• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Did Lt. John Pike torture students at UCDavis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#41
MatticusMania said:
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.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPzPdSfx_orY6s4rKitJiFKF1eFaovTnitoDyHfhmAt7NpioHxmVoTrAMSwg.jpg
Click to expand...

:D

that's some nice jpeg illustratin'
 
#46
My knee jerk response is this is excessive and out of control. Especially since people could easily walk around them. Still, I haven't seen the whole thing, so I don't know to what level the cop was provoked. The point blank thing seems excessive as well. What were they protesting? I haven't been able to follow a lot of the US news here in Japan?
 
#49
i wish somebody would answer a question for me:

why did these protesters HAVE to be on the walkway, blocking it?

why could they have not set up off the walkway or at least moved when the police asked them too?

i think they were trying, not to protest, but to be disruptive...and it goes back to "i can't get anybody to agree with me when i just make my point, so i'll disrupt others and get in the cops faces and that'll win me some followers"

no problem at all with the protest. every problem with where they conducted it ( unless someone can point out a really bad consequence of moving off the walkway 3 feet and not disrupting everybody else)

everybody is focusing on what the police did, and nobody is asking this question of the protesters..."why did you choose to protest where you did?"


davesignatureII-1.png
 
#52
For a protest to be effective it has to be held in a highly visible location. In this case it was in a walk way. Did it infringe on others' right to take the most direct route to their intended destination? Yep, it sure did. But so does road construction, and I don't hear anyone complaining about the State Highway Administration infringing on their rights.

I think the easiest way to decide this issue is to ask which is more valuable, the right of the protestors to peacefully protest or the rights of the general public to a shorter walk? I will take the free speech and the long walk any day.
 
#53
HugeInJapan said:
For a protest to be effective it has to be held in a highly visible location. In this case it was in a walk way. Did it infringe on others' right to take the most direct route to their intended destination? Yep, it sure did. But so does road construction, and I don't hear anyone complaining about the State Highway Administration infringing on their rights.

I think the easiest way to decide this issue is to ask which is more valuable, the right of the protestors to peacefully protest or the rights of the general public to a shorter walk? I will take the free speech and the long walk any day.
Click to expand...

except it's not one or the other...both could have gotten their way. the protesters could have gotten their message out AND the general public (including those who don't agree with the protesters) could have used the walkway unimpeded.

you make it sound like if they didn't block the walkway, then they couldn't protest...not buying it.

they did not HAVE to protest where they did; they CHOSE to protest where they did, and paid the horrible price of...of...of.... well, a little discomfort.

how about we do things the libertarian way...everybody gets what they want...:confused:


davesignatureII-1.png


ps- and BTW you admit that it did infringe on others rights...your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
 
#54
Lonesomedave said:
well, a little discomfort.
Click to expand...

Hospitalization and coughing up blood for 45 minutes = "a little discomfort" ?

Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube

Lonesomedave said:
ps- and BTW you admit that it did infringe on others rights...your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
Click to expand...

Of course they did. There's very few things in real life that don't boil down to a trade off between the rights of different stakeholders. But was the response in proportion to their "crime" ? (I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree there)
 
#55
I'm just going to lay out exactly how I feel about this situation from what information I've taken in.

These UC Davis students felt a need to exercise their constitutional right to peacefully assemble in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Whether or not one agrees with the movement, it is difficult to blame the students for their support, keeping in mind the rising tuition rates, lack of jobs after graduation, etc. In order to effectively spread their message, whatever it was, they needed attention, and an excellent method of doing so is congregating in an area where people will actually see and hear you. They chose that pathway, which seems to be in the middle of a rather large, grassy area.

Annoying? Maybe, especially if you don't agree with their cause.
Inconvenient? Again, maybe, but walking (or most likely biking) around the students is well within anyone's capabilities.
Violent? Absolutely not. They are hurting no one. They are breaking nothing. They are vandalizing nothing.

Now, on the issue of their obstruction of a public pathway, I agree that this could be a real problem. If protesters decided to gather in the middle of a heavily used road or highway, that's clearly an issue. Cars can't just drive around them on the sidewalk, there's no way around them. However, going around these UC Davis protesters is a slight inconvenience, if anything. Hence, their spot of protest worked for two reasons: It was attention-grabbing, and it was no big issue for other disinterested students, staff, and passersby.

For the police to use pepper spray in this situation, is excessive. To utilize it from a few feet away like that is completely unnecessary and cruel. Faces are coated with a plethora of chemicals, and the cop doesn't just spray them, he goes back for two layers, painting the seated students. The use of pepper spray is not to be taken lightly, it's serious stuff. And this campus police officer was far from reluctant to use it on the students he's hired to protect. He very well could have used a light spray, but, like it shows in the video, he goes up and down the line, including a couple students that weren't even on the pathway. They were seated on the grass.

Right now, that police officer is on paid leave, which, I believe, is hardly justice.
 
#56
UncleFluffy said:
...
Of course they did. There's very few things in real life that don't boil down to a trade off between the rights of different stakeholders. But was the response in proportion to their "crime" ? (I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree there)
Click to expand...

yep, i suspect your right about that.

but answer this, why did this incident boil down to a trade off between rights?

if the protesters had not blocked the walkway, everybody could have had what they wanted.


davesignatureII-1.png
 
#58
Lonesomedave said:
if the protesters had not blocked the walkway, everybody could have had what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Sure.. I mean they could have stayed home and protested in their dorm rooms and it would have been just as effective right? Protests are about visibility so forcing them to places of lower visibility is infringing on their right. Like I said before, this is case of right to protest vs. right to walk. I will take the right to protest any time.

And as for pepper spray being minor discomfort.. I can assure you that it is really one of the most painful things that can be done to a person. I got it twice in college. I deserved it both times, so I'm not mad about it.
 
#59
MatticusMania said:
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.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPzPdSfx_orY6s4rKitJiFKF1eFaovTnitoDyHfhmAt7NpioHxmVoTrAMSwg.jpg
Click to expand...

...or to tell the protesters stories that don't go anywhere: "like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."
 
#60
HugeInJapan said:
Sure.. I mean they could have stayed home and protested in their dorm rooms and it would have been just as effective right? Protests are about visibility so forcing them to places of lower visibility is infringing on their right. Like I said before, this is case of right to protest vs. right to walk. I will take the right to protest any time.

And as for pepper spray being minor discomfort.. I can assure you that it is really one of the most painful things that can be done to a person. I got it twice in college. I deserved it both times, so I'm not mad about it.
Click to expand...

first of all, you are making a ridiculous comparison... have to move two feet so as not to block others right to use the walkway is not the equivalent of staying in their room...they would have been just as visible.

what they would not have been is just as confrontational...and that's what they wanted.

you are confusing peaceful protest with acts of civil disobedience. civil disobedience has always been a tool used by some, in conjunction with protest...see Ghandi (and i know you are familiar with Ghandi and I'm not telling you anything you don't already know)

however, if you engage in acts of civil disobedience, be ready to pay the price without complaint...these wet-behind-the-ears 60's wannabes want to engage in civil disobedience and not pay any price.

that's not how it works. the reason Ghandi and MLK were successful is they were willing to pay the price and got enough people to join them that the respective governments eventually capitulated.

think THESE protesters are going to attract that kind of following? only time will tell, but i doubt it.


davesignatureII-1.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back