The Least Worst Option

I’m sure you all have seen the video from the #Occupy UC Davis, where some of the mob decided to block a public sidewalk. The police came along, told them to move, and when the squatters refused, started calmly and methodically pepper-spraying the mob. It’s not pretty to watch:



I, like a lot of people, was a bit disgusted at that video. Then I started to think about the matter: what other options were available to the police?


Walk away. Sorry, that’s not an option. They don’t have a right to enforce the law, but a duty. It isn’t their job to decide which laws do and don’t get enforced. We have numerous mechanisms for that in our system; the courts and our elected officials come to mind. In fact, “selective enforcement” has been used as a legitimate defense in court when the police pick and choose which laws to enforce and when. So just pretending everything fine is off the table.


Shoot them. Tempting, but not an option. I once read a policy for lethal force from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that really struck in my memory. I can’t find it on line, but let me reconstruct it from memory. Roughly paraphrased, the use of lethal force is only proper when it is so important to stop someone from acting that it does not matter if they live or die. In this case, the protesters are not posing an imminent danger to anyone, not even themselves. So the guns are out of the question.


Use billy clubs or other weapons: Same principle holds. Those are great for use against violent people who don’t quite deserve to be shot. Here, though, they aren’t justified.


Use Tasers: Two problems here. In the wake of a few deaths from tasering, they’ve been redesignated to “less lethal weapons.” Again, they’re used for violent suspects who don’t quite merit shooting. So keep them holstered. Plus, tasered people are usually incapacitated — they usually need to be carried away from the scene.


Physical force: This is what a lot of people would like to see done. Sadly for them, it has some serious disadvantages. I heard one guy note over the weekend, “people don’t have handles.” Picking up someone who’s sitting down on the ground and doesn’t want to be moved is not easy. Toss in the risk of injury to the cop, plus it puts the cop — and all his gear, like his gun, stick, pepper spray, taser, and whatnot — in ready reach of the protester should he or she suddenly decide to start resisting. And finally, note that the protesters have their arms linked — they’re set up to resist being picked up. So that ain’t gonna work.


So, what’s left? To get the protesters to want to leave the area under their own power. And, quite frankly, pepper spray is really, really good at doing that. I think I might have advised against spraying it right in their faces, but instead “roach-bombed” the area, but I’m not familiar with pepper spray — maybe it only really works when applied directly.


Was it a great choice? Hell, no. The visuals are damning as hell. But I don’t see how any of the other options would have been better.

A Confession
"So that’s another 1,400 American jobs lost"
  • Anonymous

    Pepper spray works primarily by irritating the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth), so it pretty much has to be sprayed in someone’s face.  It isn’t nearly as effective when applied to the skin.

    • Anonymous

      Agreed.  The videos AREN’T damning if you understand how the agent works and how to use it correctly.  You should realize it can be applied at even closer range.  These kids got off lightly.

    • This seems to be some pretty mild pepper spray too.

  • herddog505

    I saw the video and was pretty disgusted.  To build on your “roach spray”, I was reminded of nothing so much as an exterminator spraying for bugs.  Indeed, so casual was the officer in question that I wondered for a moment just WHAT he was doing.  Spraying them with some sort of dye for later identifcation?  Delousing?

    But your arguments make sense, and would likely make even more sense if MY rights (for example, to get to work on time without having to navigate a minefield of smelly hippies) were being trampled by a pack of yobs who think that protesting includes blocking the roads and sidewalks and even terrorizing school children.

    So, given the options available, which are basically “do nothing”, “make them very uncomfortable in the hopes that they’ll get the message and leave under their own power” or “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out”, the police did the right thing.  Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where “the right thing” is pretty bad.

    What a damned mess.

    Stupid hippies…

    • Anonymous

      “I, like a lot of people, was a bit disgusted at that video.”

      And I, like a lot of people, was not. So they got pepper sprayed, as was ENTIRELY their own desire. Boo freekin’ hoo.

      When I was 18 years old in college, I must have been abslutely weird, in that I found few people who ever walked upon planet earth to be as arrogant and full of themselves as college “activists” who have never held a job, never paid any taxes (to any serious extent), never raised a family, never served in the military, never have done one damn single thing to grant them the wisdom that they assume they have because they exist and “feel” what must be so.

      Yeah, if the cops shot them, I would be disgusted. Billy clubs, less so, but discomforted for certain. Pepper spray? Waahhh. Go get a shower, it can’t hurt.

    • retired.military

      It was their choice to get peppersprayed.  They could have simply complied with the police instructions.  If some guy 7 Feet tall 350 pounds walks up to you with a baseball bat in his hand and says “go ahead and piss me off and I will use your skull for a baseball” do you

      a.  Piss him off
      b.  STFU and leave him alone.
      c.  Kick his ass.

      Most of us chose b.   Some brave souls pick a and most of those wind up with a tattoo on their forehead entitled Louisivlle Slugger.

      This is a nice learning lesson in life for them.  One that Chico could use to learn

      With great freedom comes great responsibility.  That doesnt mean that  you will get your way every time.
      Let the fuckers rot in jail.

      • Anonymous

        Funny you use that example.  To put it you your terms about strictly following the law it would be: say something offensive to me and I will break the law by committing assault and battery against you, and possibly manslaughter.

        For my own survival, it’s a good idea not to piss him off.  But legally, if you believe that everyone should follow the law, there is nothing that I could say to him that would make it legal for him to hit me.

        • retired.military

          True but if you said something to him than according to your logic it is your fault that you got hit.
          You took the action which caused him to break the law.

          Sorta like you claim the police took the action which caused the OWS crowd to break the law.  

  • As you say, sometimes there’s no good options.  Sucks to be put into that situation…

    But as something that would satisfy the souls of the protestors, how could it have gone better?  They get cred for standing up to the man, they got ‘gassed’, they’re heroes to their peer grouping.  That they still have no clue, no plan, and aren’t even sure what they’re whining about is irrelevant.  They’ve been shown that their cause is righteous now, because they’ve been hurt for it.

    Yeah, whatever. A kid throwing a tantrum is still a kid, whether 2 or 22.

    I’m thinking a pumper truck full of warm water and baby shampoo would have been better, with a low-volume hose.  After all, they seem to have issues with sanitation…

  • Stephen Macklin

    Pepper Spray? How about Febreze and Lysol?

  • Anonymous

    How about pouring fire-ants on ’em?? 

    (a) it’s all NATURAL!
    (b) it’s non-lethal
    (c) it’s cheap
    (d) it would be massively entertaining!!

    Clearly you missed the best option available!

    • Anonymous

      Bees….really pissed off bees. Although on further thought it would most likely end up finding some people with allergies and just further their nonsense as video’s of students in A-shock are rushed to the hospital.

    • retired.military

      You would totally piss off the PETA crowd.

  • I guess I have become hardened and insensitive to those who are working to help the liberals destroy our country.  The video didn’t bother me.  I thought the protesters got what they wanted , I do not feel sorry for them

    • Anonymous

      Of course, the less sympathy I have for someone’s cause, the more abusive behavior I tolerate from Law Enforcement.

      • jim_m

        Sorry if I have very little sympathy for people who want to turn the USA into a communist police state.  As far as I am concerned they should use the maximum amount of force that will not encourage a backlash. 

        My own personal preference would be to drop a 16 ton weight on their heads a la Monty Python.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t have to sympathize with their cause.  BTW communism fails on its own (see 1991).  You can’t punish people for what they think.  And the amount of force they used definitely caused a backlash, and they failed in their objective to take the tent city apart.

          The students, on the other hand, proved their commitment to non-violence.  They stood up to bullies, and they did it the correct way.

