• 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]

congratulations, you have mastered the art of communicating at the first grade level

Count the number of people in the thread seriously making those sorts of comparisons being complained about.
 
Count the number of people in the thread seriously making those sorts of comparisons being complained about.

there are at least 2. PeteEU and Micheal66. Maybe try following your own advice as opposed to having your general knee-jerk reaction to someone's "political lean"
 
I haven't heard anything about this cop being corrupt. Where did that come from?

A guy who sprays cuffed protestors? Maybe he didn't do that for money...but he is obviously not a clean cop.
 
A guy who sprays cuffed protestors? Maybe he didn't do that for money...but he is obviously not a clean cop.
His action may have been misguided, but it wasn't corrupt.
 
They weren't "cuffed"... That is just not true.

They were sitting down, complying with police instructions and exercising their constitutional rights.

He was the kind of cop that gives the profession a very bad image, an apparent sadist.
 
They were sitting down, complying with police instructions and exercising their constitutional rights.

He was the kind of cop that gives the profession a very bad image, an apparent sadist.

actually the courts have imposed reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights for a very long time, from the practice of religion to speech. Here you had individuals impeding the day to day activity of other citizens, hence why what they were doing was considered illegal. You can argue with that merits of it, but you cannot claim it isn't a standard that is generally applied.

PS and complying would have been disbursing and ceasing to impede the use of sidewalks. Something they were clearly not doing. So how about a little honesty. It would go along way in helping your position
 
those with strong civil unions .... Check out the CCPOA and think about them next time you blindly defend an organization simply on the basis that it's a union

I don't think I've ever blindly defended unions, I don't think I've ever strongly supported unions aside for acknowledging the 1st amendment right to unionize, I've posted topics and articles critical of unions for example I made a topic a while about the differences between car manufactures in Detroit who have unionized workers and those in the Southern US that typically don't. The point of the topic was to show the difference in wages and pensions, with some Detroit automakers actually paying more in pensions than actual wages. I freely acknowledge that pensions are a massive drain on state funds, especially in California and I can easily cite all sorts of articles that I've read to come to that opinion. And that's not "in spite of" my politics its because I don't let partisan politics blind me, so no I'm not prone to blindly defending unions or public sector employee wages.

So what the hell are you talking?
 
I don't think I've ever blindly defended unions, I don't think I've ever strongly supported unions aside for acknowledging the 1st amendment right to unionize, I've posted topics and articles critical of unions for example I made a topic a while about the differences between car manufactures in Detroit who have unionized workers and those in the Southern US that typically don't. The point of the topic was to show the difference in wages and pensions, with some Detroit automakers actually paying more in pensions than actual wages. I freely acknowledge that pensions are a massive drain on state funds, especially in California and I can easily cite all sorts of articles that I've read to come to that opinion.

I was more commenting on the idea that people think unions are good in general (so you was probably a bad choice of words), just like the opposing group that automatically assumes they are always bad. In the private sector they often serve a very real purpose, but in the public sphere the individuals represented seem more than able to exercise their interests through the power of the ballot and election process, with organizing only leading to abuse that is on par with the worst of what is generally associated with special interests
 
They were sitting down, complying with police instructions and exercising their constitutional rights.

He was the kind of cop that gives the profession a very bad image, an apparent sadist.

With all due respect Henry, I remember this very well...They were sitting because the cops told them to vacate, so they squatted to protest the order, and the cop warned them at each stage what would happen if they didn't disperse....They weren't cuffed, and they were NOT ordered to sit there.

Just so we are clear...

"On November 18, 2011, police arrived wearing riot gear at 3:30 pm and began removing tents and arresting demonstrators obstructing the removal of tents. A group of demonstrators staged a sit-in on the walkway in the quad, linking arms together and refusing to move.[42] Campus police officers asked the demonstrators to move several times, but the students refused.[43]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
 
Last edited:
With all due respect Henry, I remember this very well...They were sitting because the cops told them to vacate, so they squatted to protest the order, and the cop warned them at each stage what would happen if they didn't disperse....They weren't cuffed, and they were NOT ordered to sit there.

Just so we are clear...

"On November 18, 2011, police arrived wearing riot gear at 3:30 pm and began removing tents and arresting demonstrators obstructing the removal of tents. A group of demonstrators staged a sit-in on the walkway in the quad, linking arms together and refusing to move.[42] Campus police officers asked the demonstrators to move several times, but the students refused.[43]"

UC Davis pepper-spray incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is my understanding of the situation as well, but I didn't have links...
 
Well, karma had the guy's address apparently. Money is not going to help him sleep at night. The whole world knows who he is now and what he was guilty of doing.

Although I suppose we owe him some credit for bringing police tyranny to everyone's attention again.
 
Well, karma had the guy's address apparently. Money is not going to help him sleep at night. The whole world knows who he is now and what he was guilty of doing.

Although I suppose we owe him some credit for bringing police tyranny to everyone's attention again.
If this policeman was guilty of something, he would have been charged with something.

That he has not been indicates to me that he is guilty of no misconduct.

Now, it is possible that his superiors wanted to cover up some activity, but given the hype surrounding the incident, I would think that someone would have later overruled them if that were the case.

So I'm back to "he did not do anything wrong, legally".

Now, as to whether spraying protesters who were refusing to move was wrong, that's an entire other argument. Answering it necessarily requires delving into who told the police to remove the protesters, what rules they had to work under ("no lethal weapons" seems highly likely, among many others), why the protesters were there to begin with, etc., etc., and so forth.
 
If this policeman was guilty of something, he would have been charged with something.

Hiding behind the same unjust laws that allowed this policeman to disband a legal protest is the WHOLE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL DEBATE.

The law now requires people to get permits before they can stage protests. In many cities they have to congregate in designated "protest zones". The law is broken. The protesters did nothing wrong and the university already apologized for their incorrect decision to remove them.

Hide behind legalities all you like. You won't be defending the law when tyranny starts to affect you and the ones you love. Everyone knows what the police man did was wrong. He sprayed passive, non-violent resisters in the face in a procedure that is reserved for aggressors.

Everyone knows it was wrong. If you can't see the inhumanity then that's YOUR problem.
 
Hiding behind the same unjust laws that allowed this policeman to disband a legal protest is the WHOLE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL DEBATE.

The law now requires people to get permits before they can stage protests. In many cities they have to congregate in designated "protest zones". The law is broken. The protesters did nothing wrong and the university already apologized for their incorrect decision to remove them.

Hide behind legalities all you like. You won't be defending the law when tyranny starts to affect you and the ones you love. Everyone knows what the police man did was wrong. He sprayed passive, non-violent resisters in the face in a procedure that is reserved for aggressors.

Everyone knows it was wrong. If you can't see the inhumanity then that's YOUR problem.
I do not necessarily disagree with you.

But either way, it would still not be right to heap all the hate atop one police officer, when the true blame should be aimed at the law and those who passed it.

But humans are ever wont to blame the most visible individual.
 
I do not necessarily disagree with you.

But either way, it would still not be right to heap all the hate atop one police officer, when the true blame should be aimed at the law and those who passed it.

But humans are ever wont to blame the most visible individual.

I agree the cop is just a small cog in a greater wheel. We should blame the greater apparatus responsible for destroying civil rights in our country.

But the cop also has free will. He made his choice. The whole "just following orders" thing is no excuse.
 
I agree the cop is just a small cog in a greater wheel. We should blame the greater apparatus responsible for destroying civil rights in our country.

But the cop also has free will. He made his choice. The whole "just following orders" thing is no excuse.
Probably was more worried about getting fired, if he even considered not following orders.

Not that THAT is an excuse, either.

But neither does his action excuse the level of hate which he apparently was on the receiving end of, after the event. Which is why he DID get awarded this money.
 
I love how few people actually know what happened here. It's amazing how little truth actually makes it into political drama. People jumped at the chance to demonize this cop with the videos that were carefully edited to tell a lie.

Several students were rightfully arrested. When they were cuffed and being taken away, these other students created a wall with their own bodies to prevent the cops doing their jobs. They refused to move unless the cop let the prisoners go. Since they did not have the police power to arrest all these criminals, he had to settle for getting past them. They were detaining him and his prisoners, so he warned them several times, then used non-lethal force.

