• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pepper spray: US campus police suspended

Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
It's good to know that you and j-mac support Rosa Parks being sprayed in the face by pepper spray. Great individuals you are.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we both said that all right...

Get a clue man, your off topic apples to oranges BS comparison is so ridiculous, we've done you a favor by ignoring it.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Grim17 said:
Temporary eye discomfort is a better alternative than broken bones and the possibility of permanant physical disability...
Click to expand...

Deaths can and have occurred from pepper spray. Why would handcuffing people cause broken bones? I see no evidence anyone was resisting other than locking arms and again as I have shown the appellate court has shown that pepper spray is not an appropriate way to break a crowd of non violent protesters up. Well, they did say that it would be evident to a reasonable person, which you clearly are not.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Grim17 said:
Oh yes, we both said that all right...

Get a clue man, your off topic apples to oranges BS comparison is so ridiculous, we've done you a favor by ignoring it.
Click to expand...

She was breaking the law and you said it is an appropriate response to someone breaking the law since otherwise they'd get broken bones. Am I missing something?

I'm sorry that you are on the wrong side of the issue - it's not hard to fix that though.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
It's good to know that you and j-mac support Rosa Parks being sprayed in the face by pepper spray. Great individuals you are.
Click to expand...

Please show where either of us has said such.


j-mac
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Grim17 said:
**** THE LAW...

Not an option.
Click to expand...

Law must respect the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

j-mac said:
Please show where either of us has said such.


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's easy to come to that conclusion through simple logical deduction - even easier for Grim than you:

Grim17 said:
**** THE LAW...

Not an option.
Click to expand...

Grim17 said:
I'm not asking for your opinion of the law they were violating, I'm asking you to please tell me in your opinion, exactly what the police should have done to enforce the law in this situation?
Click to expand...

According to Grim, though they were being nonviolent, the law had to be enforced. That applies to almost every civil rights protest ever.
 
Last edited:
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

j-mac said:
Please show where either of us has said such.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Please tell me, j-mac (you and I can usually communicate pretty well) how it's that different.

Rosa Parks violated a law she felt needed to be violated to prove a point. Back then, the vast majority of Americans disagreed with her cause. Violence was frequently used by police against Civil Rights protesters.

You may think the OWS protesters aren't making as valid a point as Rosa Parks did and that's perfectly fine.

But why is it okay to attack these protesters with violence because they defy law enforcement, but not Rosa Parks and others who defied law enforcement in the 1950 and 1960s Civil Rights Era?

The only argument I can see that you have is that you agreed with her and don't agree with these kids.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Ikari said:
Nice authoritarian argument there. Shouldn't there be....I don't know....actual PROOF they were a threat? Not speculation? They were not a threat no matter how much you want to spin it that way for government authority.
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER: Please note that this is not directed at J-Mac or moderate conservatives, rather it is a view of the extreme right.

And that is the deep hypocrisy I find in many who are on the far right today. They complain about big government, yet want the police to have the power to break up protests. They complain about the budget and the deficit, but are then calling for the US to invade Iran. In reality, these people do want big government, but only in terms of the security apparatus. They essentially want to live in an authoritarian state in the sense of the security apparatus, but then don't want to deal with the effects of that authoritarian state, namely the lack of personal freedom.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Mr. Invisible said:
DISCLAIMER: Please note that this is not directed at J-Mac or moderate conservatives, rather it is a view of the extreme right.

And that is the deep hypocrisy I find in many who are on the far right today. They complain about big government, yet want the police to have the power to break up protests. They complain about the budget and the deficit, but are then calling for the US to invade Iran. In reality, these people do want big government, but only in terms of the security apparatus. They essentially want to live in an authoritarian state in the sense of the security apparatus, but then don't want to deal with the effects of that authoritarian state, namely the lack of personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Stuff your "disclaimer" unless and until you can recognize that certain leftists aren't any different. :2razz: In another thread, I'm making the argument that we should have the right to buy whichever car is right for us, but some liberals only seem to believe in personal liberties only so long as you share the same values, otherwise, they're all about "the rule of law".

On the thread topic, anyone who wants to engage in civil disobedience and be some sort or hero for doing it, that's great, but part of that is knowing you bring the consequences of your disobedience on yourself. Crying about it later is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

CriticalThought said:
Handcuffed the sitting protesters and dragged them away.
Click to expand...
They have done that in New York and people still scream abuse. Its not so easy as just handcuffing them and dragging them away. the individuals were not compliant. So now you are saying you want them to FORCE them into cuffs...THEN drag them away. You want the police to have to physically engage...and THATS not going to be potentially more dangerous to both the police and the protester than simply getting sprayed with CS?
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

VanceMack said:
They have done that in New York and people still scream abuse. Its not so easy as just handcuffing them and dragging them away. the individuals were not compliant. So now you are saying you want them to FORCE them into cuffs...THEN drag them away. You want the police to have to physically engage...and THATS not going to be potentially more dangerous to both the police and the protester than simply getting sprayed with CS?
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore that I have already shown that an appellate court already ruled it is abuse. It's not up for debate, according to our court systems. In fact, it says that you would agree that it is abuse, unless you are unreasonable.

X Factor said:
Stuff your "disclaimer" unless and until you can recognize that certain leftists aren't any different. :2razz:
Click to expand...

You mean we call for government to be smaller in size, but then cheer when government abuse of citizens is on display? When did that happen? And again, for the abuse part, see the court case I posted multiple times which very clearly states it is an abuse of power to pepper spray peaceful protesters.
 
Last edited:
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
Because for some reason whenever there is policy brutality there is always someone who says "but we can't see what happened 20 minutes before!", when in reality, what is happening in that very moment is enough to indict. In no way is pepper spraying a group of protesters who are sitting down a legitimate police tactic.
Click to expand...
In your opinion...were the protesters violating the law? Do the protesters have the right to sit and protest anywhere regardless of the law, all in the name of civil disobedience? Im seeing you say that the police could have cuffed them and dragged them away...you believe the protesters would have gone nice and peaceful like?

Your opinion is that the use of tear gas is not an acceptable use of police tactics. I can post pics and videos from New York with the OWS groups where the police did precisely what p[eople here have suggested...cuffed them and dragged them off...and GUESS what the pro OWS folks screamed? Brutality baby.

I personally think everyone is being little bitches about the tear gas. Its simply not that bif of a deal and I GUARANTEE you that the effects for that crowd of protesters is pheysically less harmful than it would have been had they physically removed them.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

VanceMack said:
In your opinion...were the protesters violating the law? Do the protesters have the right to sit and protest anywhere regardless of the law, all in the name of civil disobedience? Im seeing you say that the police could have cuffed them and dragged them away...you believe the protesters would have gone nice and peaceful like?

Your opinion is that the use of tear gas is not an acceptable use of police tactics. I can post pics and videos from New York with the OWS groups where the police did precisely what p[eople here have suggested...cuffed them and dragged them off...and GUESS what the pro OWS folks screamed? Brutality baby.

I personally think everyone is being little bitches about the tear gas. Its simply not that bif of a deal and I GUARANTEE you that the effects for that crowd of protesters is pheysically less harmful than it would have been had they physically removed them.
Click to expand...

I think there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made here.

1) You are confusing reasonable people with liberal hacks (I do the opposite all of the time - it's not hard)
2) These are two different types of protests, there are far more people in NYC, and there may have been cause in NYC.

Here, I can only comment on what I know. Do I know anything about the crowd earlier? Nope. It could have been agitated, as some have said, but that is irrelevant since the police force did not mace the crowd. The police force maced a group of protesters who were sitting on the ground with their arms interlocked. According to previous court rulings, that is an abuse of power than any "reasonable" person would be able to recognize.

The police force just needs to do more training and might want to get ready for some lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
You mean we call for government to be smaller in size, but then cheer when government abuse of citizens is on display? When did that happen? And again, for the abuse part, see the court case I posted multiple times which very clearly states it is an abuse of power to pepper spray peaceful protesters.
Click to expand...

Let's be real here, the only reason you're so concerned about this at all is because you're sympathetic to the OWS message. Besides, I expanded on my post you replied too. Basically, some on the left are completely fine with the "persuasion of power" so long as they agree with what's being coerced.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

FilmFestGuy said:
Please tell me, j-mac (you and I can usually communicate pretty well) how it's that different.

Rosa Parks violated a law she felt needed to be violated to prove a point. Back then, the vast majority of Americans disagreed with her cause. Violence was frequently used by police against Civil Rights protesters.

You may think the OWS protesters aren't making as valid a point as Rosa Parks did and that's perfectly fine.

But why is it okay to attack these protesters with violence because they defy law enforcement, but not Rosa Parks and others who defied law enforcement in the 1950 and 1960s Civil Rights Era?

The only argument I can see that you have is that you agreed with her and don't agree with these kids.
Click to expand...


In the Parks case, she obviously mounted a civil disobedience act that when confronted she was arrested, removed from the bus, and cited, then let go peacefully. Now, you can make the case that after that, it sparked rioting, and police clashes with protesters in the events that followed that event, but for that event, if I am not mistaken, it was clearly not a threat to officers at the moment.

In fact as the story goes, it was the bus driver that moved the sign and told Parks to move or he'd have her arrested. When she refused to move for the driver, he called a cop, one cop, and she was arrested without incident.

Now that is far different than what happened in this case, and I am sorry if people don't know history well enough before making the analogy, and falsely accusing that I said she should have been pepper sprayed when I didn't but her act was not anything like this display.


j-mac
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
I think there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made here.

1) You are confusing reasonable people with liberal hacks (I do the opposite all of the time - it's not hard)
Click to expand...

Seriously, where? I don't care that people are partisan, but at least own it (I still remember your sig ;)).
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

X Factor said:
Stuff your "disclaimer" unless and until you can recognize that certain leftists aren't any different. :2razz: In another thread, I'm making the argument that we should have the right to buy whichever car is right for us, but some liberals only seem to believe in personal liberties only so long as you share the same values, otherwise, they're all about "the rule of law".

On the thread topic, anyone who wants to engage in civil disobedience and be some sort or hero for doing it, that's great, but part of that is knowing you bring the consequences of your disobedience on yourself. Crying about it later is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension fail.

I never said nor even remotely implied that certain leftists are not deep hypocrites.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

X Factor said:
Let's be real here, the only reason you're so concerned about this at all is because you're sympathetic to the OWS message. Besides, I expanded on my post you replied too. Basically, some on the left are completely fine with the "persuasion of power" so long as they agree with what's being coerced.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would not be okay with any peaceful protest ending this way. It's a health risk to everyone involved, as it could result in someone dying on the protest side, and it can often lead to riots. I'd say it is the reverse, that you only are unsympathetic because you do not agree with the OWS message.

What other situation would agree that it is ok to mace someone in the face when they are merely sitting down? Or, as the appellate court states:

HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT said:
Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also
clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of
pepper spray "may be reasonable as a general policy to bring
an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an
arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable
officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a
refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.
Click to expand...

Can't we all just be reasonable? ;)
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

X Factor said:
Seriously, where? I don't care that people are partisan, but at least own it (I still remember your sig ;)).
Click to expand...

I am well aware that I am partisan, but I do not consider myself to be a hack. And I did own it, as I clearly was saying that I confuse conservative hacks with normal conservatives all the time.
 
Last edited:
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

j-mac said:
Shouldn't we wait to see what the investigation of this incident turns out to be? I mean, the use of a snippet in time really doesn't show the picture.

j-mac
Click to expand...
If the protesters got physical while the police were removing them then it would it have been okay for the police to use pepper spray on them.
From what the video showed it looked like the protesters were just sitting refusing to move, not something that should be responded to with pepper spray. Two or two police could have picked each protester up and tossed them in the back of the paddy wagon.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

X Factor said:
Let's be real here, the only reason you're so concerned about this at all is because you're sympathetic to the OWS message. Besides, I expanded on my post you replied too. Basically, some on the left are completely fine with the "persuasion of power" so long as they agree with what's being coerced.
Click to expand...

At least for myself, that's utterly inaccurate. I support the rights of Fred Phelps and his in-bred family of idiots to protest as well despite the fact that it makes me want to commit acts of violence that I despise in others.

It's their right to be patently idiotic and offensive and I support their right to do it.

That's what America and the Constitution is about. If you believe your rights are being taken from you, then protest and civil disobedience are a part of it. Police should maintain order, but should refrain from force to do so except when absolutely 100% necessary for the protection from harm or death. Inconveniencing a few people (or even a few hundred people) is not an excuse for excessive force and it shouldn't be celebrated by anyone just because they don't like the protester's message.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
Why do you ignore that I have already shown that an appellate court already ruled it is abuse. It's not up for debate, according to our court systems. In fact, it says that you would agree that it is abuse, unless you are unreasonable.
You mean we call for government to be smaller in size, but then cheer when government abuse of citizens is on display? When did that happen? And again, for the abuse part, see the court case I posted multiple times which very clearly states it is an abuse of power to pepper spray peaceful protesters.
Click to expand...
I wont agree, simply because I dont believe it is. That says nothing aboiut what the ultimate decisions will be (and hey...ever watch Cops? People get 'abused' all the time) regarding the police actions...that is an opinion. Pepper spray is a bitch...for a little while. Then...leaves a nasty taste and smell for a while longer. As compared to the alternative, which is the police, forcibly breaking peoples locking grips to remove them. And if you dont think people would be bitching about the physical force...well...its OK...cuz we both know they would.
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

Mr. Invisible said:
Reading comprehension fail.

I never said nor even remotely implied that certain leftists are not deep hypocrites.
Click to expand...

If you choose to condemn only one side, that says something right there doesn't it?
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
I disagree. I would not be okay with any peaceful protest ending this way. It's a health risk to everyone involved, as it could result in someone dying on the protest side, and it can often lead to riots. I'd say it is the reverse, that you only are unsympathetic because you do not agree with the OWS message.

What other situation would agree that it is ok to mace someone in the face when they are merely sitting down? Or, as the appellate court states:

HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT


Can't we all just be reasonable? ;)
Click to expand...
In order for that to apply the protesters have to agree to surrender and allow themselves to be rendered helpless. I think you are mixing your apples with your bowling bowls and saying LOOK...A SPACE SHUTTLE!
 
Re: UC Berkley: Police use excessive force

whysoserious said:
I think there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made here.

1) You are confusing reasonable people with liberal hacks (I do the opposite all of the time - it's not hard)
2) These are two different types of protests, there are far more people in NYC, and there may have been cause in NYC.

Here, I can only comment on what I know. Do I know anything about the crowd earlier? Nope. It could have been agitated, as some have said, but that is irrelevant since the police force did not mace the crowd. The police force maced a group of protesters who were sitting on the ground with their arms interlocked. According to previous court rulings, that is an abuse of power than any "reasonable" person would be able to recognize.

The police force just needs to do more training and might want to get ready for some lawsuits.
Click to expand...
You DO believe the protesters should have been cuffed and dragged...forcibly...without the use of teargas, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom