you mean ;P

er.. Titan.. he didn't say "in"...

Ahhh lol, my reading skills = fail

I was just thinking of all the bad things OB could do *in* a tent...

If I were to "rush to judgment" on this (not saying what my judgment is), I could base it on a very simple fact (assuming the video isn't doctored):

The punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. That's un-Constitutional, among other things.

Doesn't matter if the kids were fully in the wrong sitting there. You don't pepper spray someone who is not attacking you, anyone else, or himself. That's excessive, unnecessary force, especially when they were going to pick the kids up and haul them off anyway.

So no, I don't know the whole story, and I'm not sure anyone will ever know the full "T"ruth of this, but unless the video is fake, a man used excessive force on people who were just sitting there. Nothing else matters. That action was wrong, and I have no idea what Duke Lacrosse has to do with it. Allegations of sexual abuse are quite different than a video I can see with my own eyes. If you saw a video of a man forcing a woman to have sex with him, and she clearly was resisting, would you say you needed to wait and see before declaring the act itself as wrong? Would you intervene if you were on the scene and saw such a thing?

It would offend me but in this day and age that could very well be entertainment so I had better find out first BEFORE I act. If I act first I could be sued until I have nothing left.


Well honestly I have run into sex in public situations and one almost seemed like it was unwanted. I had to break it up anyway but that is not the point. As it turned out the woman was more than willing and she apparently liked it rough and had asked for it to be that way.


Things are not always what they seem, good rule of thumb is to not judge it right away.

In this situation I sided with the officers and got booed for it even when I gave both personal and professional opinions based in fact of law as well as policy/procedure and protocol(which differs from state to state and Military to Civilian by the way). However that did not matter as opinions of others overrode that right away. *shugs*

Neither here nor there though it is what it is the majority of CB believes one way and if you believe differently you are immediately wrong. Stand firm in your stance and you are wrong as well so no matter what you are wrong.

Doesn't matter though I guess as if what CB says has any bearing whatsoever in RL.

I'm fairly certain that someone will run up with a But But but so I'll save you the breath so freaking what dude. This debate turned trollfest a long time ago and not one Admin said a damned thing until a full day later AFTER OB reposted something. Hell even when OB confessed to Trolling not a damned thing happened. Once again way to go Admin police awesome job there.


just saying................pfft as if that matters either. Meh

z, you also accused almost everyone that disagreed with you of trolling. that in itself should tell you why it is problematic to enforce any kind of trolling rule. ; )

I will respond one more time just to say one thing. After reading your long responses in chat-mail your idea of trolling is very odd if I do say so myself. You make it seem like anything not agreeing with you is a troll of some kind, so in that aspect it would be hard for someone to address trolling in the forum. Yes maybe the "one" person that admitted to it, but you claim just about anyone that disagreed with you was trolling so not sure how there could be a debate where the admins took care of every post opposed to you and just let you talk unabated. Just my opinion here and I guess I'm a troll for having it.

When people in general who are indeed trolling OB/Gun, sickone to an extent and Soxjr who started to albeit was shocked to have someone call him on it. I stated what I believed to be personally true and backed it up with personal experience and expertise and was bashed for it because I was not in the main stream. I was basically crucified for it, discredited and generally dismissed so should I be a bit frustrated and call people on what they are doing sure why freaking not.

Even when the one who admitted it on forums directly has not had a thread made about them as of yet. Not a public warning, fine or any type of disciplinary action whatsoever. Admins you know who trolled even if I say troll to every single person all you have to do is read and you will see it. Like I said meh doesn't matter anyway, doesn't matter at all.

Z, I will admit I didn't read all the posts on this thread. There are a lot.

I was trying to state, specifically, that there do exist acts that, when you see them, you can see a disjoint in action/reaction. Yes, it is still important to try to get all the facts and context of the situation to figure out what happened, but the action itself (in this case pepper-spraying) is difficult not to judge immediately.

