• 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!

UC Davis pepper-spray officer awarded $38,000 [W:25]

There are instinces of fraud in just about everything. There is no evidence of fraud in this case however.

Should that be taken into account before we just start saying what is just, and what isn't?
 
Should that be taken into account before we just start saying what is just, and what isn't?

Evidence should always be taken into account.
 
Evidence should always be taken into account.

Thank you for that, I agree....Do you see any evidence that the police violated standard operating procedure (S.O.P.) in their actions that day?
 
Thank you for that, I agree....Do you see any evidence that the police violated standard operating procedure (S.O.P.) in their actions that day?

That is irrelevant to the workman's comp claim. As to your actual question, I have not read the investigations into the incident, so I am not qualified to comment concretely. I think the issue that the reports took with the situation was the decision to disperse the crowd, not in how it was done, but I am far from sure on that.
 
That is irrelevant to the workman's comp claim. As to your actual question, I have not read the investigations into the incident, so I am not qualified to comment concretely. I think the issue that the reports took with the situation was the decision to disperse the crowd, not in how it was done, but I am far from sure on that.

Ok, thanks for that answer. And who did these reports so I can look them up myself please?
 
Ok, thanks for that answer. And who did these reports so I can look them up myself please?

I think the university did one. If you remind me I can look later but about to head out the door.
 
Bonus! I am going to be late now so you better thank me: Reynoso Report

From reading the report seems like the panel concluded that not only the University, but that the police force was in the wrong for even trying to disperse the Occupy UC movement.

An editorial from a local news outlet sums it up this way.

"Nearly a year ago, UC Davis attracted international attention when videos portraying campus police officers pepper-spraying a row of seated protesters went viral on the Web. Recently released transcripts of interviews with campus administration, police and witnesses taken after the incident may provide new insight into its circumstances.

The Nov. 18 confrontation, the climax of a series of protests on the UC Davis campus linked to the larger Occupy movement, began as demonstrations against budget cuts and as a reaction to police using batons on protesters at UC Berkeley earlier that month.

A task force headed by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso investigated the events and released a report April 11 of this year condemning the administration and the police department for flaws in the decision-making process and what it characterizes as an unnecessary use of force.

Top campus administrators composing the UC Davis Leadership Team ordered campus police to remove tents set up by protesters partly because they were afraid people not affiliated with the university were infiltrating the movement on campus, the interviews suggest. In her interview, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi expressed concern about safety risks observed in wilder encampments like Occupy Oakland, particularly while the protesters might be violating a policy that prohibited camping on campus.

“If anything happens to any student while we’re in violation of policy, it’s a very tough thing to overcome,” Katehi said in her interview.

According to the Reynoso report, the administration was citing California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 100005 — a law that prohibits people not affiliated with the campus from camping on university property — as the legal basis for the police operation. Thus, the legal framework behind the operation depended on the presence of these nonaffiliates, whose number varied by the source estimating them."

Interview transcripts shed light on UC Davis pepper-spray incident - The Daily Californian

So, if I understand, the report sided with the popular political concerns in their conclusions, but totally discounted that the University had a responsibility under the law to not allow camping of the OWS UC movement on the grounds.

Tough choice, but in my estimation the University, and police made the right call.
 
That is a mis characterization of what took place that day. Tell me, how you would have seen that play out that day to your satisfaction?

Put the cuffs on them, stand them up, load them in the Paddy Wagon and take them to jail and charge them.
 
And if they started resisting? then what?

An exercise of judgment by a supervising officer. As I recall many of them were young women. Is it possible for 2 police officers to pick up 1 young woman? Perhaps after a few were carried to the wagon, others might be persuaded to walk, maybe even away from the scene, resolving the situation?
 
And if they started resisting? then what?

... then you take steps to overcome the resistance. Potentially including the use of pepper spray. (although personally I think if the objective is "move person," pepper spray is a poor choice because blind people are not inclined to walk anywhere, much less the direction you want them to)
Is this really a hard concept? Force comes after resistance, not before.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom