Did Lt. John Pike torture students at UCDavis?

[Tsal]

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.

No, the police is allowed to use reasonable force to have people to comply. Again, pepper spray is at the mildest end of applied force, well below tasers, rubber bullets or batons, which are also generally accepted methods of applying non-lethal force. Pepper spray is on par or even comes before physically handling a subject. Hence, pepper spray IS acceptable use of force, if use of force is necessary in general. You simply cannot apply any less force!

So, if the police have used reasonable force, the question becomes, have they enough justification to be using force in the first place?

Someone said there are "suspected deaths" where OC has been a part of. This is absolutely possible, pepper spray can trigger an asthma attack. Then again, there's also a risk of severe physical injury or even death when physically handling people. I seem to even recall one famous bass player, who died after being manhandled by a bouncer

 

[UncleFluffy]

No, the police is allowed to use reasonable force to have people to comply. Again, pepper spray is at the mildest end of applied force, well below tasers, rubber bullets or batons, which are also generally accepted methods of applying non-lethal force. Pepper spray is on par or even comes before physically handling a subject. Hence, pepper spray IS acceptable use of force, if use of force is necessary in general. You simply cannot apply any less force!

In the US, at least, there are Federal court decisions restricting the circumstances in which pepper spray can be used. I posted some of them earlier in the thread. As I understand it (and I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert, I've just been following this stuff pretty closely) one of the tests is "actively resisting arrest". From the footage we've seen so far, this doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[JmJ]

No, the police is allowed to use reasonable force to have people to comply. Again, pepper spray is at the mildest end of applied force, well below tasers, rubber bullets or batons, which are also generally accepted methods of applying non-lethal force. Pepper spray is on par or even comes before physically handling a subject. Hence, pepper spray IS acceptable use of force, if use of force is necessary in general. You simply cannot apply any less force!
snip

New details on the type of pepper spray used:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[aborgman]

No, the police is allowed to use reasonable force to have people to comply.

Yes.

...and the US Supreme Court has previously found that using pepper spray to move protesters who were not engaging in violence or destruction of property to be excessive force.

Again, pepper spray is at the mildest end of applied force, well below tasers, rubber bullets or batons, which are also generally accepted methods of applying non-lethal force.

No, it isn't.

The standard police force continuum is:

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, Taser, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force

...and it isn't referred to as "non-lethal" force anymore. After repeatedly being sued the makers of Taser as well as pepper spray manufacturers have all re-badged their items as "less lethal", not non-lethal.

Pepper spray is on par or even comes before physically handling a subject. Hence, pepper spray IS acceptable use of force, if use of force is necessary in general. You simply cannot apply any less force!

I suggest you look into Graham v. Connor.

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.

 

[Lonesomedave]

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.

can't disagree with a single statement here...

now let's see if it gains them any support from people who did not already support them.

 

[Jinro]

I'm missing some details here. Was the property the protesters were sitting on public, or private? Was it UC Davis campus property? Were the protesters UC Davis students?

I don't understand how peaceably assembling on public property is "trespassing", and I also fail to see how UC Davis students on UC Davis campus is considered "trespassing". Which leads me to question, what authority do the police have to use physical force on peaceful protesters who are not trespassing. Isn't that infringement of the First Amendment? That's how it would be considered here in Tennessee. The Governor tried to set a curfew on the Occupy Nashville folks, had a bunch arrested/chased out, then dropped the charges and rescinded the curfew after they realized it was unconstitutional.

 

[GeoffT]

now let's see if it gains them any support from people who did not already support them.

Maybe they are not looking to convert people, the most effective strategy would be to get more people who agree with them to take action. How did the Civil Rights movement play out? When the police started using force, did people all of a sudden change their minds about it or did it just motivate those that already believed it was the right thing to do to stand up and take action?

It's a lot like most elections, it's not about who has the most support but who can actually mobilize the most people to take an hour out of their day to vote. It's much easier to get the believers to take a small action than it is to change what people believe deep down.

 

[CDweller]

What is legal and what is "right" is subject to opinion. Historically, it was perfectly legal to beat your possession as severely as desired if he or she tried to escape. After the civil war, it was no longer legal to do so. Personally, I don't allow the law to define what I consider as right. The law only defines what is legal or not.

 

[bassguppy]

So is it worth the publicity for the police to pepper-spray students who are clearly not acting in a violent manner rather than call a transport bus and use 2 officers per student to haul them away. They had enough officers there for crowd control as there were about 50 protesters, 200 bystanders, and 40 officers.

Bad choice from the UCDPD. Now the fallout.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

I refuse to judge the action based on a few seconds of video. Need more data about the specifics of the situation.

Now that makes as much sense as anything said or written about this. I heartily agree.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

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?"

I don't think you get the idea of protest it's meant to be disruptive, not some out of the way gathering that people can choose to look at like shop windows. They were blocking a walkway... Ooooh that's horrible. I noticed a grassy area. The cops could have easily set up some cones and tape so people could walk around. Now if they were in the street blocking traffic, I think this cops actions would be a little more warranted.

 

[tastybasslines]

I don't think you get the idea of protest it's meant to be disruptive, not some out of the way gathering that people can choose to look at like shop windows. They were blocking a walkway... Ooooh that's horrible. I noticed a grassy area. The cops could have easily set up some cones and tape so people could walk around. Now if they were in the street blocking traffic, I think this cops actions would be a little more warranted.

Just wondering...what is the difference between blocking the general public's right to use the streets and blocking the general public's right to use a walkway?

Only you are giving cars more importance.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I don't think you get the idea of protest it's meant to be disruptive,.....

no it's not; you also have a protest confused with the concept of civil disobedience.

a protest means you want to get your message out...being civilly disobedient means you want to be disruptive...well, ok, they were...and now man up and pay the price. you can't have it both ways; either peacefully protest in a manner which does not impact other people or be disruptive; your call. but don't come crying when the powers that be stop you.

then let's see if they convince anyone else to join them in their quest (whatever it turns out to be...i am not sure i know yet, but i'm sure it's vitally important, probably along the lines of ending the Viet Nam war)

So is it worth the publicity for the police to pepper-spray students who are clearly not acting in a violent manner rather than call a transport bus and use 2 officers per student to haul them away. They had enough officers there for crowd control as there were about 50 protesters, 200 bystanders, and 40 officers.

Bad choice from the UCDPD. Now the fallout.

no doubt about that one...but, as said, that is another question. does it look bad for the cops to do what they did...undoubtedly.

but that doesn't take away from the fact that these protesters were blocking a public walkway, used by everyone, including some who did not agree with them...no sympathy at all for the ones who were interfering with others rights and got sprayed.

ps- now if, as was said in an earlier post, the cops sprayed protesters who were on the grass and not interfering with anyone...got a BIG problem with that. that seems like police brutality to people who were exercising their constitutional rights

 

[CDweller]

Just wondering...what is the difference between blocking the general public's right to use the streets and blocking the general public's right to use a walkway?

Only you are giving cars more importance.

Not sure what the difference is in the eyes of the law. Obviously, you create a significant hazard to people and property if you cause drivers to change their direction of travel, swerve, rubberneck, or distract them in any way from the task at hand. You can only do that if you pay for that right by renting a billboard.

 

[tastybasslines]

Not sure what the difference is in the eyes of the law. Obviously, you create a significant hazard to people and property if you cause drivers to change their direction of travel, swerve, rubberneck, or distract them in any way from the task at hand. You can only do that if you pay for that right by renting a billboard.

It's not so much the hazard created per se - it's that these protesters are placing their anger of income inequality, to which there is no immediate resolution, over the fundamental rights of others.

 

[Jinro]

But isn't equality an equally important right? Who determined that a persons right to walk on a sidewalk instead of on the grass supersedes everyone's right to equality?

 

[Tsal]

No, it isn't.

The standard police force continuum is:

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, Taser, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force

Ah, sorry, around here use of force is defined as against an unwilling subject. Presence and "soft hands" against a willing subject doing as verbally or lightly physically directed, is not considered "using force" by the local law. Also, "non-lethal" is still used around here, although technically it maybe should be "generally non-lethal", as officers are warned of possibly lethal side effects.

So to refer that progression, my point was that pepper spray is less harmful than "hard hands", or, that you cannot physically force anyone to comply using any softer means than pepper spray in this case, where the officers were trying to move unwilling subjects.

Also, I have understood that "actively resisting" would also mean gripping objects or other people to prevent the officers from moving you, where passive resistance would be simply going limp and forcing police to carry you out. Well, this is at least the case in local law, where resisting an officer is worded "..who by using violence, making an illegal threat or using other means makes it impossible or more difficult for an officer to carry out the law.." I assume it's something like that in the US law as well, at least the kids who were sprayed got tickets for resisting an officer, right?

 

[Lonesomedave]

But isn't equality an equally important right? Who determined that a persons right to walk on a sidewalk instead of on the grass supersedes everyone's right to equality?

 

[aborgman]

Just wondering...what is the difference between blocking the general public's right to use the streets and blocking the general public's right to use a walkway?

The general ability to safely avoid the obstruction.

Only you are giving cars more importance.

No, numerous court cases agree with that.

 

[aborgman]

no it's not; you also have a protest confused with the concept of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is a form of protest.