The "limit" test can be helpful here, at least to me. How terrible would the punishment have to be before one would view it as a wrongdoing on the part of the policeman? Beating? Stabbing? Shooting people in the head? Would you need more context to judge the act as reprehensible had the man taken out a pistol and started firing?

So, that's why it boils down to "does the action fit the scene?" for me. The scene was not a war zone, the scene was non-violent, and the people being pepper-sprayed were not physically hurting themselves or others.

Maybe pepper spray isn't that bad, I've never been sprayed. But judging by the immediate reaction of some of those sprayed, I think it is safe to say it is unpleasant. Was that level of displeasure warranted? Was it "cruel and unusual" given the situation?

Regardless of university policy or the police rules, my eyes tell me that it was, and the video does not appear to be altered, fabricated, or shot from an angle meant to obfuscate what was going on.

Your opinion might differ from mine, and that's OK.

Finally someone get's it. No where in debates does it mean I have to agree with you because you want me too. You should not have to resort to discrediting, dismissing, job bashing or trolling in an attempt to FORCE someone to believe as you do. Thanks Sut your post was very well put!

i did read every post z, in my honest opinion you trolled every bit as much as you were trolled.

this is a debate thread, people will get emotional and into the conversation. the fact that admins move these threads into the debate forum should be sign that people are likely to disagree. if anyone cannot handle disagreement, i would caution them against posting in this particular forum.

Then ban all of the people who trolled. I would prefer not to be banned myself for counter trolling as it were but if that is what it takes to get the trolls to freaking stop then so be it.

i would guess that everyone thinks they are only counter-trolling.

why is banning a better option than expecting adults to act like adults, especially when asked by what passes for authority in these parts?

as a general rule, i truly believe that most of the time most of the people on cb are treated exactly as they deserve to be treated based on how they in turn treat others.

i don't see it as part of the admin duties to come in and rescue people who are most likely getting just what they give.

Well said Dude!

Because even the smartest of people do not know when to quit and need someone to tell them to stop and if they don't need to be reminded that posting in forums is a privilege not a right. If a person is unable to control them selves and a verbal warning is not enough then something more drastic needs to happen.


Ahh so in other words you prefer to let us sort it out how very Admin of you to basically say you don't want to deal with it at all.


It does not mean something should not happen to stop it before it gets bad. It's a cop out to say something like that and frankly one of the reasons I want nothing to do with CB anymore.

Technical problems I can deal with, no update on items or new items, I can deal with. the unchecked human factor on top of that crap I cannot.

What is the use of even having Chat Ops? The people get what they deserve right? Well then chat Ops have no reason for being remove them all from the system, same with Admins other than to code or assist in coding. No more warnings, /kicks or /kills no more nothing let us all run rampant and while I'm at it why don't you allow profanity and any number of other bullcrap to become a part of CB?

This. A few good humored f-bombs here and there would be far preferable to.. well, what we've seen in this thread, from one person specifically.

i do try to stop things before they get bad by reminding people to please act respectfully and civilly.

as we have seen with the topic of this thread, people have very different ideas of appropriate force. even if some were ok with us cracking down on all "unseemly" aspects of the forums, others would likely feel that cb was becoming too strict.

with our small numbers it can sometimes be a bit difficult to determine when you are doing too much or too little. that is where 8 years of experience come into play. in the past in cb there has been much more outcry from over-policing rather than under-policing.

Sigh this is the here and now but fair enough. Trolls get to do whatever.......nice. Truly I am done.


Please reset and ban my account. I have held on for far too long as it is. please do me and everyone else a favor and honor my request.

no one is banning anyone Zen, do yourself a favor and enjoy the game and ignore the people you can't seem to get along with...

You're welcome.

I've read a fair amount of the thread now, though, and I can't say I saw anyone forcing you to agree with them. I saw things get out of hand a bit, and saw two or three people ask about agreeing "maybe the police acted excessively" or even just, "I see your point, but..."

That didn't happen, ranging from straight up recalcitrance from some folks, glib retorts from others, and some predictable "respect authoriTAY!" pundits.

What disturbs me most are attitudes such as "if they had just done what they were told...", and that is where I think there ARE parallels to the Civil Rights movement. Sorry, Z, but you saying they are totally different comes off as a cop-out. If everyone did what Ranger and Mikel appear to be advocating -- just do as you're told -- how would folks like Ghandi or MLK ever gotten anything done? And the point about "if they weren't leaving then that is already resistance" makes no sense. Often the point of a protest IS TO GET ARRESTED. How are you supposed to get arrested if you immediately do what the authorities say?

If one person pulled back an arm and another curled into a ball, yes, those are signs of resistance specific to those individuals. Those people should be handled differently. That's why pepper spray comes in all sizes and has a variety of spray patterns. Use an isolated strike as needed. Otherwise you're on another slippery slope: what ratio of folks need to be resisting before one can use excessive measures on an entire crowd? Half? 10%? One out of 1000? There will ALWAYS be someone who resists more than others, so if any portion is enough to force excessive means, then yeah, I guess the police should immediately fire up the pepper spray cannons. Why wait? And why haven't these dang people just done as they're told?

Z, I am completely trying to see things from both sides when I say this: with great power comes great responsibility. The police have great power. They are imbued with authority, many law defaults side with them, they have protective gear, and they have weapons. Many of your points above make the police sound like scared, desperate yes-men who need to quell any resistance at the first sign of the tiniest hardship. That's damn frightening, in my opinion. No public security force should be running near-scared all the time, or else most every situation will be a powder-keg just waiting to blow. Poise is a requisite part of this level of strength, wouldn't you agree?

I wish I had more time to debate this with you all.

Sut, are these people protesting for their rights to exist and be treated equally as human beings? If not then don't bring Ghandi and MLK into this because they are not anywhere near the same level of human rights protesting as those two guys.

Yes they have the right to protest. And it's great that they are using their right. Where they are protesting is not legal for them to protest. That's the point you keep overlooking.

actually they were not supposed to be camping overnight there. the protest was legal and the president of the uc system even encourages it.

If he supports their cause then he would have let them stay.

he is the president of the uc system, they then have chancellors on each campus it appears. it was the chancellor of that campus that called her campus police force to clear the tents. from reading the first post it appears that the tents were gone when the force arrived.

that is one of my main questions, how it progressed from tent removal to pepper spray but even the most recent article i read about the chancellor apologizing to the students stated that she called in the force to get rid of the overnight encampment only, not to disperse the protesters.

simply reading the links above would give you all of this info! ; )

*clap clap clap* Sutekh, you have such a way with words. You are saying what I'm thinking. I wish I could simply bold what you said as a pointed critique of the "if they had only obeyed law enforcement, they wouldn't get sprayed" point. If I didn't know any better, I would say you were a professional. ;)

I think the point is that some people don't understand the role of civil disobedience. The police are there to maintain order, but when you want to stand up for an injustice, sometimes you must edge right up against the law. The point of civil disobedience is exactly that. Expressing your free speech in a civil and peaceful manner; and breaking the law to get attention to your cause.

Now actual security and military professionals have weighed in on this topic, and they have fair points. I would like to try and make another point. As a security person, or military for that matter, you are trained to use weapons and riot equipment to restore order. Is it possible that your training in the use of force gives you somewhat of a bias towards using force vs. not using it?

I know that if I needed to defend myself, I would probably use the most effective method to do so. Right now, that entails grabbing the closest thing to me and throwing it at my assailant. But if I had a gun, and knew how to use it, I would be more likely to use it, then if I didn't know how to use it, and did not have it.

Mikel, what does the reason behind the protest have to do with anything? (but yeah, equality is exactly what these folks are protesting about, and they are human beings...)

Are you saying if they had been protesting something else, something YOU consider epic and on the "same level", then you would agree they had more of a right to protest? That's some conditional tripe.

I'm not going to play the game of deciding the worth of the protest. I have EXPLICITLY stated this has nothing to do with that. This is putting a police action against the situation and seeing of the punishment is excessive for the scenario.

Civil rights folks were often breaking laws (as were followers of Ghandi). So their protests were also illegal. I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. And even from the angle of legality, fitting the punishment to the crime is STILL required by the Constitution. It is illegal in this country, Constitutionally, to apply a punishment out of proportion to the situation/crime. If someone trespasses on my lawn, they sit there, and I shoot them, did I have the right to do that because they were breaking the law? Of course not. Instead, the police would come, try to arrest the person, and IF THEY RESISTED, would use enough force to restrain the person.

Like I said, I am not understanding what legality has to do with this, because even a suspected criminal has the right to NOT have "any means necessary" used against them when they are just sitting there.

And you didn't address one of my main questions -- if these guys were simply supposed to immediately "do as they're told", how could anyone EVER protest to the verge of making a point? How could anyone ever get peaceably arrested to make their civilly disobedient stance? How would civil disobedience work in your world? Every movement in history would have simply been disbanded by sending out a policeman and having him/her say, "go home." There would be no point to the right of free assembly whatsoever.

If that was their goal, I applaud the police for using pepper spray.

Ever try to lift a 200 lb person who is passively resisting? Good chance you will hurt your back. Now if that person is preoccupied with pepper spray, they will be easier to move and handcuff.

If you are prepared to protest and take it to the point of getting arrested, be prepared for the consequences of your actions. If the police used bullets to move the protesters, then yes, I would have a problem. However, pepper spray as it was used was perfectly within the guidelines of the police force.

Would it have been better for the police to try to lift these passive protesters and suffer back injuries and be on disability for life? Or rip their biceps tendon trying to lift them?

Sure, they have every right to protest. And every right not to listen to the police to make their point. However there are consequences to those actions. Just because you think it was excessive, does not mean it was not appropriate at the time. There are many police officers who believe what was done was correct.

I love it, so now it is a convenience thing.

Possible getting hurt is part of the job risk of being a policeman, is it now? A well known risk, yes? You are Mr. Choice -- if a cop doesn't want to try to have to arrest a passively protesting person by lifting them, they didn't have to become a cop, right? It's part of the job. Not to mention that there are ways to get someone up -- that's the "pressure points" mentioned. Those methods would probably also be unpleasant for the person being arrested, but it would be on an individual by individual basis -- exactly as it should be. You specifically resist, you specifically face the consequences of your actions (which is something else you generally support...individual choice leading to individual actions. So why not now?)

Not to mention, it has been said (at least via posts, like I said, we will never know the exact behavior of every single person at the protest) that one woman jerked an arm back and another guy went fetal. You have no idea what the majority of protesters would have done, and the police didn't even keep trying arrests on an individual basis. They resorted to full crowd tactics based on what seem to be the actions of a few. As I asked above, where is the line on that? As soon as one person in 100 resists, start peppering and tasering the whole crowd? If so, they you might as well start tasering right when you get there, because there is always going to be one more-extreme resistor. Always. So, then you're back to, "I guess these guys just should have done as they were told from the start! Oh well!"

Again Zenai, the problem exists in that you feel all the people that disagreed with you were trolls. So how is an admin supposed to take care of that. If they take your definition of troll to the fullest then you and who agrees with you might be the only people still in the forums. How would that be right? Just wondering.

One more point for you, Ranger, concerning this "lifting of people" defense...

If that is the case, that the police have a right to skip to excessive crowd-control means so that they don't have to hurt their backs picking people up, I suppose an 80-point person could later sue the department, arguing, "Hey, I'm not hard to pick up!" while the 350-point morbidly obese person would have to be OK with being immediately pepper-sprayed since no one could lift him without forcing him to use his own power?

I'm actually liking your argument -- the more I think about it the more it makes me laugh! "Sir, I'm going to pepper spray you now because it looks like you might resist -- and it appears you've eaten one too many candy bars."

That's good stuff!

I see that trying to actually debate you Sut is a futile thing. You resort to ridicule and hyperbole. Things you have always done and frequently have accused me of doing.

Good luck to you sir. Hope you actually come back and play CB rather than troll its forums.

Would everyone please stop using that word to label anyone who disagrees with them?

Let me be very clear.
I am the only one who has been trolling here, and I did it because I saw that regular debate got me nowhere and trolling frankly amuses me (on a psychological level, even, because I find it interesting to see what/how a person's buttons are pushed - but now I'm going off-topic.)

So if someone argues a different point than what you are arguing
And they say something that is in disagreement
Or even if they think the point you are making is a bad one
...that's not trolling.

So now Sut is a troll for not agreeing with the opposition. Lovely!

By the way Sut, your posts here have been brilliant.

i do appreciate all of those who are throwing the word troll around so freely, it only helps to further illustrate my point regarding the difficulties of policing such a thing! ; )

*gives Dudemus a cookie*

Just give the admins some pepper spray.

Ranger,

Weird that you still don't actually know what "troll" means, but at least you didn't tell any lies about me this go-round... I probably can't expect much more than that!

Thanks, LB. As I think I have said on other threads, if I don't write at least semi-clearly, I lose myself first and foremost. So, I don't know about "brilliant", I'm just trying to keep my own head on straight. *smile*

The mainstream is taking pot shots from the moral high ground this time, Zen. Get off the cross. I humbly request a de-op of Zen before he trolls again. Not a reset mind you. =/

Oh Gun Gun Gun, I asked for a Reset and Site Ban. I really meant it since I have had it with this place. True there are a few I like but if people(stretching the term of course) like you are left in charge to hell with this place.

You think that's helping, Gud? (sorry, I am not sure who you are...Gun?)

Z has stayed off the thread now a awhile as others catch up (sometimes catching him in their wake). Not because he's not around -- he is. I've been PMing with him. So, at this point, is asking for blood a good choice? No one got hurt here, things just got heated.

I don't think any actual "actions" need to be taken. Everyone gave as good as they got (yes, I have by now, read this thoroughly exhausting thread). And no, no one got anywhere. Would I have liked to have seen more common ground reached? Yeah, because I'm naive (that's never gonna happen with certain mindsets in play here).

All just my opinion -- I've no sway here... Someone should probably go ahead and remove the QB from my name, there's no reason I should still have that.

once a qb, always a qb in my mind!

i will take some action, please remember to be respectful and civil. thanks! ; )

the chancellor clarifies that the university force was tasked only with removing the tents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uc-davis-officer-in-pepper-spraying-incident-was-previously-honored-for-service/2011/11/22/gIQABhvqlN_story.html?tid=pm_pop

there are multiple pages to that and i could only read through the second. if anyone else can get the last page, please c&p it!

Mikel, what does the reason behind the protest have to do with anything? (but yeah, equality is exactly what these folks are protesting about, and they are human beings...)

No they are not. They are not being put down because of color. They are complaining about having to pay back their student loans. I got a loan, I paid it back. Just cause the economy isn't the best right now doesn't mean that they can't use forbearance.



Are you saying if they had been protesting something else, something YOU consider epic and on the "same level", then you would agree they had more of a right to protest? That's some conditional tripe.

Yes, racism is a very touchy subject. People were killed because of it, I don't see any collectors killing people that won't pay back their student loans.



I'm not going to play the game of deciding the worth of the protest. I have EXPLICITLY stated this has nothing to do with that. This is putting a police action against the situation and seeing of the punishment is excessive for the scenario.

Civil rights folks were often breaking laws (as were followers of Ghandi). So their protests were also illegal. I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. And even from the angle of legality, fitting the punishment to the crime is STILL required by the Constitution. It is illegal in this country, Constitutionally, to apply a punishment out of proportion to the situation/crime. If someone trespasses on my lawn, they sit there, and I shoot them, did I have the right to do that because they were breaking the law? Of course not. Instead, the police would come, try to arrest the person, and IF THEY RESISTED, would use enough force to restrain the person.

Like I said, I am not understanding what legality has to do with this, because even a suspected criminal has the right to NOT have "any means necessary" used against them when they are just sitting there.

And you didn't address one of my main questions -- if these guys were simply supposed to immediately "do as they're told", how could anyone EVER protest to the verge of making a point? How could anyone ever get peaceably arrested to make their civilly disobedient stance? How would civil disobedience work in your world? Every movement in history would have simply been disbanded by sending out a policeman and having him/her say, "go home." There would be no point to the right of free assembly whatsoever.

Again, there is nothing wrong with protesting, just don't break the laws. In this case they were camping out. The chancellor wanted them out. Now from what I hear they are right back in there with their tents again. So what's going to happen now because the next time it won't end as easily.

Have any of you ever been in a riot?
I'm just curious cause I think if you have been in one before then you will look at things differently.

if i were ever in a riot i would only hope that it would be a line of college students cowering on the ground that i could easily step over to grab my can of pepper spray and then step back over...

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize you had surmised the exact life experience of each and every student at this protest (perhaps ever OWS protester?) driving the reason behind their protestations. In that case, indeed -- pepper spray the lot!

No, they're not being put down because of color. Are you saying that because we've sorted all that racist nonsense out (hooray!) that there is nothing left to protest? Nothing left that would be "big enough" in your eyes to warrant some civil disobedience?

I suppose we can just write that whole free speech thing out of the founding document then. Nothing left to whine about. Nothing left to speechify. So why have freedom of assembly at all? Folks can just do everything straight-up law-abiding like, no need for a fuss. No need for a red can of nonsense.

No one should be aiming to misbehave, so when they do... Well. Let's give 'em what for, eh? No need to even talk it over. I know a Governor up here in Wisconsin (for now) who'd love to have you as an adviser!

What WOULD you protest for, Mikel, if'n you'd have lost it? Is your world and life _that_ in control, such that even understanding the need for civil disobedience is that far off your radar? How is it that I have paid off all my debts, worked hard at my job, have been fortunate and rich enough and white enough and male enough beyond what I could ever expect as a human...yet I see things so differently than you?

What are you compassionate about? I'd really like to understand. Hell, as polarized as things are in the US right now, I downright NEED to understand. I'm trying to claw for common ground like I've never done before! Otherwise the racing waters are going to tear me away from everything I ever thought was good and right.

I'm just confused. I have looked at a few instances in the past about protests. Usually most protests have some breaking of current laws or rules, which is why they are protesting. So how could this be accomplished if they just followed the rules??

Also, as stated by dudemus the chancellor has stated numerous times that the only thing told to the campus police was to get the tents down. Which was done. So basically the campus police had nothing else to do and overstepped their bounds. Just a couple things to ponder.

I have not been in a riot. Well, not a human riot. I've been dangerously pinned by bovine and run over by swine... Does that count? Funny, even then we never used pepper spray, though my father would once in a while end up in desperate need of utilizing a hammer. Even that was far too much for my sensibilities.

And we're talking about hogs.

So what does your question have to do with anything?

There was no riot, other than the one the policeman nearly started in the surrounding crowd, looking on in dismay, as he sprayed a bunch of apparent pacifists with pepper spray.

Am I missing something? Why would you ask that question? Even at its best moment, how could it possibly help with the discussion and trying to find common ground amongst those discussing?

I have been in a riot, one where mounted police charged the rioters down. And any scene of protest has the potential for escalation. But this scene does not show that level of tension and that act of spraying looked fairly relaxed. But it also looked like the sort of thing that was far more likely to cause escalation than any protesters action. Additionally looking at all the pictures from all sorts of different angles it's fairly clear those police were not blocked in.

So it is perfectly ok to break the law as long as it is for a good cause. Like protesting against evil banks and those evil successful 1%ers. Or illegal aliens in the US. Since protesting by your definition means having to break the law to get something done.

Your points are crystal clear. Thank you for explainIng.

I believe this thread has aptly shown that "trolling" is a word which has lost virtually all meaning.

I know this thread has proven something. When someone relives in something they will stand their ground and defend it vehemently.

Some believe the police were wrong and the kids were right.(The Majority here.)


Some believe the kids were wrong and the police were right.(The Minority here.)


While a few just don't give a damn either way.

What I do think people have lost site of here is that people have the right to believe how they choose whether you like it or not. Say what you will as no one, but Admins, can stop you just remember this: Debate is Debate and just because you put a point forward does not mean the opposing side MUST agree/change their mind.




I do believe this thread has outlived any usefulness other than to show just how divided CB really is and to what lengths certain people, myself and a few others, will go to prove a point or defend themselves. When debate turns into petty squabbling then it has outlived it's purpose.

I prefer the petty squabbling - makes for good reading :)
The rest of it - you use words that are too long.
The occupy people in the UK are all long haired drug takers.
Oh no - thats the police.

Ranger, come back to topic and quit polito-spinning. Law or not the spray was unnecessary. Zen, I and others here don't believe the kids were "right". I don't see what they have to do with the argument anymore as the cops embarrassed the department and no one lost sight of belief choice. Know the bad thing about some beliefs? They don't reside in reality.

Might as well troll with something stupid, yes? OK! Let's do a play. Imagine you just got misted with eye burning chemicals. Oh does it annoy. Problem is there is no water at hand and two men hooked your arms then carried you away to a police car. To sit with an ever burning right eye that you can't rub because you happened to be cuffed. You wait and wait, rubbing your face on the seats from time to time, as others are put into the car(s) with you. Is not until maybe 10 to 30 minutes later that we reach the police station and get a proper face scrub. Might not spend the night in jail. Was a microscopic "crime" which you'll remember the rest of your life after that torment.
Is not because of what you did at Target, but because daddy was scared(?) and had stuff to do, that he slapped your face before you could resist the arm grab spanking.

Gun, or whatever you call yourself today, you state that like it is a fact set in stone.

However, many a police officer state that the pepper spray was well within police guidelines.

Stop making statements that you know are not true as fact. That is one way people troll. You, sir, are a master of it.

I accept your challenge fellow master. ;)
No I didn't.
Link 'em. We've covered that they can, but doesn't mean they should. Much like spanking. We can find just as many cops saying what they did was wrong too. Also, I think you made up your earlier police friends for the sake of posting.

OK Gun,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/20/officers-in-university-pepper-spray-incident-placed-on-leave/

I have also spoke with other officers I know and depending on the situation, pepper spray can be used. They were not there and cannot say for sure if it was warranted. They all agreed that the video is very damaging.

They are just worried that this will become another Rodney King type of incident. I remember looking at the King footage aghast at what I just saw. But after the complete story was known, my opinion changed.

As I stated earlier, let us wait to render judgement on these police officers. In reality, even if they were with the guideline to use the pepper spray, their careers are almost certainly over. A very high price for pepper spraying a bunch of resisting students. Pepper spray is temporary. Job Loss is not.

Can't leave well enough alone and just will not agree to disagree. Figures it's just too much to ask I guess. Fine go for it all the more reason to back up why I want to be Site Banned. This place, forums in particular, is like a trainwreck you don't want to watch but can't help but look.


Seriously Admins Ban me, my decision is not spur of the moment. I have thought long and hard about it for quite a while and I know it to be the right choice.

personally i will never ban someone who has a pattern of quitting and returning at their request.

CB is like a drug and I need to be cut off. I should know better than to come back because I know people like OB and Gun are gonna be running amok unchecked. Which coincidentally is one of the main reasons I leave in the first place.

*runs amok*

Alright fine I have tried to be nice about it but since that is not working.





Now Site Ban me Admins or I will make CB a living hell both in Forums and chat whenever OB or Gun is there. Or the alternative you can let me get away with bloody murder as well and I can continue to do whatever because you worthless lot are a bunch of awesomes (admin edit).

By the way Happy Thanksgiving: I'm thankful to myself for finally saying what has been on my mind for a long time ;-)