          • Ah, that’s just because nobody’s done Communism RIGHT yet!  We’ll do it RIGHT this time.


          • Anonymous

            Funny story, a Professor I know of who did a lot of traveling in the USSR back in the Glasnost era would carry around a Pravda newspaper clipping that announced Kruschev’s prediction for the date “True Communism” would be achieved, and eliminate the need for money (sometime in the 60’s).  He would then show that newspaper clipping whenever he felt the price of something was too high.

        • Anonymous

          Which side wants to turn the country into a police state?

          • The same side that just took over 16% of the economy despite lacking any Constitutional power to do so.

      • Anonymous

        Good thing we don’t think like you do.  Stop projecting.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Shadow.  Justrand has a point.  Fire ants would be highly entertaining.

  • How about all the other students and parents who just want the education they pay for? You know, the entire purpose of university. The will of the mob is more important.

  • The choices are quite limited unfortunately.  But this was their iconic moment the OWS group has been begging for.

  • Anonymous

    First, I’m not even sure sitting on a sidewalk is “illegal,” especially when balanced with the sacred right to assemble.  It is the right of freedom of assembly and expression vs. minor inconvenience to others who have to walk around the group.

    But even so, cops ignore violations of the law all of the time.  Jaywalking, kids smoking marijuana, guys brown-bagging it on the street (in some states), illegal peddlers, spitting on the sidewalk, etc.. 

    If you think the “violation” is that serious, then it is serious enough to arrest for.  If not, you don’t torture into compliance with orders.

    The strategist John Robb had a note about the Davis incident and other examples of police brutality.  The mask of the state is now being pulled off:

    OCCUPY NOTE 11/20/11: The HIDDEN logic of the Occupy Movement

    This is what happens when authority is unaccountable and has lost any sense of human connection to a subject population — James Fallows, the celebrated American author and columnist.

    It appears that Occupy’s extreme non-violence/passivity has finally generated a social system disruption. Videos and pictures showing policemen using violence against passive protesters have gone viral (UC Berkeley students, Grandma, and open mouth were the leading examples). Stories about this violence are now sweeping the media (7,910 news stories over the last 24 hours). Is this going to have a strategic effect?Let’s look at this from the late, great American strategist John Boyd’s perspective. The dynamic of Boyd’s strategy is to isolate your enemy across three essential vectors (physical, mental, and moral), while at the same time improving your connectivity across those same vectors.. . . This can be counted as a win for Occupy and a loss for totalitarianism. However, we’ve been sliding towards totalitarianism for decades (from caged protest zones, storm trooper attire, urban tanks, bans on pictures in public spaces, a plethora of laws/regulations against assembly, Presidential assassination lists, closed courts, no warrant searches, CCTV coverage, attempts to ban private ownership of weapons, SWAT for even tiny cities, indefinite detention, rendition, etc.). So, in relative terms, this is a very small win.

    Between young people sitting on a sidewalk and some a-hole state “enforcer” callously pepper spraying them, I’m with the kids.

    • it is illegal …  look it up …  be sure next time you post an inanne comment that starts with a false premise …

      • @harlemghost:disqus wrote:

        be sure next time you post an inanne comment that starts with a false premise

        …But if chicka did that, chicka would never post…

        Yeah, what HarlemGhost said!

    • Anonymous

          You are a vocal pawn in the propaganda war here Chico – this is right from the Alinsky play books. 

          I thought you had a shred of sense in you.  The point of this demonstration, and the OWS ones, is to provoke a response from “The Man” and document it.  Then it is appropriately edited, spread far and wide attached to the propaganda message and “police state” claims, in an attempt to bring about a disassembly of societal structures and authority.  The chants, from “the whole world is watching” to “who to you serve, who do you protect” are created solely for this purpose.  They are a far cry from “we shall overcome.”    This is not the revolution of 1776.  This is the Russian Revolution.  Your disrespect for law enforcement is part of their plan.

          Pepper spray is not innocuous.  If you have asthma or breathing problems it can cause some serious and potentially lethal problems.  The risk, however, is much less for the security forces AND the demonstrators than using physical force.  It has to be sprayed on the face and reach the eyes and nose to be truly effective.

           Civil disobedience countermeasures, however, has come a long way from the police dogs and billy clubs used in the 60’s and 70’s.  

           I lived a few minutes from this campus for a few years.  The whole town is one big piece of granola and yogurt.  I’m surprised the police force there didn’t try to use crystals and incense to disperse the bad vibes first.

      • Anonymous

        If the point was to “provoke” why be provoked?  Yeah, I’m sure ignoring those kids for a few hours until they moved on would have caused the collapse of society.

        attempt to bring about a disassembly of societal structures and authority

        I heard that back in 1965, 1968, 1970.  Get off my lawn, gramps!

        As Robb pointed out, cops and the state have been out of control for a long time now – beating and arresting people who videotape them, restricting legitimate protests to “free speech zones,” using sound devices, getting all spooky with CIA type surveillance in cities, denying gun permits, etc.  It’s good there’s some pushback.

        • Anon Y. Mous

          You mean all we have to do is ignore the whole #Occupy movement for a few hours and they will go away?

          Bzzzz. Wrong.

          The cops won’t ignore someone blocking access to an abortion clinic, so why should they ignore people blocking other areas?

        • Anonymous

          The extremists and anarchists have been out of control for a long time too, Chico, encouraging the weak of mind to follow their bidding.  Its good there’s still some pepper-spray, that its not out of stock like tetracycline.  Better that they learn and provide an example that the glorious protesting for nebulous reasons has some potential down side to it, and that being a pawn of the progressives can be as painful as being a pawn of “the man.”

          Believe me, I stay well clear of your lawn.  It’s covered with too much fertilizer already to be treadable.

        • retired.military

          “It’s good there’s some pushback.      ”

          No because then you have ANARCHY.  Lawbreakers need to be punished.  Whether lawbreakers are cops are protestors.  PERIOD. 

          “restricting legitimate protests ”

          These arent LEGITIMATE becuase the definition of LEGITIMATE means they FOLLOW THE LAW.  

          Are you really this stupid Chico.  

          I am sure if this were antiabortion protestors in locked hands in front of an abortion clinick Chico wouldnt be taking up for them. Now would you Chico? Yes that is a question. One which you will not answer I am sure.

        • herddog505

          Commander_ChicoAs Robb pointed out, cops and the state have been out of control for a long time now – beating and arresting people who videotape them, restricting legitimate protests to “free speech zones,” using sound devices, getting all spooky with CIA type surveillance in cities, denying gun permits, etc. 

          You have a point here.  Many of us on the right (and especially libertarians) have complained long about “no-knock raids”, shooting family pets, and other police tactics that have been an outgrowth of the (IMO) idiotic War on Drugs.  I find the idea of having to have a permit to possess a firearm to be blatantly unconstitutional.  Police actions that result in the death of innocent people ought to be prosecuted as suspected murder, not swept under the rug as “meh, these little things happen, what can ya do?” I hasten to add the I understand the need for a professional, tough, no-nonsense police force in our society, and I also respect police officers in general; I trust that the vast majority of my local police, sheriff’s deputies, and state officers are the sort of professional, courageous peace officers that Americans expect to have.  But I’m a big believer in “to whom much is given, from whom much is expected”; we give the police the literal power and life and death, and heavy oversight and heavy punishments for abusing that power are totally reasonable.

