Did Lt. John Pike torture students at UCDavis?

[Lonesomedave]

With all due respect, I disagree. The very purpose of a protest is to bring attention to a cause. This can be done several ways, but these can be grouped into two categories. Violent, and nonviolent. In the former category, protesters gain attention through deliberate harm to others, vandalization, etc. Blocking a public pathway (what looks to be a bike/walking pathway), I don't see as violent. Yes, it may "affect" others, but in the slightest possible way. That small group of people sitting down is no impassable obstacle. And Davis is the bike capital of California, and bikes work quite well on grass.

What is clear is that the protesters are not hurting anyone, nor are they damaging property. The only violence I can see is on the part of the officers. When the officers go in to grab protesters, they don't hit or swat at the officers, they just use gravity as a force against the cops, so there is clearly no violent protesting there.

Again, I say this with all due respect. I'm interested in what you have to say.

i agree, they are not "violent" in the sense of actually causing harm...and i respect your opinion.

but...why should they block the public walkway at all. i am a libertarian, so i support the right to protest anything... but not ANYWHERE.

why do they need to block the public walkway at all? let them protest where it does not inconvenience others and let the others pay attention to the protest or not. everybody gets what they want.

as soon as you thrust your protest onto the publics right of way or buildings or whatever, you are claiming to be more legitimate than others. protest where others can also go about their business and convince others to join you without coercion IF YOU CAN.

 

[SBsoundguy]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I'm glad these people were moved. They were blocking a public sidewalk.

 

[CDweller]

While training in the Marine Corps, I experienced about one minute of exposure to tear gas in a gas chamber. An excruciating experience at best.

I'm not sure if burning students skin with a chemical agent to a degree that requires hospitalization can be called torture. Even if they cough up blood and vomit, as a number of these students did. Only two of the pepper sprayed students required hospitalization for the burns on their. That's really not a lot a lot of people for the police to put in the hospital. Lt. Pike only burned a few students (app. 40) with chemicals; not really anything serious. Besides, the students were not complying. So maybe these students, though sitting passively and non-violently, deserved to be burned by the police with chemicals. If a couple required hospitalization for skin burns, and others were coughing up blood for hours afterward, then maybe they got what they deserved. After all, they didn't comply with police orders. The legality of the police orders has not been established. Perhaps burning students with chemicals whenever police experience disobediance is just fine, whether the orders are lawful or not.

The UC Davis students were publicly expressing their opinion that the Berkeley police were a little excessive in their beating of Berkeley students earlier in the week, as seen in the Youtube clip. Professors were also beaten at the Berkeley incident, but maybe they too got what they deserved for speaking up in public. Sometimes you have to beat people to keep the peace. While the Berkeley students, like the UC Davis kids, were not violent, they were doing something that the police thought deserved beating them for. Not sure why they were beaten repeatedly with billy clubs, but I'm sure some think they deserved it.

 

[sandmangeck]

It's a trap!

 

[carlos840]

IN the end it comes down to one things, they where asked to move and refused to comply!

What are the cops supposed to do? They can either start grabbing and pulling waking with sticks to move them or they can make them uncomfortable in the hope they move on their own.

The pepper spray is IMO the gentlest of both ways!


This video clearly show they where blocking a path and where asked to move! You can also clearly see the cop spraying them isnt "over reacting" and just going for it for fun! He stands there with his can for ages before using it...
You can also clearly see that the police ignored the people sitting on the lawn!

 

[aborgman]

I thought I explained it clearly, but they are blocking the rights of all people on that campus by blocking a public walkway.

Possibly.

Time/place/manner restrictions on public protest are Constitutional, as long as they're adjudicated in a "content neutral" manner.

As for the pepper spray part of it - that will fall under the "objectively reasonable" force determination of the 4th amendment.

 

[metron]

Looks like copious amounts of d baggery on both sides. The kids were apparently told numerous times to move. Its not that hard. Being insubordinate is instigating. Blocking sidewalks serves no purpose but does give a point of contention. Violent? Please. Btw what were they protesting again?

Enter the cops looking eager to show who is in charge. The guy hit some of them point blank range in the face. Yes cop guy! Show those hippie goons!

 

[UncleFluffy]

As for the pepper spray part of it - that will fall under the "objectively reasonable" force determination of the 4th amendment.

There's a bunch of relevant legal precedent. Here's one summary (from Invalid Link Removed:

The United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit began its review of the reasonableness of the use of pepper-spray on non-violent protestors by citing the analysis of Graham v. Connor. *2 The court thus balanced the governmental need to apply the pepper- spray against the countervailing rights of the protestors to bodily integrity. The court began by distinguishing pepper-spray from pain compliance techniques that police officers can immediately terminate upon compliance. The pain from pepper- spray only passes with time and proper flushing, thus compliance would not terminate the infliction of this use of force. In concluding that the actions of the protestors did not justify the use of pepper-spray, the court noted that the protestors could not “evade arrest” since they had limited their own mobility; further, they were not actively resisting the officers but merely being passively non- compliant. The need for arrest as a government interest was insignificant since the protestors were only guilty of trespassing, a minor offense. As such, applying the standards from Graham, the use of force here was unreasonable.

Graham v. Connor. “To balance the necessity of the use of force used against the arrestee’s constitutional rights, a court must evaluate several factors, including ‘the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’” The court continued: “In determining if the force was reasonable, courts must examine (1) the need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, and (3) the extent of the injury inflicted.” Graham dictates unambiguously that the force used by a police officer in carrying out an arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the need for that force, which is measured by the severity of the crime, the danger to the officer, and the risk of flight.”

Blocking the sidewalk is a misdemeanor, at best. The quantity of pepper spray used was enough to leave people coughing up blood for 45 minutes after being sprayed. I find it hard to see that as reasonable and proportionate use of force.

 

[Actium]

I thought the protest was about the rising tuition prices that have doubled over the last 5 years.

 

[Relic]

There's blame on both sides I'd imagine. If you're blocking a public thoroughfare and will not move, expect to eventually be forced to move.... it's just how it is. If you do something like that to bring attention to yourself then you really have to be prepared to face the consequences. But then again, the worse the consequences the better the publicity, and the more attention, no?
Could the police have used a different (less nasty) means to move them? I would think so. That just seems to be an act of sheer douche-baggery. Then again maybe they did, I really don't know. It's hard to tell from just that one clip.

 

[seventhson]

Non-violent protest often involves breaking the law...but in a non-violent way. Please refer to the Civil Rights Movement, Ghandi, et. al.

 

[Relic]

Non-violent protest often involves breaking the law...but in a non-violent way. Please refer to the Civil Rights Movement, Ghandi, et. al.

I agree. But the problem is that even a non-violent means of protest can infringe on the rights of others. Blocking a road, or path, etc.
Then what? In theory of course, if nothing's done by authorities then violence may end up being the result when tempers eventually flair and matters are taken into one's own hands.
The law has an obligation to the public to uphold the same laws for all, yet I think that most do not want to see anyone get hurt. It's a tricky situation for sure.

 

[JmJ]

snip


As for the pepper spray part of it - that will fall under the "objectively reasonable" force determination of the 4th amendment.

I don't agree entirely, the pepper spray device used was designed to be used from a distance of 15 feet or more but he used it point blank. To me that qualifies it as extreme. I've never seen pepper spray victims with that much "pepper" on their faces. The context in which it was used also violated the letter of the law.
There will be law suits regarding this incident so it will ultimately be the court's decision.

 

[UncleFluffy]

the pepper spray device used was designed to be used from a distance of 15 feet or more but he used it point blank

That's probably an OSHA violation as well

 

[aborgman]

I don't agree entirely, the pepper spray device used was designed to be used from a distance of 15 feet or more but he used it point blank. To me that qualifies it as extreme. I've never seen pepper spray victims with that much "pepper" on their faces. The context in which it was used also violated the letter of the law.
There will be law suits regarding this incident so it will ultimately be the court's decision.

That is what I'm saying.

I'm not saying what they did was "objectively reasonable" - I'm saying that the determination as to whether the Constitution was violated will depend on a court decision regarding whether or not it was "objectively reasonable".

 

[aborgman]

The law has an obligation to the public to uphold the same laws for all,

Actually, no they don't.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "selective enforcement" doesn't necessarily violate the Constitution. see: Oyler v. Boles

yet I think that most do not want to see anyone get hurt. It's a tricky situation for sure.

Nah, it's pretty well laid out in the "use of force continuum" as to what is appropriate force. It's also been decided by the courts quite a few times.

Needless to say - pepper spray for just failure to move has been found to be an unreasonable use of force generally.

 

[knumbskull]

if the best justification for the use of burning chemicals on kids someone can think of is 'they were blocking the path', that person needs their head examined IMO

 

[Relic]

if the best justification for the use of burning chemicals on kids someone can think of is 'they were blocking the path', that person needs their head examined IMO

Not really. Well, yeah the burning chemical part, yes that was dumb, but as far as making these people move? Totally justifiable.

 

[knumbskull]

Not really. Well, yeah the burning chemical part, yes that was dumb, but as far as making these people move? Totally justifiable.

well, yes i was addressing the pepper spray thing as the main issue.

armoured police vs non agressive, albeit stubborn student protestors... doesn't reflect well on the tactical abilities of the cops if violence is their go-to move. we're not talking about facing off with hardened criminals here.

...i mean come on, what about a good old fashioned kettling? i do not support kettling, but it's a bit better than squirting chili into their eyes!

 

[MatticusMania]

The perfect response from Law Enforcement when pestered with trying to move a nonviolent assembly of protesters:

Whip out the Billy Club and announce loudly "I'm just going to keep doing this *whacks club into vacant space in from of self* and if any of you get hit, its your own fault" And then proceed to whack whilst moving towards the crowd.