In regards to the pepper spray, I can't say. I'd need to see the warning label and training given to police officers with regards to it. I wouldn't think, if not told, that Pepper Spray = Likely to miscarriage. The two things wouldn't even enter my mind as a likely potential side effect. I would absolutely not consider that lethal force.
The bodily stress caused by being pepper sprayed is such that it cold trigger a miscarriage, not to mention some potential links between large doses of capsaicin and miscarriage.
One common wive's tale told to women in later pregnancy is that they should eat spicy food to induce labor. Like many wive's tales, this one may have a grain of truth to it. My wives ObGyn even recommended it when she was a week late.
In regards to the police batons to the stomach. Absolutely, if its found they were aware she was prengant I would agree with that notion. However, you're also requiring that people 1) take her story as the full truth and 2) that in the midst of a large, unruly crowd where there's significant chaos that the cops in question could identify that it was her that had yelled it.
I disagree that one and two are required. In fact, I would say that all police should operate under the assumption that any woman they are beating about the belly might be pregnant. I would actually put such physical attacks in the "unnecessary force" category if there is no direct physical threat to the officer (such a threat that using his firearm would be appropriate). Any cop that hits a protester, especially a female protester, who is
not a direct threat in the stomach deserves to be given identical treatment in return, IMO. Of course, doing the same in return is a crime, while the cops behavior is considered appropraite.
The only thing that is required to hold the view I propose is 1. That any woman can be pregnant and a stomach blow is lethal force against said fetus and 2. that police officers should not be granted extra rights not retained by the people. If I can't legally engage in a behavior, then police officers should be allowed to engage in that same behavior.
If a bunch of people were sitting on my lawn, and I aske dthem to disperse and tehy said no, I would nt be legally allowed to pepper spray them or hit them in the stomach to get them off of my property. I would be charged with felony battery at the very least, and in the case of hitting a person with a baton, I might get charged with assault with a deadly weapon. this is because the people are not real threats to my person.
If you fire guns into a crowd of people its a reasonalbe expectation that someone could die.
Depends on the ammo used. Rubber bullets are considered non-lethal (despite the fact that they
do kill). But many people would be bothered by the use of rubber bullets and firearms to disperse a peaceful, albeit disrespectful, crowd.
To a point, I agree. However, I think as in most cases with cops, its a balance of safety of both the people in question and the cops themselves and the reasonable expectations on both sides. If you hear "I'm pregnant" shouted from some random person you can't identify in the midst of an unruly mob of 100 people, I think there's a reasonable expectation that a police officer should attempt to be aware if it becomes obvious who said pregnant person is an respond accordingly but not to put themselves or their duty at risk by forgoing just about any activity towards any person of said group that may have the slightest chance of causing a miscarriage.
My belief is that if a police officer is using physical force at
all there needs to be a real risk involved (either to themselves or to others). They should only use force in teh same way that any regular citizen would be allowed to use force. Basically self-defense or defense of another. That obviously clouds my perception of these events.
I don't need to agree with the protesters in their views or tactics to come to the conclusion that the use of force I have seen in many cases was inappropriate (I've only seen the one video where the fat walrus looking cop was walking back and forth pepper spray a bunch of people who were sitting down chanting as well as anotehr video of cops pounding people in the stomach with nightsticks, the former was more egregious than the latter one, actually, but the latter one was borderline).
What I find disturbing, though, is that agreement or disagreement with the cause and movement is the
primary determinant of whether or not some people think excessive force is used (not all, but some). that mentality
is hypocricy, because the cause is irrelevant. Hell, we should be defending those we disagree with even more vehemently than those we agree with.
Heck, unless there's something about pepper spray I don't know about that specifically can harm pregnancy, stating that pepper spray is "lethal force" for being used on a pregnant woman than touching somoene briskly could be considered that as well since that could cause them to stumble and fall in a crowd which could cause a miscarriage....so by your logic it would seem that if a crowd of people has one person yell "I'm pregnant" the only reasonable stance for a prolifer would be for a cop to just stand still and not jostle anyone or else it could potentially be lethal force.
Touching someone briskly does not cause cardiac and respiratory distress. Pepper spray does. Those are very real risks on the fetus of a pregnant women. The very things that cause pepper spray to be effective are things that simple common sense tells us places fetuses at risk.
That's a far cry from brisk touching and doesn't require any special knowledge about pepper spray other than what it does to people.
Issues with consistant logic 4 or 5 steps down the line is significantly different to me than being a "hypocrite" .
Hypocrisy depends on the motivation for the logical inconsistency more than anything else. If the reasoning for their logical inconsistency is primarily because they disagree with the protesters, then they are certainly being hypocrites. But if it's because they failed to think their logic through to it's conclusion, it's not hypocrisy.
My point isn't necessarily about hypocrisy so much as it is about how the situations can be considered the same given a specific logical framework.