          And I have to agree that people should not have to have a permit to engage in free speech.  HOWEVER, when somebody’s “free speech” starts to interfere with my right to go about my business unmolested, then something’s got to give.  In the case of the IOWS clowns, the police gave ample warning that the party was ending and everybody needed to get out of the pool.  Those warnings went unheeded.  As wrote above, the police have a duty to uphold the law.  This was a case where they COULDN’T look the other way even if they’d wanted to; the IOWS morons basically dared them to step across the line.  The police cannot afford to walk away from a blatant challenge to their authority, and the inevitable happened.

    • “It appears that Occupy’s extreme non-violence/passivity…”

      Ha ha ha ha ha.! lol. Good one, Chico.

      • Anonymous

        My thoughts exactly. I guess rape is nonviolent in some peoples’ minds.

        • Anonymous

          There were people raped at the UC Davis campsite?

          • Is the #Occupy “movement” a national / international phenomenon, or are they a bunch of un-related local protests?  If the latter, why should anyone care?  If the former, what happens at one reflects on all.


          • Anonymous

            No it doesn’t.  Something that happens in one location does not reflect on what happens at other locations, that’s simple guilt-by-association.  No thinking person would use that logic.

          • Anonymous

            So you’re saying that they are a bunch of unrelated local protest.

          • Anonymous

            They might share a common cause, but the actions of an individual at one location do not logically reflect on individuals at other locations.  So in the case of your comment, rape is of course violent and disgusting and evil.  However, was there a rape incident at the UC Davis campsite that you know of?

          • Chico’s citation was about the OWS movement in toto, as was sarahconner’s comment. You are raping us with your stupidity. Please stop. No means No!

          • Anonymous

            I’m not “raping you” with anything.  Stop trivializing a heinous crime by using the term flagrantly.

          • “I’m not “raping you” with anything.”

            First, it was straw men. Now it’s red herrings.

          • Wow…do you guys just try to drive any sort of discussion off this website?  Seriously?  

          • That was not a discussion. That was haranguing people with a disingenuous argument.

          • retired.military

            ”  Stop trivializing a heinous crime by using the term flagrantly.      ”

            Oh you mean like say ummm the word RACISM right.  You know what you are guilty of if you have the slightest disagreement with Obama and his policies.

          • retired.military

            “anything. Stop trivializing a heinous crime by using the term flagrantly.      ‘

            3 words


            Whats the matter.  Dont like it when the left has to play by their own rules?

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry, I was off this hours ago.  And you’re right.  It is wrong to call someone racist unless they say something that actually is racist.  I don’t see what that has to do with my comment.

          • retired.military

            Than you are an idiot.

            Your comment

            ” Stop trivializing a heinous crime by using the term flagrantly.      ”

            Gee what have liberals been doing with Racism for the past 5 years.

            Calling people racist simply for disagreeing with Obama therefore trivlializing racism which is and of it self hideous..

          • Anonymous

            Well I’ve never called anyone racist for criticizing Obama.

          • retired.military

            Gee are you implying that the left hasnt  ” trivializing a heinous crime ”  by branding anyone who disagrees with Obama as a racist?

          • jim_m

            Just as soon as you stop trivializing the rapes by dismissing them as being done by someone else that you claim OWS is not affiliated with.

          • Anonymous

            Never said that.  Look back to my comment.  I said that actions by people at other locations should not reflect on actions by people at UC Davis.  My first comment in that thread was a response to a rape claim, in which I said “There was a rape at the UC Davis campsite?”

            How is that trivializing rapes at other locations?  Pointing out that there weren’t any rapes at the UC Davis occupy demonstration in no way trivializes rapes at other locations.  It simply shows that the UC Davis students cannot be tarred with the same brush as rapists.

          • jim_m

            Sorry, but OWS owns the actions of all their affiliated protests.  In most cases the actions of OWS protesters have been to obstruct law enforcement and to cover for the perpetrators,  Until OWS starts to do something to eliminate the violence rather than covering it up every OWS protest will have to deal with the spectre of violence.

            Just because there hasn’t been a rape at UC Davis yet, doesn’t mean that this OWS protest will respond in any way that is different from the others.  In fact the anti-law enforcement, anti-law obeying attitude of all OWS suggests that when it does happen UC Davis will be just like the rest in covering it up and obstructing the police investigation.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, but as long as there hasn’t been a rape or other violent incident on the part of UC Davis protesters, I see no point in questioning their commitment to non-violence.  If anything, the pepper spray incident proved their commitment.

          • jim_m

            And I am just saying that because of the violence and lawlessness demonstrated by the rest of the movement they are going to have to prove that fresh every day.  The reputation of the movement (a well earned rep at that) is such that none of the individual protests deserves the benefit of the doubt.

            And before you blather something stupid about due process: I am not a court of law so I don’t have to prove their guilt to hold them guilty of the crimes of the larger movement. Neither is the court of public opinion, which is where these jerks are going to have to prove their innocence.

          • Anonymous

            Prove their innocence?  They sure as hell did.

          • jim_m

            I said prove it fresh every day.  The movement is tainted.

            Just as the left demanded the TEA Party prove that it wasn’t racist every day despite a total lack of evidence that there was racism in the TEA Party, the public demands proof from the OWS movement of nonviolence every day because the OWS movement has already demonstrated that they are riddled with violent rapists and criminals.

            Prove it.

            Every Day.

          • Anonymous

            So far, the UC Davis students have proven it.  And I have no doubt they will continue to.

            In fact, the only campus protest this year (I’m leaving out the others) that has been violent was at Penn State, and what were they protesting about?  Oh yes, they were supporting a man who covered for a child rapist.

          • retired.military

            3 Words


            Too bad libs cant live by the standards they set.

          • retired.military

            3; words


          • Tell that to the media re the TEA party protests.

          • Whether you like it or not, people and movements are known by the company they keep.


            OWS…”sympathizing” with Black Bloc is “bad”.
            Police…”sympathizing” with stupidly aggressive handling is “bad”.


            One might begin to suspect he’s a part of the chicka-sphere.

          • Ahhh…that’s right.  You are no better than the right.

            “They have different ideas than I do” = “bad”

          • Argumentum ad absurdum.

          • retired.military

            “”They have different ideas than I do” = “bad”      ”

            Gee if you have different ideas than Obama than you are considered a racist by the left.  Want me to provide proof?

          • Oh no, I agree 100%.  It’s funny to watch people try to explain how Obama’s policies are “enlightened” but the exact same policies in the Bush administration were “stupid/evil/racist”.

          • retired.military

            “OWS…”sympathizing” with Black Bloc is “bad”.”

            What exaclty is the black bloc?

            You are not accusing us of racism are you?

            Geez I thought we dumped the last idiot. 

          • retired.military

            Liberals do it all the damn time.

          • Anonymous

            I am not in the least bit concerned with who commits logical fallacies all the time, only in pointing them out when I see them.

          • retired.military

            See brians post about 2 above this.  the one that says “”They have different ideas than I do” = “bad”      ‘

            and look at the accusations made against anyone who dares disagree with Obama.

          • Anonymous

            OK then.

            I stopped following this after I made my point – that there was no way to justify pepper spraying those kids, and that it was pointless to try and defend it because those directly involved have been backpedaling and apologizing ever since.

            But now honestly I’m tired, and I’m sure none of us wants to live in a country where you can get tazed for jaywalking.  If I wanted anally retentive cops ruthlessly enforcing every single tiny little law I’d move to Singapore.

          • JayTea was right with his assessment.  Dragging them out of the way might have been better, either way that group was dead set on creating a confrontation and getting their photo op.

            I got into another debate on FB with a few Occupy supporters, amazing how they use some of the same tactics as others on this board, and when confronted with facts….shrivel off.  

          • retired.military

            Why move to singapore when you want Singapore to be brought here.  That is waht the OWS crowd want to do.  THey dont have a slightest clue about the real world and so they make outlandish “desires” known to folks who listen to their crap.  They have been offered jobs and turned them down.  If they want free health care have them join the mlitary and get it.   THey dont want to do what it takes to get what others have.  They just want what others have without the work associated with it.

          • Anonymous

            Like I said, I could care less about the occupy movement.  I only got pissed off when I saw what happened at UC Davis, and millions of others were equally pissed, including the president of the entire UC system.

          • retired.military

            It is simple

            If they had done waht the cops had told them they wouldnt have gotten peppersprayed.

            Flat out simple.

            It is a cause effect situation.

            They caused the effect by NOT MOVING THEIR ASS when told to do so.

            Once again.  If you told someone to get off your lawn and they threw a brick through your window does that mean that you were wrong for telling them to get off your lawn?  By the logic you have used it would be your fault.

          • Anonymous

            Again, if you have a problem with the way the campus community has reacted to what happened, take it up with UC President Yudof.  I’m sure he’d be happy to hear your opinion.

          • retired.military

            2 words

            TEA PARTY.

          • What’s funny is that anything implied or impuned against the TEA party folks somehow paints the entire movement as irredeemably Evil, while rapes, killings, ODs and the like apparently don’t have any applicablility over the general movement of the #Occupy fools. 

            Guess it all depends on what you want to accomplish, doesn’t it?  Take away control of government over people, and you’re EEEEEEEVIL!  Increase control of government to ‘fix’ the things you see wrong with government and business, and you’re playin’ with the Angels. 

            Seems to me a stupid thing to do – once the media renders itself super-partisan and extremely biased, and is seen so by the vast majority, they might have to worry about the folks getting their news elsewhere and leaving them in the dust.  But that’d never happen, would it?  😉

          • retired.military

            And  you forgot Racist JL.  Racist racist racist.  ANyone who disagrees with Obama is racist.   The tea party disagrees with Obama nd is therefore racist.

    • jim_m

      It would be illegal if they were obstructing the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic.

      Funny how your ideas of rights are wholly dependent upon the ideology of e person exerting those rights.  It’s either a right for those you disagree with or it isn’t a right at all.  The fact is that the left construes “rights” as situational and thus real rights don’t exist for the left. 

      Unlike the founders, today’s left does not believe that rights are given by our Creator, but that rights are granted by the whim of the all powerful government and that those rights depend on your willingness to bow in obeisance to that government. (that is as long as that government is controlled by leftists)

      • Anonymous

        I oppose all of those laws limiting abortion clinic protests. 

        • retired.military

          Just because you oppose doesnt mean that they are not LAWS which society has set.   It isnt the laws that we like or dislike it is the fact that they are LAWS.  IF you want them changed then do so LEGALLY or else you have ANARCHY.  Because what if we only go by laws that RM likes.  Gee I bet Chico wouldnt like that.  But Chico has absolutely no problem trying to push the laws that only he likes on others.

    • Anonymous

      Someone has to also alert the police and complain about the actions. They have to go in and deal with the situation. If a bunch of students came and sat on the sidewalk and no one complained or said anything the police probably would not have been there.
      So did the university ask for them to come? Did the OWS call to have this exact conflict just to promote their silly antics? 
      This crap is a self fulfilling prophesy. They create a situation that demands a response and if the response isn’t violent enough then they intensify the situation till they get the necessary violence. Then its a party to cheer yourself and point fingers at the police.
      The funny part is most people are laughing at the whole thing. Most people are really sick and tired of the OWS and its stunts. 
      You can be on the side of the kids. Go sit in the middle of an intersection or handcuff yourself in some bank. When the police come to get you to leave,resist them. Fight back. Then cry about brutality and storm troopers. Make sure you get a video cause I really want to see it.

    • retired.military

      “First, I’m not even sure sitting on a sidewalk is “illegal,” especially when balanced with the sacred right to assemble”

      Here we go with Chico’s mime “They arent breaking the law” when in fact umm THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW whether Chico likes it or not.   Again Chico you cant pick what laws to follow and which ones you dont (although your hero Obama seems to be trying).  That is called ANARCHY.  LOOK IT UP. 

       Notice Chico hasnt been posting much on the threads talking about the drug arrests, murders, pimping of underage prostitutes, defecating on police cars and in banks.

      Bottom line the cops told them to move.  THey didnt move.  As far as I am concerned the cops can do whatever reasonable measures to take them into custody as needed.  Hold their sorry asses in jail for 71 hours and 59 minutes before charging them  and see how long the lawbreaking lasts.   And if they resist arrest (and failing to comply with the officer’s directions after being told they are under arrest is RESISTING arrest) than keep them in jail for that.  I would make it so that the protesters were in jail for absolutely as long as possible.  No plea bargains.  Make their ass show up for court and throw them in jail.  Put them on county work crews (My gosh they would have to umm WORK).


    • herddog505

      Videos and pictures showing policemen using violence against passive protesters have gone viral (UC Berkeley students, Grandma, and open mouth were the leading examples). Stories about this violence are now sweeping the media (7,910 news stories over the last 24 hours).

      SHOCKER!  You mean to say that MiniTru, which has ballyhooed these aimless, lazy, greedy idiots from Day One, colluded with them to shape their “message”, and openly hoped for a “Kent State moment” is actually running story after story about the smelly hippies being arrested or hit with pepper spray for disobeying the law????


      / sarc

      As I wrote above, I didn’t care to watch the video of these morons being pepper sprayed.  I’m not a big fan of the police HAVING to use force (unless it’s some vicious hoodlum who really deserves it; a pack of dirty morons blocking the sidewalk doesn’t quite rise to that level).

      However, the left just LOVES to compare IOWS to the “Arab Spring”, so let’s compare what we’re seeing in Egypt with what we’re seeing in Oakland or NYC:

      — IOWS protesters demanding… um… er… whatever it is that they’re demanding (ask Matt Taibbi; he speaks for them)… aside from not having to pay back their student loans and share their food and other “personal property” with other people… vs. Egyptian protesters who are angry that what they apparently THOUGHT would be an end to military rule in their country has turned out to be military rule but with different, new-and-improved generals;

      — IOWS protesters squatting on city and private property for weeks, eventually becoming such a public nuisance and health hazard that even democrat mayors who are nominally on their side have to roust them out, vs. Egyptian protesters who turn out into the streets to vigorously protest military rule;

      — IOWS morons who get pepper sprayed because they won’t obey a lawful order to disperse, vs. Eqyptian protesters who are being beaten bloody by their government.

      Somehow, the IOWS people don’t look too heroic, and I can’t say that my heart bleeds for them too much.  Maybe a bit more than for a bratty six year old who doesn’t want to eat his peas, but that’s about as far as it goes.

      As a final note, I must say that I’m pretty nauseated by MiniTru’s coverage of the IOWS vs. their coverage of the Tea Party.  The Tea Party people were uniformly peaceful, clean, and orderly even while pretty passionately making their point.  The came, they protested, they went home.  For this, MiniTry branded them racists and terrorists.  The IOWS clowns, on the other hand, are praised for exemplifying our sacred right to free speech even while they sh*t on police cars, rape each other in tents, and harrass school children.  But that’s FREE SPEECH!  Yessir, these IOWS patriots are every one of them a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson!


    • Doh, the “a-hole enforcer” was ordered by the Chancellor to do his job. You are a complete moron. AND IT IS ILLEGAL and they were notified the day before to not set camp up again.

  • Anonymous

    The left wanted a “Kent state” moment, and despite all manner of provocative behavior on their part, this is the most they will get.

    Unfortunately for the communists amongst us its too late. The narrative is that this is a pack of drug taking, rape zone, spoiled rich kids and its too late to change it.

    Better luck next time.

  • Points of clarification:  TASER electronic control device (ECDs) have been called non-lethal for consumers & the military while law enforcement has used various terms from their lexicon including: non-lethal, less-lethal-lethal, & less-lethal.  No one “re-designates” these terms.  When someone is incapacitated by a TASER electronic control device they don’t need to be “carried away.”  Full recovery is instantaneous.Also, ECDs are not used in lieu of deadly force.  The vast majority of law enforcement agencies deploy TASER ECDs at the same level as pepper sprays.

    • Anonymous

      Are you a bot responding to any mention of TASER, Mr. Official TASER?

      TASER should not be used like pepper spray – it can kill ya!  Bad cops seem to use it as a torture-compliance device. 

    • Anonymous

      I happen to support the police being equipped with tasers, but they have killed people. It’s rare, but it’s happened. And I appreciate the clarification on the “designate” thing; I know I’d heard police refer to them as “less lethal” instead of “non-lethal.”


  • Anonymous

    “It’s not pretty to watch.” but it sure as hell was the least of what they deserved and provided a mild amount of Schadenfruede.

    I guess I’m old school but it sure would have been nice to see corrective application of water, high or low pressure, which certainly would have been anathma to the protesters that were breaking the law.

    Soap or fire ants would have been satisfactory additions as far as entertainment value goes.

  • JayTea You left out using real chemical mace or Tear Gas.

  • Anonymous

    Option 1: Walk away.

    Sure they could have walked away.  The students only blocked the walkway after the police arrived.  The police presence and their approach going in escalated the situation, not diffused it.  However, the responsibility lies with the school administration, who ordered the eviction.

    • Anonymous

      Yep, that was the plan.  Sit down when the police arrive.  Make them arrest you and make sure you get lots of video.  Then start getting personal and using the police officer’s name all over the internet.  This would be ridiculous if it weren’t so scary.  

      Masta-bation, you realize that the Police only arrived after the demonstrators were being a nuisance.  All the demonstrators had to do was NOT be a nuisance, and PRESTO, no police to react to or provoke.  But then no vids, and no escalation.  


      • Anonymous

        The police arrived because Katehi ordered them to take down the tent city.  Before that, there was no nuisance, no inconvenience to the other students going back and forth across the quad.  Now Katehi probably regrets bringing the police in.  The responsibility lies with her.

        You realize that everyone directly involved in this incident has abandoned defending the police’s actions.  The reason is that it cannot be defended.  Katehi first made the “mistakes were made” defense and the “it was unfortunate” comment.  Then she went into backpedal mode, as did the UC Davis police department.

        Why are you defending them when they’re backpedaling?

        • retired.military

          “Now Katehi probably regrets bringing the police in. The responsibility lies with her.”

          See.  The coach didnt pick him for the little league team so you cant blame him for being a mass murderer.

          If the protestors werent BREAKING THE LAW the cops wouldnt have done anything.  GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.  If someone broke your window because you told them to get off your lawn than by your reasoning it is your fault.  After all if you hadnt told them to get off your lawn they wouldnt have put a brick through your window.

          • Anonymous

            There’s something about proportion here, which the UC president has thankfully made sure to address, so that this kind of event does not happen again.

            Besides, it wasn’t “someone else’s lawn.”  Don’t try to compare this to Gran Torino.  They were students on their own campus.

            Let’s put this in perspective:  At Penn State, students turn over cars in support of a man who sheltered a child rapist.  The police do nothing.

            At UC Davis, students sit down in a wide open quad that anyone can easily walk through.  The police pepper spray them.

          • retired.military

            myabe the poor babies should have done what the cops told them to do.

          • Anonymous

            Again, if you think the cops did nothing wrong, take it up with Mark Yudof.  Tell him why he shouldn’t be appalled.  You could even copy and paste what you tell him to this blog.

        • Anonymous

          Because they shouldn’t be backpedaling. Plain and simple. The police were only giving them what they wanted. They are happy. 

          • Anonymous

            Can you prove that?  Can you prove that the UC Davis students wanted to be launched onto the national stage?

            Don’t say “it’s a common tactic” or “other people did it in other places.”  Give me solid, concrete evidence that these students wanted this to happen.

          • Anonymous

            Yup. They didn’t move off a wide sidewalk when asked by ordained officers of the law. They didn’t move when they were ordered off by the same officers. They didn’t move when they were threatened with arrest or with pepper spray. All they had to do was just move as asked. Instead,they sat and linked arms.  They begged for it. Passive aggression. Its all in the video. You did watch it right? They refused to move. They asked for it. Its pretty concrete.
            As for being launched on the national stage,I never said that. That is just what happened. They knew everyone and his brother were going to film them. I am sure they had some idea that it would be recorded. Just like the old lady and the pregnant girl. Just like most the rest of the conflicts that all of these OWS protesters have had. 
            I wonder if there will be a party for them when they are out of jail? Little local celebrities of the UC Davis.Reporters from MSNBC calling to get the news. Girls lining up to be by the brave rebels. “Oh Billy…tell me again how you let yourself get sprayed with pepper spray. You were so strong and fearless!”

          • Anonymous

            Actually, it wasn’t a sidewalk, it was a pathway in the middle of an open quad.  That’s how ridiculous this whole thing is.

            And they’re not going to jail.  And they already spoke to a crowd of several thousand cheering students, followed by a tearful apology from their chancellor.

          • Anonymous

            That I can totally agree with,although it looked like a wide sidewalk to me on the video. I don’t really know what happened to them afterwards. I haven’t looked into it other than watching the event as it was recorded.
            The whole thing was stupid. It served no purpose. What was the point of sitting down and virtually asking to get sprayed by pissing off the police? Other than to create a scene?
            I don’t really care what has happened since then with both sides. My opinion is from just what I saw in the video. All this other crap that happened afterwards is just politics and diplomacy. People trying to cover their asses whether they were right or wrong and other people jumping on the ‘hate the pigs” bandwagon. That has nothing to do with the actual event.
            There has to be a mutual respect between the people and the officers. When one breaks that barrier there are going to be problems. If a cop gets out of line,he is punished. If a citizen or citizens gets out of line they are punished. Otherwise you just have either tyranny or anarchy.
            These kids forced tyranny on themselves. The police started out respecting the kids,then were forced to act by the disrespect of the kids.
            From what you are describing it sounds like right now the pendulum is swinging back to anarchy. Should a group of people be able to just decide to disrespect our officers for no real reason? If they can do this why should anyone else respect what an officer says?

    • retired.military

      No the RESPONSIBILITY lies with the people who were BREAKING THE LAW.  If they hadnt BROKEN the law than the cops would have no reason to act.

      That is one of the reasons the country is so screwed up now.  That twisted thinking that you are displaying.

      Oh it isnt little kennys fault he raped and murdered 20 people and ate 10 of them.  WHy he didnt get picked for the little league team when he was 7.  It is his coachs fault.

      • Anonymous

        Nobody’s talking about rape.  The responsibility lies with Katehi because she has personally assumed responsibility.  Not only that, but the President of UC has condemned the police action as well.

        There’s no need to defend something that those who were directly involved with have already apologized profusely for.

        • retired.military

          She did that because of the negative publicity.  Maybe the students should take this as a lesson in reality.  When the cops tell you to move you umm MOVE.

          • Anonymous

            She did it because the entire student body was outraged, and rightly so.

            Besides, this country was founded by people who refused to move when they were told…:)

  • OWS Self-Induced Deaths – ~6 (includes fights, drug overdoses, etc)
    Government Induced Deaths during OWS – 0

    Now, this wasn’t the best option and I think a brawl between grandma and a cop in Riot gear would have been just as iconic.  

  • Jay

    Walk away. Sorry, that’s not an option. They don’t have a right to enforce the law, but a duty. It isn’t their job to decide which laws do and don’t get enforced. 

    Bullshit.  You know why you haven’t heard about Occupy Albany stomping on rights?  Because they refused those orders.  If something goes against the moral grains of society, the ones enforcing a law should take a moment to step back and ask themselves, “Am I doing the right thing?”  Nowhere is this indicated that the officer wanted to “do the right thing”.  Officer Pike, by every method, elevated the situation.  This scenario plays out to the Kent State shootings of the 60s.  There is no amount of spin to this story.  What the police did was wrong and not needed.  This was their best option without any use of force.

    Use billy clubs or other weapons: Same principle holds. Those are great for use against violent people who don’t quite deserve to be shot. Here, though, they aren’t justified.

    The true problem here is that there is a video where this is considered appropriate use of force.  The police were trained to jab protesters in reaction to them linking hands, as that was a show of violence.  I’ll try to find and edit into this post.

    Use Tasers: Two problems here. In the wake of a few deaths from tasering, they’ve been redesignated to “less lethal weapons.

    300+ deaths in the last few years and the Kelly Thomas murder have mostly vilified TASERS for the next few years.  They may be considered less lethal than a handgun, but TASERS cause more problems than they solve.

    Physical force

    That was tried in NY, but they had a lot of officers in the area.  Here, the cops were outnumbered with the students getting much larger.  Using more force would not have worked and tired the officers out, as you pointed out.

    I’ll say that walking away, or trying to create a dialogue would have done a helluva lot more for their options than what’s displayed on the video.  Now that Pike showed this side of him, he’s done enough to make the movement that much stronger.  Odds are, with the law degree that our Lieutenant has, not one part of it says “maybe I’m in over my head in this situation”.

    I mean honestly, what sort of mental leap of faith does it take to understand that spraying students like roaches would not look good to the world?

    • Anonymous

      OMG.  Maybe we really need a new Law of Argument, similar to Godwin’s.  Anyone who invokes Kent State shootings automatically loses the argument.

      • Jay

        And you’ve invalidated nothing I’ve said to bring up a focus on a small section of the argument.  Is the fact that one journalist captured that shooting of students in Kent somehow different from what students captured from multiple angles, where the police tried to lie in their statement?  Has the fact that the students didn’t harm them but forced them into a retreat changed anything in the apt comparison?  Finally, how has this changed the very real fact that other officers told someone “No” when asked to take out an Occupy site?

        I would express caution in utilizing sophist methods to appease a crowd.  You might do better in raising counter points to the argument presented.

        Oh, and I’m not the only one to make that comparison.  Link

        -E- Bob Ostertag on this. A good second source into the students and what type of people they were. Link

        • Anonymous

          There were more people there filming the event than there were protestors, as the video shows. The out of proportion response from the left makes the Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene seem trivially absurd in comparison.  I’m calling you out for making the Kent State comparison, which is ludicrous at best and insulting to history.  You AND your comrades.  UC Davis protestors and most of the OWS crowd have nothing on the civil rights protestors of the 60’s, and your sad attempts to mirror them are an insult to that movement as bad as the parody of the original movement as the current Jesse Jacksons and NAACP have made of the civil rights movement.

          Granola, Crystals and New-Age Woo, now have a new friend – Pepper-Spray Martyrs!

          • Anonymous

            “more people filming the event than there were protestors”

            First, a lot of protestors also had camera phones.  Second, and most importantly, once the police got rough, almost all the bystanders joined in!  They were chanting “shame on you” along with the original protestors.  That act by the police turned everyone in the area against them.

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            That doesn’t say anything important.  He only says “provide context.”  The context has already been provided.  If the students had been a huge nuisance, we already would have heard about it.  If the students had done something violent to warrant police use of pepper spray, the police would have come forward with that information immediately.  Instead we have irrefutable evidence against the police and the administration, and a continuous stream of backpedaling from both.

          • Anonymous

            Geez, you are getting pretty sure of yourself there.  What if I say YOU aren’t saying anything important?  Just ’cause the police/campus Public Affairs people are screwing up doesn’t mean the police screwed up.

          • Anonymous

            They’ve had plenty of time to explain themselves, and provide any context that they think the students had left out.  If there was some kind of damning information that would show the pepper spray incident in a whole new light, either the administration or the police would have presented it by now, and the students would be the ones backpedaling.

          • Jay

            The police deliberately lied about this.  Notice the tale they wove:

            The protest initially involved about 50 students, Spicuzza said, but swelled to about 200 as the confrontation with police escalated.
            She said officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them. They used a sweeping motion on the group, per procedure, to avoid injury, she said.
            The students were informed repeatedly ahead of time that if they didn’t move, force would be used, she said.
            “There was no way out of that circle,” Spicuzza said. “They were cutting the officers off from their support. It’s a very volatile situation.”

             And we should believe them when they speak?
            Doc, I would like you to read the ZDNet article I posted.  I’d like you to look at the LONG WALK that the Chancellor took out of her office as the entire world looked at the actions of what she authorized.  Why should we automatically assume the police were right in this circumstance when they’ve lied far more through their press release that makes them out to be the good guys?

          • retired.military

            ” If the students had done something violent to warrant police use of pepper spray, the police would have come forward with that information immediately. ”

            Here let me fix that for you

             If the students had done something  to warrant police use of pepper spray (AND THEY DID), the police would have used pepper spray (AND THEY DID) immediately.

            ‘Instead we have irrefutable evidence against the police and the administration, and a continuous stream of backpedaling from both. ”

            Let me fix this for you too.

            “we have irrefutable evidence against the protestors that they were breaking the law”

            THere. now we have an accurage desriptioni of what happened.

          • Anonymous

            Alright, if you think there was nothing wrong with the police pepper spraying students for sitting down, then take it up with UC President Mark Yudof.

            Here’s his statement on the matter:


            His sentiments are pretty much the same as mine.  If you think the students deserve it, send him an email.  I’m sure he’d be happy to hear your opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Furthermore, when I referred to “irrefutable evidence” I was talking about the police chief saying the cops were “surrounded” and feared for their safety.  The video footage provides irrefutable evidence that they were neither surrounded nor that the students were any threat to anyone.

            I spoke with someone who has experience in crowd control.  He said the video of the pepper spraying should be titled “How to start a riot.”  Those things need to be taken into consideration when there’s a crowd.  Certain uses of force might be authorized, but that does not mean that they should be used.  You have to consider: will it escalate or de-escalate the situation?  The pepper spraying escalated the situation.  Fortunately, the students maintained enough self-control to stick to their commitment to non-violence.

            Either way, if you think the students are just a bunch of whiny hippies who deserved the spraying and the university shouldn’t make any policy changes with regard to protests, then take it up with UC President Mark Yudof.  I’m sure he’d be happy to hear your opinion.

          • Anonymous

            And finally, the 9th circuit court (which covers California) ruled in 1999 that pepper spray can only be used against people who are actively resisting.  So it really comes down to what definition of “active resistance” they want to use.  If it was not active resistance (and it sure doesn’t look like it) then pepper spray was not warranted.

          • Anonymous

            So, what say you to the “un-edited” and full versions of the video now making the rounds?

          • Anonymous

            I’ve seen them.  You mean the one where the officer warns each student individually?  Or the one where they shout “F*ck the police” then a larger group shouts “Don’t antagonize the police!”?

            Chancellor Katehi came to talk to the students at the camp today.  If she had come down there herself on Friday, with some cops but not in riot gear, and been diplomatic, this whole thing could have been avoided.

          • retired.military

            “That act by the police turned everyone in the area against them.      ‘

            Which means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  if the protesters were raping someone and the cops tried to stop it and the crowd took the side of the protesters does that mean what they were doing was right?  NO.  They were breaking the law.  It isnt a popularity contest.  It is a matter of being lawful and unlawful.  Once you go past those lines than you are setting your self up as judge of what laws should and should not be followed.

            I guess since this was a fucking popularity contest than mastabador feels we should hold a vote every time someone is arrested to see if the crowd believes that they should be arrested.

          • Anonymous

            If the protesters were raping someone in full view, then the bystanders would have reacted much differently.  I’m going to assume that.  Besides, the police chief’s explanation for why they did what they did is that they were afraid for their safety, and we can see from the video footage that they were perfectly safe.

          • retired.military

            “Second, and most importantly, once the police got rough, almost all the bystanders joined in’

            Maybe if tghe protestors had simply COMPLIED with the instructions from the police (something most parents teach their 5 year olds) than none of this would have happened.  Instead we have people who are supposed to be “adults” who learned a lesson about following instructions from the police.

          • Anonymous

            And if the offers didn’t spray them, they wouldn’t have been forced off the quad by an exceptionally peaceful bunch of kids.

          • The protestors decided their “right” to protest was greater than the general publics “right” to go about their daily business.  That’s an automatic loser for me.  

            Most of the OWS sympathizers tend to “understand” the anarchists, the blockades, and general mayhem those groups cause….but all say they are non-violent.

            But the funny thing is I see people on the right “understand” the brutal police tactics (of which, there have been a few)….but then say they all deserved it.

            There’s a definite middle to both sides….too bad both sides would rather scream about how stupid/uncaring/unamerican either side is as opposed to figuring out how to get the problem OUT of the government and business.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s the thing, though.  I could care less about the occupy movement.  I only got pissed off when I read about this incident.  From what I gathered, nobody on campus felt their right to go about their business was infringed upon.  The tent city was in the middle of an open quad.  And judging by the response of the student body to the situation, it’s pretty clear whose side they’re on now.

          • Anonymous

            A few interested observers does not the student body make, however the student and faculty body at UC Davis is pretty high on granola, crystals and narcissistic meditation, so what they think isn’t necessarily connected to reality.

    • Anonymous

      Other Jay, you might have just given me a whole ‘nother article.

      With protesters acting peacefully, local and state police agreed that
      low level arrests could cause a riot, so they decided instead to defy
      Cuomo and Jennings.
      “We don’t have those resources, and these people were not causing
      trouble,” a state official said. “The bottom line is the police know
      policing, not the governor and not the mayor.”

      The police didn’t refuse an order on moral grounds, but out of concern that the “peaceful” protesters would resort to violence — and the police didn’t want to get into a fight they feared they might lose.

      Kinda gives your argument here a real kick in the crotch when your own citations prove you wrong, doesn’t it?J.

      • Jay

        I’m having trouble following your argument.  First you argue that the police have a moral imperative to use the least worst option in your article.  Now you’re saying “they didn’t refuse it on moral grounds, but out of concern that the protesters may turn violent?”  What you were implying is that the police should not use their heads and refuse orders, which I’ve presented evidence that sometimes they should step back and say “WTF is going on here?”  This is what could help LA and NY with their Occupy movements.  I personally find Pike’s issue here reprehensible and easily avoided if he had used a number of different options.

        My entire point is for police to use their heads in a situation.  Lt Pike wasn’t the only officer to use the pepper spray, but he made the situation much worse.  He turned bystanders into witnesses of a crime.  Think about this.  If ONE student had decided to pepper spray the officer, what is the worst that would have happened to them?  A Judo throw?  An arrest?  How is it right, ethically, morally, or legally to allow the police to get away with this when the punishment does not fit the alleged “crime?”

        • Anonymous

          Jay, I was strictly addressing your comment, and how you grossly misrepresented your own source material. You talked about how in Albany, the police refused to remove the protesters as a moral decision. But your own article said that the police didn’t refuse to act out of moral concerns, but fears of provoking a violent riot they could not handle.

          You wanna argue that point, fine. You wanna concede it, that’d be smarter. But you ain’t getting me to play your little game and go along with changing the subject until the first one is finished — how you misrepresented your original piece.

          Personally, I’d recommend pleading ignorance. That might work. I can believe you’re that dumb.


          • Jay

            Personally, I’d recommend pleading ignorance. That might work. I can believe you’re that dumb.

            Not necessary.


            If something goes against the moral grains of society, the ones enforcing a law should take a moment to step back and ask themselves, “Am I doing the right thing?”

            My own thoughts.  I don’t see what amount of spin can say that the officer(s) were in the clear for what they did.  Granted, I should have clarified that point and moved it away from my discussion on the Albany police and made it a general statement about officers in general using better judgement than what Pike showed above.

          • Jay opines:

            Not necessary.

            Given that very little is “necessary” (that which cannot be otherwise), the argument would seem to be tautological.

            Conversely, JayTea’s response

            Personally, I’d recommend pleading ignorance. That might work. I can believe you’re that dumb.

            seems entirely appropriate.

          • Jay

            Given that very little is “necessary” (that which cannot be otherwise), the argument would seem to be tautological.

            It seems apt to call out a hasty generalization to support a fallacious argument.

          • Jay originally wrote:

            Given that very little is “necessary” (that which cannot be otherwise), the argument would seem to be tautological.

            Fallacy of composition.

            But since realized (unlike the more dense members of the chickasphere) that it didn’t really mean what he thought it did, and went back and changed it.

            JayTea was right, and I join him in believing that you are indeed that dumb.

          • Jay

            And we have confirmation that Rodney’s only debate tactic is merely to bulldog opponents instead of reply in a thoughtful manner.

            Also, he’s edited his own posts in the past while watching others doing the same thing.  

            Pot, kettle.

            Good day, good sir.

          • Jay,

            Indeed.  Had I been caught trying to obscure what I had written while having no other viable defense, and had I the chickashpere’s sense of honor, might play that same card.

            I didn’t and don’t.

            You?  Well, you have earned your place in the chickasphere yet again.

            Good night, sirrah.

          • Jay

            As I’ve told you before Rodney, I could care less what you think, bucko.  That’s your prerogative.  You have a habit of not keeping to the conversation instead detouring into personal insults and tangential points of your own creation.

            Further, the edit came because I thought of a better fallacious point to use for you, nothing more.  You have done the exact same thing in other threads but I don’t take the time to point out every small mistake you make, merely say “Oh, that’s Rodney being Rodney”.

            Whenever you take the time to bring a conversation worthy of merit, I’ll be happy to engage and debate with you based on evidence gained and collected.  I have no time for your brand of mudslinging tactics based on nothing more than not engaging the points made but ad hom attacks.  As such, all I’ll do is continue to call out your fallacious behavior as it’s known you won’t engage otherwise.

          • Don’t go away mad, but by all means…

          • Jay

            Nope.  I stand by my statement above.

          • Jay writes:

            I stand by my statement above.

            What a refreshing change…

          • Jay

            *Thumbs up*

            Always aim to please, bucko.

          • Anonymous

            Perhaps the statement by the protestor sprayed, made on Democracy Now, that the demonstrators had surrounded the police and blocked their exit, perhaps that MIGHT justify non-lethal force of the gentlest of means, to clear the way?

    • retired.military

       I say locking their asses up one at a time would have been much more functional.  And keep their ass locked up with no bail until their hearings in oh   5 months or so.

      • Anonymous

        If you want that kind of “due process” I’d say you move to France. 

  • PBunyan

    “But I don’t see how any of the other options would have been better.”

    They should have used one of those scoop trucks like they had in the movie “Soylent Green”.  Becoming food would be not only the most useful thing, but the only even slightly useful thing the OWS’ers could ever do for society.

  • Anonymous

    The problem is that about 25 – 30% of the country are angry mean people who have no sense of humor or proportion, but love making or watching others suffer.

    I’ll attribute this pepper spraying to that.  Too many a-holes wanting to be a “tough” badass.

    • Anonymous

      I apologize for ever thinking you had a lick of sense.

    • retired.military

      You mean like the protestors who wanted to prove they could stand up to the big bad policeman.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, they were “standing up” by sitting down.  They were so aggressive, sitting there and getting sprayed.

  • I asked a OWS sympathizer if these tactics were acceptable (blocking public access) if she would wholly support a gang of neo-Nazis blocking the front door to a public school.  

    • Anonymous

      Show ’em pictures of US Green Berets escorting black children into public schools through mobs of segregationists, Brian. And ask ’em which side they’d be on.


      • We certainly know which side the Democrat’s of that era were on.

  • Given that the neo-nazi’s are aligned with / have endorsed the #Occupy asshats, she was no doubt in ecstatic agreement with their right to obstruct.

  • retired.military

    Gee imagine if these were antiabortion protestors in front of an abortion clinic.

  • retired.military

    The most ironic part this whole discussion IMO is this.
    Here we have Chico

    “As Robb pointed out, cops and the state have been out of control for a long time now – beating and arresting people who videotape them, restricting legitimate protests to “free speech zones,” using sound devices, getting all spooky with CIA type surveillance in cities, denying gun permits, etc”

    complaining about how DA MAN is treating the protestors.  Where as if our society followed the rules that a lot of these protestors want to live under we would by definition live in a sociliast or communist country.   Then we would have these same protestors complaing because they want somethign that the ruling elite had (as in all socialist and communist countries the elite live pampered lives and the rest of the people are peasants).  Then the OWS crowd (and their cheerleaders AKA Chico ) who comlplained about  “oh the police brutality”  would be in films similar to this one (on the receiving end of the beatings).

  • A lot of the comments on here are basically saying “The protesters were breaking the law, they deserved what they got (damn law-breaking hippies)”.  That is arguing backwards: right and wrong come before legal and illegal. 

    Is what the protesters were doing wrong? I would say not, they were exercising their (God-given) rights to free speech and assembly and petitioning for redress of grievances.  Those are in common law, written in the Constitution, and a fundamental part of what this country stands for.  What law were they breaking, a city ordinance against loitering?  Which is more important?

    If what they were doing was illegal, then the law needs to be changed.  The way the law gets changed is often that people repeatedly break it, and other people support that, or refuse to convict them and so forth, and eventually that particular law loses its power and is removed from the books. 

    Is what the police were doing wrong?  I would say obviously wrong, because they used considerable force when there was simply no threat to anyone.  If it was legal, then the law needs to be changed also.  If that is police procedure, then procedure needs to be changed.   Incidentally (not that it matters in a discussion of right and wrong) this was directly against police procedure.  The police do not have a duty to uphold the law above all else:  I think they have a more basic duty to act as decent human beings, then to keep the peace and protect and defend those who need it, and only finally to enforce the law.

    I propose that the police involved be charged with assault (since there is more than enough evidence for that), and tried in the usual way.  Let a jury decide if they are guilty or not.  Let the case go to appeal, even let it go to the Supreme Court!  What the law is in this case, and what it SHOULD BE, is clearly something that the people need to decide here.

    • Anonymous

      Your right. We should hire a government employee or employees(zampolits) that can go with each police officer and before he does anything he has to confer with the two government employees on whether or not the law should be enforced. Maybe they can be tied into a conference call where they can decide through a large group. It will all have to be recorded  so that each and every move the officer makes can then be scrutinized by another higher committee that can judge if whatever laws the officer was allowed or not allowed to enforce should remain.

      • Digg, That’s a really weak argument.  You’re saying it is too hard to do the right thing, and so police (and society) shouldn’t even try.  Who cares if it’s hard?  If you have any doubt, don’t do it: I think that’s a pretty good guideline on the use of violence both by police and in general. 

        I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what it is police is supposed to do.  I’m saying that this is a question for people to decide what they want THEIR police to do, and it is pretty clear (from the fact that something like half of UCD turned out to the protest today) that a very large number of people feel very strongly that what police did is wrong.

        • Anonymous

          Common sense would have been to let the few tents stay, or let the students sit on the sidewalk for a few hours.

          Authority can’t be challenged, though: they have to prove they’s the man.   Even if they’re campus cops.  Now, deal with the backlash.

          • Anonymous

            Chico, you haven’t raised any kids, or have you, using this kind of approach?  Just curious as to the outcome.

          • Jay

            Doc, honestly, what the hell does that have to do with the argument he’s presenting?  Focus!

            People have been talking about the militarization of the police for quite some time.  This isn’t something that is happening in a vacuum and it has grave consequences.

            The military is supposed to attack the enemies of the nation.
            The police are supposed to protect and serve the people.

            When the two mix, it tends to be that the enemies of the nation are the people.

            You don’t have anyone provoking these officers.  You have the cop bragging about using the pepper spray.  You have the officer also treating them as if they’re roaches.  In another video, I saw the cops lay someone out while a 2nd officer pepper sprayed this individual specifically.

            So here’s a question for you.  How the hell does this come out to controlling a situation?  How does this come out to a better option?  How is this, as JayTea is inquiring in the title, “the least worst option when it puts the police officers in a bad light, makes more students join the protest, and has the Chancellor facing a LONG walk of silence in trying to make the students seem like violent criminals?

          • Anonymous

            Is your name Chico?

          • Jay

            Do you have anything to say to the points raised?

          • Anonymous

            I already have answered my thought in other portions of this and similar threads.  However, you haven’t answered my question, and at this point, I’ll add another: how does you list of issues as well as questions hold up with the now released pre- and post videos plus the Democracy Now interview?

        • Anonymous

          So what? Its a college and those kids are high on “stick it to the man” and let me get on camera. Thats why colleges are always a focal point for these types of things. Bored kids running around trying to one up the other on how cool they are and the rest spectating and cheering them.
          There has to be respect for our police or they become ineffective or tyrannical. The police showed the kids some respect by asking them several times to move. The kids refused and got hosed. The whole thing was ridiculous and staged. I don’t mean that the kids planned it all ahead of time. It was probably just a quick idea to force a confrontation.
          All the crap that is happening now is just politics and faux outrage.

          • Jay

            Bullshit. Ostertag has vouched that these kids were the brightest in Berkeley in the Huffington Post who became activists based on the tax hikes.

          • Anonymous

            I guess that settles it then. Hell if Ostertag vouches for all of those students it must be so.

  • Pingback: The ‘shocking’ UC Davis pepper-spray outrage (The Week) | Breaking News Today()

  • Anonymous

    Well,there is a new take on this:

    So, the police were set up by the UC Davis OWS scum and the video was released of the pepper-sprayng. But ony the pepper-spraying.

    Next time, use bullets. Far less trouble for the police.

    • Anonymous

      I told you so.  See Ace of Spades as well.

      And now the Democracy Now interview.

  • Pingback: Assault And Pepper | Wizbang()