The cop over-used the pepper spray on the criminals, that is true. However, they were lucky enough to escape the justified jail time.

A 14 minute incident was recorded, edited down to 2 minutes of a couple cameras being held to carefully not show the full situation and posted online with deliberate attempt to completely misrepresent the situation. It worked big time! The cop was made out to be a big meanie who drenched these poor innocent children for sitting on the sidewalk.

That led to the cop having his life turned upside down and being relentlessly threatened. The criminals who got too much pepper spray instead of the lesser dose and jail time they deserved were paid tens of thousands of dollars and the cop got nearly nothing.

Somehow I'm having trouble taking all this outrage against him and the settlement seriously.
 
With all due respect Henry, I remember this very well...They were sitting because the cops told them to vacate, so they squatted to protest the order, and the cop warned them at each stage what would happen if they didn't disperse....They weren't cuffed, and they were NOT ordered to sit there.

Just so we are clear...

"On November 18, 2011, police arrived wearing riot gear at 3:30 pm and began removing tents and arresting demonstrators obstructing the removal of tents. A group of demonstrators staged a sit-in on the walkway in the quad, linking arms together and refusing to move.[42] Campus police officers asked the demonstrators to move several times, but the students refused.[43]"

UC Davis pepper-spray incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stand corrected, they were blocking sidewalks. If that was the crime they say it was, isn't arrest the proper remedy?

Why torture first?

Sadistic tendencies, that's why, the Lucifer Effect in play.
 
What does $28K actually do for someone that got pepper sprayed?

Was this a game show or something? A mini-lottery?

Pepper spray me, too, please.

It only gives them incentive to put themselves in that position again.
 
I stand corrected, they were blocking sidewalks. If that was the crime they say it was, isn't arrest the proper remedy?

As far as I am aware the protesters were arrested, and during the course of this, it is not uncommon for LE to attempt to defuse, and disperse the crowd through non lethal methods like this. IIRC, the chancellor of the University had allowed the protest to go on for a period of time, and then made the decision to have the police remove the demonstration from the quad. And gave ample opportunity for the people occupying that space to vacate on their own. They refused at every turn to follow lawful orders to dismantle, and disperse. That caused these events to take place.

Why torture first?

I don't believe it was "torture".... The demonstrators were in charge of what happened to them, and could have avoided this outcome repeatedly. Situations of "torture", victims have no control. That was not the case here.

Sadistic tendencies, that's why, the Lucifer Effect in play.

I quite disagree, unless you have some ability to get in the mind, and heart of the Lt. that used the non lethal force.

Just a question though, would you have rather had the police using batons, and billy clubs to disperse the crowd? Most certainly you would have been saying excessive force then as well, no?
 
It only gives them incentive to put themselves in that position again.

I did not realize people where unaware of how civil lawsuits work. Hint: punitive damages are considered a disincentive towards those who have to make the payment. By your rather silly argument the possibility of malpractice awards is an incentive to people to seek medical treatment in the hopes they can be improperly treated. In this case, with reviews finding that the police and school administration acted in less than ideal fashion, settling the lawsuit out of court was an easy decision by the university.
 
They were sitting down, complying with police instructions and exercising their constitutional rights.

He was the kind of cop that gives the profession a very bad image, an apparent sadist.

The police instructions where to disperse, so no, they where not complying.

There is no evidence of sadism, but of following his instructions and using the least force method of dispersing the crowd.

None of that excuses what Pike was put through afterwords.
 
I did not realize people where unaware of how civil lawsuits work. Hint: punitive damages are considered a disincentive towards those who have to make the payment. By your rather silly argument the possibility of malpractice awards is an incentive to people to seek medical treatment in the hopes they can be improperly treated. In this case, with reviews finding that the police and school administration acted in less than ideal fashion, settling the lawsuit out of court was an easy decision by the university.

It's just a symptom of our over litigious society.
 
It's just a symptom of our over litigious society.

I do not even see that. Lawsuits are how people seek redress for wrongs done to them that are not illegal. That is not a bad thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom