So your argument is those who mildly break the law should be dealt with using painful force?
Should someone who illegally parks in a handicap spot have a TASER used on them as well?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter CDweller
- Start date
- Status
So your argument is those who mildly break the law should be dealt with using painful force?
Should someone who illegally parks in a handicap spot have a TASER used on them as well?
I fixed it for you.
Link Removed
The whole point of a protest is to make people react to you. You can only hope that the reaction will eventually help your protest. Since this is plastered all over the news, I'd say it worked, at least in the short term. Handing out pamphlets and holding signs in a grassy spot off a path will only get you so far. I'm not passing judgment on the police or the protesters here, but I felt that this comment needed to be addressed.
fair enough...but then, if you do that, you are NOT engaging in protest, you are engaging in civil disobedience...
like you say, short term, it got them some pub.
let's see if they can translate that into long term gains.
And who sets the price, exactly?
I think it's the point of the thread, and this answer is just dancing around it (on top of throwing all students in the same basket).
fair enough...but then, if you do that, you are NOT engaging in protest, you are engaging in civil disobedience...
like you say, short term, it got them some pub.
let's see if they can translate that into long term gains.
Only time will tell if it worked.
I think we're basically discussing semantics, though. The line between protest and civil disobedience can easily become blurry. One can easily turn into the other.
My original question was whether the officers' actions constituted torture. In the strictest sense, they do not. The following is from the United States Code (the law of the land).
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or...
The phrase "within his custody or physical control" is the officers' get out of jail free card. The kids were free to get up and move, and were given a three minute warning prior to being burned with a chemical agent by the police. If the kids had been in cuffs, or in the paddy wagon, and then burned, the perpetrator would go to prison for up to 20 years. Such was not the case. Yet this is the nature of non-violent, passive resistance. The stark difference between the violence used by the authorities and the people protesting is disturbing to many, and this incident has now been seen around the world. Had they been violent, they would not have had the impact they have. The image of kids non-violently protesting being burned with a chemical by a policeman, in a manner particularly repugnant to many, is now etched upon the world.
I have to thank the mods for letting this thread run its course, and have striven to keep free of politics. It's a current event, one that many find disturbing and disconcerting. The post below, while posted in good fun, veers the thread towards politics, and I would imagine that the thread will close soon.
It's ironic that a picture from Bagram would appear in a thread about torture (google "Habibullah and Dilawar").
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or...
The phrase "within his custody or physical control" is the officers' get out of jail free card. The kids were free to get up and move, and were given a three minute warning prior to being burned with a chemical agent by the police. If the kids had been in cuffs, or in the paddy wagon, and then burned, the perpetrator would go to prison for up to 20 years. Such was not the case. Yet this is the nature of non-violent, passive resistance. The stark difference between the violence used by the authorities and the people protesting is disturbing to many, and this incident has now been seen around the world. Had they been violent, they would not have had the impact they have. The image of kids non-violently protesting being burned with a chemical by a policeman, in a manner particularly repugnant to many, is now etched upon the world.
I have to thank the mods for letting this thread run its course, and have striven to keep free of politics. It's a current event, one that many find disturbing and disconcerting. The post below, while posted in good fun, veers the thread towards politics, and I would imagine that the thread will close soon.
It's ironic that a picture from Bagram would appear in a thread about torture (google "Habibullah and Dilawar").
This picture is actually photoshopped.
Here's the original.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Again, it seems to keep coming to this point. I noted it earlier in the thread that the police officer in the videos clearly spray individuals sitting in the grass. (Evidence: UC Davis Protestors Pepper Sprayed - YouTube at 0:28) Those individuals were also clearly not physically linked to the ones on the sidewalk as seen when the officer steps through the space between the people on the ground.
So to the people that seem to be defending the police and criticizing the protestors, what say you to this?
have not seen it, but i will take your word...assuming it is true, i would say the officer should be disciplined harshly... to spray peaceful protesters who were in no way impeding anybody else is very wrong. let's hear his defense.
I've seen this picture getting around, and I find it ironic considering the median salary of everybody in the picture is roughly $22,000. They need reforms just as much as the next guy.
Haha, it was. CD and I wrapped about it. Perhaps I need to go into my tech and get my satire radar recalibrated.
They were sitting in contact to the group refusing to move. I'm not sure if they were part of the group, or just thought they're safe off the sidewalk. It seemed to me police were moving people away from the sitting group, and they refused to move further away, but I cannot be sure.
As someone who has been trained to use pepper spray as means of applying force, I can say this is 100% accurate. If people need to be moved by force, there will be bruises and joint injuries that can take up to weeks to heal. Less compliant they are, more injuries there will be. Pepper spray causes severe discomfort, but it only lasts for 1-2 hours, and doesn't cause any long term injuries. You also have to remember that the police officers risk themselves being injured.
Also, as a trained professional, and after seeing an 8 minute YouTube video of that event, I can say that the use of force was done professionally, with no anger, and with a clear warning to the sitting group. They had a warning at least two minutes before, one of the officers talking to the group, ordering them to move, and one of the group says audibly "you're going to shoot us because sitting here? that's fine, that's fine". The group refused to move, despite fair warning, and started to prepare themselves to be pepper sprayed by covering their faces. After this, the police officers started to exhibit the cans of spray, and after one minute of waiting WHILE people resist the officers who are trying to pull people off the group, they started spraying.
IMO, the whole thing is NOT about the performance of the police officers at the scene, which seemed professional in terms of applying force, but about who gave the order to remove these people. To my understanding, this lies with the UCD staff, who wanted their campus area cleared of the protesters.
The real legal question here is, were the people's rights to demonstrate violated, or did the UCD staff and the police have proper reason to remove the protesters?
"Pepper spray use has been suspected of contributing to a number of deaths that occurred in police custody. In mid-1990s, the U.S. Department of Justice cited nearly 70 fatalities linked to pepper-spray use, following on a 1995 report compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The ACLU report cited 26 suspicious deaths; it’s important to note that most involved pre-existing conditions such as asthma. But it’s also important to note a troubling pattern.
In fact, in 1999, the ACLU asked the California appeals court to declare the use of pepper spray to be dangerous and cruel. That request followed an action by northern California police officers against environmental protestors – the police were accused of dipping Q-tips into OC spray and applying them directly to the eyes of men and women engaged in an anti-logging protest."
(About the Author: Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer-Prize winning science writer and the best-selling author of The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York. A professor of science journalism at the University of Wisconsin, she blogs about chemistry culture at Speakeasy Science. Follow on Twitter @deborahblum.)
Link Removed
I note that the Chancellor of UC Davis, Linda Katehi has apologized. She also stated that she won't resign, as the university "needs her". I believe that she instead needs the university, and her $400k/annum salary.
The two officers who sprayed have been put on paid leave, as has the UC Davis police chief. I imagine Katehi will slither off the hook, despite having ordered this area cleared.
In fact, in 1999, the ACLU asked the California appeals court to declare the use of pepper spray to be dangerous and cruel. That request followed an action by northern California police officers against environmental protestors – the police were accused of dipping Q-tips into OC spray and applying them directly to the eyes of men and women engaged in an anti-logging protest."
(About the Author: Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer-Prize winning science writer and the best-selling author of The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York. A professor of science journalism at the University of Wisconsin, she blogs about chemistry culture at Speakeasy Science. Follow on Twitter @deborahblum.)
Link Removed
I note that the Chancellor of UC Davis, Linda Katehi has apologized. She also stated that she won't resign, as the university "needs her". I believe that she instead needs the university, and her $400k/annum salary.
The two officers who sprayed have been put on paid leave, as has the UC Davis police chief. I imagine Katehi will slither off the hook, despite having ordered this area cleared.
Actually, previous Supreme Court precedent seems to imply they did.
As to why they have to set up where they did? They didn't have to.
Just like the Civil Rights folks in Nashville didn't have to choose lunch counters to do their sit-ins either.
They chose to, and the more attention it gets and the more draconian the police look in dealing with it - the better PR it is for the Occupy folks.
Just like spraying Civil Rights folks with firehoses didn't work out so great long term for segregationists.
No - only if the "price" is legal, Constitutional, and reasonable.
We have legal/Constitutional protections against cruel, unusual, or unreasonable "prices", and anytime that protection is violated EVERY good citizens should be hopping mad complaining.
No, you're engaging in both.
One can be engaged in a peaceful protest using civil disobedience.
No, there is a very real legal question about the level of force used in removing the protesters, completely aside from whether or not they had proper reason to do so.
- Status
