• 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 Students’ Eerie, Powerful Protest Against Pepper-Spray Chancellor

whysoserious said:
So she lied why asked about that for what reason?
Click to expand...
I don't know. People lie all the time. Ask her. Although an educated guess would be that it's unwise for a Chancellor to admit to being afraid of her students.

Why assume she is crying because she is scared of the protesters and not because she is upset with herself and the fact that her career is now on the ropes (rightfully or not)?
Click to expand...
Why assume that she's crying because she is upset with herself and the fact that her career is on the ropes and not because she's scared?
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't know. People lie all the time. Ask her. Although an educated guess would be that it's unwise for a Chancellor to admit to being afraid of her students.
Click to expand...

She didn't leave the building for two hours before because she was afraid of her students.

theplaydrive said:
Why assume that she's crying because she is upset with herself and the fact that her career is on the ropes and not because she's scared?
Click to expand...

Because she said she wasn't and we both agree that the crowd was about as non-threatening as it gets.
 
whysoserious said:
She didn't leave the building for two hours before because she was afraid of her students.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know and it looks pretty bad. It's even worse to admit it which is why I said, "Although an educated guess would be that it's unwise for a Chancellor to admit to being afraid of her students."

Because she said she wasn't and we both agree that the crowd was about as non-threatening as it gets.
Click to expand...
And her body language in addition to her previous behavior suggests otherwise.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, I know and it looks pretty bad. It's even worse to admit it which is why I said, "Although an educated guess would be that it's unwise for a Chancellor to admit to being afraid of her students."


And her body language in addition to her previous behavior suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :peace
 
whysoserious said:
For their life? Please show why you think this. Afraid for their reputation? I'd agree with that.
Click to expand...

PlayDrive said it best. Most animals can read body language. And I'm an animal, too. They were both afraid. Unless you're an anomoly, you can read it as well. And do as much every day.

Ikari said:
So? There was nothing wrong with their protest and if she looked scared then it was because of actions she had taken against the student body. But the students were well within their rights to do as they did. It was peaceful assembly and protest.
Click to expand...

No, it was not because of actions she had taken against the student body. Who do you think you are?? Who do they think they are?? She didn't pepper spray them. Didn't order them pepper sprayed. LEOs did it as their method of crowd control. These protesters are not in charge....as much as it seems others acquiesce to them, they're not.[

She was scared because they sought to intimidate her. And they succeeded. As to it being peaceful assembly and protest. I agree with you.
 
MaggieD said:
PlayDrive said it best. Most animals can read body language. And I'm an animal, too. They were both afraid. Unless you're an anomoly, you can read it as well. And do as much every day.
Click to expand...

Well, darn, doesn't it suck to be an "anomaly". I agree they look shaken, but that's not the claim. It's not that they are scared or upset, it's that they are scared of the protesters themselves! How anyone is able to pretend to know that fact, considering it was one of the most nonviolent protests ever captured on video and she said she wasn't scared of them, is beyond me.

But you are all entitled to your opinion and I'll just keep being an anomaly I suppose.
 
whysoserious said:
For their life? Please show why you think this. Afraid for their reputation? I'd agree with that.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
So? There was nothing wrong with their protest and if she looked scared then it was because of actions she had taken against the student body. But the students were well within their rights to do as they did. It was peaceful assembly and protest.
Click to expand...

whysoserious said:
Well, darn, doesn't it suck to be an "anomaly". I agree they look shaken, but that's not the claim. It's not that they are scared or upset, it's that they are scared of the protesters themselves! How anyone is able to pretend to know that fact, considering it was one of the most nonviolent protests ever captured on video and she said she wasn't scared of them, is beyond me.

But you are all entitled to your opinion and I'll just keep being an anomaly I suppose.
Click to expand...

Luvs u enyway. ;)
 
from what I understand , the crowd was loud and rowdy while she was inside... and went back to being loud and rowdy after she left.

the silent treatment was pretty cool though... kids generally aren't disciplined enough to shut up , so i'm half impressed.
 
MaggieD said:
No, it was not because of actions she had taken against the student body. Who do you think you are?? Who do they think they are?? She didn't pepper spray them. Didn't order them pepper sprayed. LEOs did it as their method of crowd control. These protesters are not in charge....as much as it seems others acquiesce to them, they're not.[

She was scared because they sought to intimidate her. And they succeeded. As to it being peaceful assembly and protest. I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Intimidation or not, they are free to do as they did. It was a good use of protest. She was the one that called in the cops, yes? The cops which acted in such a manner against the student body, yes? There is anger directed at her for her role and response, yes? That anger being a result of her actions, yes?
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm betting you don't carry enough ammunition to shoot 500 people Tig.
Click to expand...

Dragon, I don't believe it would require shooting more than one or two of them before the rest would run like scared sheep.
 
Ikari said:
Intimidation or not, they are free to do as they did. It was a good use of protest. She was the one that called in the cops, yes? The cops which acted in such a manner against the student body, yes? There is anger directed at her for her role and response, yes? That anger being a result of her actions, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are free to act as they did. Never said they weren't. As to her somehow being at fault? Nonsense. If there's blame to be placed, it lies in one of two places:

#1 -- At the feet of the police officer who used pepper spray. (If it's found that that action was over the top.) or...
#2 -- At the feet of the protesters who disobeyed police orders to disperse.

Protesters are not allowed to hold institutions hostage to their demands. Period.
 
Tigger said:
That would have been absolutely fine by me. I was taught from a very early age that you do exactly what a LEO tells you to do, when he tells you to do it, and IF you believe there is a problem, you deal with it AFTERWARDS via complaint, suit, etc... However, the moment you fail to comply with an even minimally reasonable demand by a LEO, you deserve whatever violent response that officer chooses to impart upon you; whether it's OC/Pepper spray, a taser, a club, or a gun.
Click to expand...

You need to speak to the Angry American about this one. Fact is, it is constitutionally permissible to defend yourself and others, EVEN against brutal police action.
 
Tigger said:
We gave up on allowing SOCIETY to limit how we are allowed to act, so the Government is really the only reasonable option left to control the citizenry and prevent a total decline into immorality. Unless you've got another group you think can do the job.
Click to expand...

Move to North Korea Tigger or go live somewhere in a brutal dictatorship and then report back to me on how "moral" is the society. If you don't change your Hitlerian principles, then please die.
 
Goshin said:
Given how displeased the mob was with her, and its size, anyone would be intimidated.... especially given that OWS has more than a little history of violent or criminal acts perpetrated by some members.

This is mob intimidation. Having several hundred people displeased with you enough to sit around for hours waiting for your appearance just so they can give you the silent treatment has to make you realize how easy it would be for that mob to tear you to pieces if they so chose.

Okay, so they didn't choose to be violent today, how lovely... that's no guarantor of her safety.

I know what fear body language looks like, and she was scared.
Click to expand...

Gun-toting Tea Party activists rally in Montana | Reuters

But Tea Partiers showing up at statehouses with guns ISN'T intimidation?
 
MaggieD said:
Yes, they are free to act as they did. Never said they weren't. As to her somehow being at fault? Nonsense. If there's blame to be placed, it lies in one of two places:

#1 -- At the feet of the police officer who used pepper spray. (If it's found that that action was over the top.) or...
#2 -- At the feet of the protesters who disobeyed police orders to disperse.

Protesters are not allowed to hold institutions hostage to their demands. Period.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Republicans elected to Congress who held this nation's credit rating hostage for their own purposes. Period.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Gun-toting Tea Party activists rally in Montana | Reuters

But Tea Partiers showing up at statehouses with guns ISN'T intimidation?
Click to expand...

From the story :
The demonstrators had received special permission in advance to bring their weapons, unloaded and secured, to the state Capitol grounds for the rally.
Click to expand...

Who exactly are they going to intimidate with weapons that are unloaded and everyone of importance knows they are unloaded?

Read the story next time.
 
OpportunityCost said:
From the story :

Who exactly are they going to intimidate with weapons that are unloaded and everyone of importance knows they are unloaded?

Read the story next time.
Click to expand...

So sitting silently is still more threatening than standing around with weapons (loaded or otherwise)?

******s.

Let's be afraid of people sitting down - because they're obviously a threat. But people with weapons roaming around aren't intimidating. An unloaded shotgun is still going to do a lot more damage to most skulls than a fist from someone sitting down.

I'm amazed at how readily those who would practically KILL for 2nd Amendment rights are so ready to ask people to give up their 1st Amendment rights.

How many conservatives on this site bitch about ANY restriction on gun rights, but now argue that Free Speech rights are to be practices at the whim of the government? The number is uncountable.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Fact is, it is constitutionally permissible to defend yourself and others, EVEN against brutal police action.
Click to expand...

Yes it is permissible to defend oneself, even against the police. However, when you do resist the police, you must be prepared to pay the price for doing so.


ElijahGalt said:
Move to North Korea Tigger or go live somewhere in a brutal dictatorship and then report back to me on how "moral" is the society. If you don't change your Hitlerian principles, then please die.
Click to expand...

Actually I'd be more likely to try somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia. The weather and the socio-political philosophies are much more to my liking. As for the dying thing.... You're more than welcome to come and try to give me a hand with that.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
.How many conservatives on this site bitch about ANY restriction on gun rights, but now argue that Free Speech rights are to be practices at the whim of the government? The number is uncountable.
Click to expand...

Count me among them. That's because the right protected under the Second Amendment is exponentially more important than any of those protected under the First Amendment. In part because the Second is what protects the First and also because it is only through violence, or the threat thereof that human beings truly change.
 
Tigger said:
Only because they're both stupid enough to be UNARMED. Those of us who go ARMED in public would never be intimidated by those sorts of worthless sacks of trash.
Click to expand...
I can understand the comfort that comes from packing heat. But to say that it's necessary to make someone unafraid is pathetic.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Tell that to the Republicans elected to Congress who held this nation's credit rating hostage for their own purposes. Period.
Click to expand...

Instead of coming up with nothing, this committee (the Democrats) could have gone on record as wanting to cut $X, $Y, $Z, etc. and merely asking for a 1% increase in taxes for those making over $1,000,000 in adjusted gross income...which, they could proudly announce at their press conference, the Republicans blocked. Why do you think they didn't do that? Answer: They're just as big losers as the Republicans across the table.
 
apdst said:
Sitting off a pathway? Just sayin...

Let's try a new perspective on for size: A buncha of guys in klan robes, with shotguns, standing on a sidewalk. You would respect their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to do so? Believe that the cops should leave them be?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would respect their rights. There are Klan marches every once in a while. I don't know if they have shotguns under their robes or not. Probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom