Did Lt. John Pike torture students at UCDavis?

[Tsal]

Civil disobedience is a form of protest.

Form of illegal protest, right? I have nothing but support for the right to protest, as long as common law, common sense and property rights are respected. When you start breaking the rules, you are on a slippery slope, especially when surrounded by a few hundred agitated people. As the local saying goes "stupidity comes in a bunch"

 

[Lonesomedave]

Form of illegal protest, right? I have nothing but support for the right to protest, as long as common law, common sense and property rights are respected. When you start breaking the rules, you are on a slippery slope, especially when surrounded by a few hundred agitated people. As the local saying goes "stupidity comes in a bunch"

and...when you claim the right to protest anywhere you want, even if it is blocking a public walkway, even if there are alternative locations not five feet away, where you could get your message out, without blocking others, who may or may not agree with you, what you are claiming is superior rights to the general public.

my message (or whatever it is) is SO important that i have superior rights to you folks who are just wanting to go about your business.

the fact that an individual is engaging in protest does not give him superior rights to others...they are all equally allowed to go about their business...YOUR business of the day happens to be protesting--well, god bless you, carry on-- MY business happens to be whatever i choose it to be...you do your thing and let me do my thing...both can get what they want and never interfere with each other.

 

[Jinro]

Form of illegal protest, right? I have nothing but support for the right to protest, as long as common law, common sense and property rights are respected. When you start breaking the rules, you are on a slippery slope, especially when surrounded by a few hundred agitated people. As the local saying goes "stupidity comes in a bunch"

Hey, Ghandi did it. Seemed to have worked for him....at least temporarily.

and...when you claim the right to protest anywhere you want, even if it is blocking a public walkway, even if there are alternative locations not five feet away, where you could get your message out, without blocking others, who may or may not agree with you, what you are claiming is superior rights to the general public.

In my personal opinion, corporate greed and corruption trumps the general public's "right" to not step in dog crap. As easy as it would have been for the protesters to stand somewhere else, it was just as easy for the general public to walk around them.

 

[MatticusMania]

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.

I think the fact that cars cant drive on the sidewalk to go around protesters blocking the street.

People can easily walk around, on the grass, to go around those blocking the walkway.

 

[Metal Matt]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Lonesomedave]

Youre assuming that people are okay with it because they agree with the protesters. Id feel just the same if the people protesting were in complete opposition of my views. Im not being inconvenienced by having to walk around a group of people. An extra minute out of my day is no loss to me.

well, sorta but not exactly...i presumed jinro was because of his comments about corporate greed etc...however, he has straightened me out on that and so have you.

but, please read my last post and respond...where do we draw the line and have it be known so that anyone can follow the new rules?

 

[Jinro]

but, tell me where we stop...if it's ok to break the rules for protests on the sidewalk...how about in the school buildings?...

how about the public sidewalks?....how about occupying public parks?....how about going to someone's house and occupying their yard?

where do we stop, and what are the RULES (so that anyone can know them) about when it is ok to break the rules and when it is not?....i agree with Tsal that it is a slippery slope, and once rule breaking in the name of FREE SPEECH is allowed, the next person to engage in it may do so in a way that you don't approve of, but you have already given him permission to do so by your attitude here.

As I understand it, school buildings and college campuses are different animals. Which then can get broken down even further into public versus private. Protesting on a public college campus is legal. On a high school or other public school, I really don't know.

Protesting on regular sidewalks has been done before without too much incident--I'm thinking of the Westboro Baptist Church at the moment.

Occupying someone's yard is trespassing, and clearly illegal as that is private property.

The key is, public property. If you're peaceably assembling on public property, you're perfectly within your rights and perfectly within the law to do so. If you're on private property, without express permission to do so, you should expect to get pepper sprayed.

EDIT

This should fill in the rules, at least for my home State:
Invalid Link Removed

I think they would be the same in all 50 States, as the First Amendment is a Federal Law and Federal Law overrules State Law.

 

[Lonesomedave]

As I understand it, school buildings and college campuses are different animals. Which then can get broken down even further into public versus private. Protesting on a public college campus is legal. On a high school or other public school, I really don't know.

Protesting on regular sidewalks has been done before without too much incident--I'm thinking of the Westboro Baptist Church at the moment.

Occupying someone's yard is trespassing, and clearly illegal as that is private property.

The key is, public property. If you're peaceably assembling on public property, you're perfectly within your rights and perfectly within the law to do so. If you're on private property, without express permission to do so, you should expect to get pepper sprayed.

so....your new rule is that anytime, anywhere on public property it's ok?...just asking.

why not in the buildings, then?

why not on high schools? they are public.

 

[MatticusMania]

High schools are generally closed campus, or do not allow nonstudents & nonfaculty members. Sure, you could protest in a building, but that'd not be very wise, as you'd only reach a very limited audience.

 

[Lonesomedave]

High schools are generally closed campus, or do not allow nonstudents & nonfaculty members. Sure, you could protest in a building, but that'd not be very wise, as you'd only reach a very limited audience.

how do they get away with that...according to jinro, any public place (read: public property) is fair game?

and what if it was the high school students who wanted to protest something? shouldn't that be allowed? and if the authorities wanted to penalize them for doing so, that shouldn't be allowed either...according to the prevailing logic.

not trying to be sarcastic or to flame...just asking for a RULE, that i can know and anyone can know, about when it's ok to break the rules in the name of protest and when it's not.

 

[MatticusMania]

not trying to be sarcastic or to flame...just asking for a RULE, that i can know and anyone can know, about when it's ok to break the rules in the name of protest and when it's not.

Thats a bit ridiculous, as it would be contradictory to have a rule stating when its okay to break a rule.

I dont know if a high school campus is necessarily considered public property. It may or may not be under certain circumstances, I guess. Sure, why couldnt high school students protest on campus? I remember a student protest taking place on campus while I was in high school, no authorities involved. At the end of lunch the kids had to go to class.

 

[Jinro]

Per Tennessee law:

Can government officials prohibit all demonstrations in
public forums during controversial events?
No. Officials may employ extra law enforcement protection to deter
violence during events expected to excite the interests of the public,
and they may institute reasonable time, place and manner restrictions
on all groups wishing to protest. But officials cannot deny outright
the constitutional right to protest on public streets and sidewalks,
public parks, and other public forums.

Public sidewalks: Demonstrating groups should leave room for passers-
by and should not block the flow of pedestrian traffic. If leafleting,
demonstrators should not force passers-by to accept leaflets or
harass individuals who refuse leaflets.

Public parks: The parks department in charge of the facility may require
a permit if demonstrators wish to use a sound system for a
large gathering. In addition, the parks department may restrict the
hours of the day in which events can be held in order to comply with
local noise ordinances or park regulations.

Public schools: School administrators have the ability to restrict access
to school property in order to provide a safe and orderly environment
for students. However, if administrators open school facilities
to any non-student group, they are obligated to extend this privilege
to all non-student groups who wish to have access.

The UC Davis case, if I'm not mistaken, took place in a public park, in which the government has no right to restrict the location of the protests, only the hours in which the people can protest. Therefore they did not break the rules. The only rule they did break was disobeying police, via civil disobedience. Civil disobedience can result in arrest, which can then be challenged in court and dropped if the police actions in question were found to be unconstitutional.

As I see it, the protesters were engaging in civil disobedience by refusing to obey commands by the police; however, before they engaged in civil disobedience, they were peaceably and legally assembling in a public park, where the authorities have no right or authority to tell the protesters to leave. This is a case of the authorities overreaching, resulting in the protester's civil disobedience, which in turn resulted in excessive force on the part of the authorities.


In short, the police presence should have been just that, a presence to keep things from becoming violent. The police had no legal power to give orders in the first place.

Authorities : -2
Protesters: -1

 

[Lonesomedave]

Thats a bit ridiculous, as it would be contradictory to have a rule stating when its okay to break a rule....

well, yes, i agree there. but if there are no rules, what we will have is chaos with everyone deciding for themselves what rules they want to obey and what rules are ok to break.

you ok with that?

why don't we simply have a rule that says "obey the rules"...then if someone tries to unconstitutionally make a rule (one, for example, which says "no protests allowed, any time any place") take them to court (ie, follow the rules) and get it thrown out.

if we have it any other way...for example, students deciding to protest where they want, when they want, they we open the door for someone to do something that we think is very wrong...AND you will have given them permission to do so, by saying now..."well, it's just a little rule, go ahead and break it"

 

[Jinro]

why don't we simply have a rule that says "obey the rules"...then if someone tries to unconstitutionally make a rule (one, for example, which says "no protests allowed, any time any place") take them to court (ie, follow the rules) and get it thrown out.

That's basically how it is with the current rules. Unless I'm missing something....

And the UC Davis protesters were following the rules, up until the point that the authorities showed up and overstepped their boundaries. In which case you can do one of two things:

1. obey the authorities and forget about the whole thing, and make the authorities think they have more authority than they actually have

or

2. engage in civil disobedience, fight the charge in court or use the publicity and outrage of bystanders to remind the authorities that they are not almighty and are also bound to the same Constitutional laws as the people.

 

[Lonesomedave]

....
The UC Davis case, if I'm not mistaken, took place in a public park, in which the government has no right to restrict the location of the protests, only the hours in which the people can protest. Therefore they did not break the rules. The only rule they did break was disobeying police, via civil disobedience. Civil disobedience can result in arrest, which can then be challenged in court and dropped if the police actions in question were found to be unconstitutional.

As I see it, the protesters were engaging in civil disobedience by refusing to obey commands by the police; however, before they engaged in civil disobedience, they were peaceably and legally assembling in a public park, where the authorities have no right or authority to tell the protesters to leave. This is a case of the authorities overreaching, resulting in the protester's civil disobedience, which in turn resulted in excessive force on the part of the authorities.


In short, the police presence should have been just that, a presence to keep things from becoming violent. The police had no legal power to give orders in the first place.

Authorities : -2
Protesters: -1

so you are saying then, that they did not block a public walkway on campus? I have already said I have no problem with peaceful protest which did not block other people. and i have said i consider it police brutality IF the cops sprayed people who were protesting on the grass and not affecting others in any way. so, are you telling me that we agree?.. ?...just asking.

That's basically how it is with the current rules. Unless I'm missing something....

well, i thought the gist of the people on the other side was "it's ok to break a rule in the name of the greater good" ie, protesting corporate greed (or whatever it was you said)...are you now saying it's not ok?

 

[MatticusMania]

well, yes, i agree there. but if there are no rules, what we will have is chaos with everyone deciding for themselves what rules they want to obey and what rules are ok to break.

you ok with that?

Thats some twisted thinking right there.

why don't we simply have a rule that says "obey the rules"...then if someone tries to unconstitutionally make a rule (one, for example, which says "no protests allowed, any time any place") take them to court (ie, follow the rules) and get it thrown out.

So now we need a rule that says "follow the rules"? Whats the point of having rules set in the first place?

if we have it any other way...for example, students deciding to protest where they want, when they want, they we open the door for someone to do something that we think is very wrong...AND you will have given them permission to do so, by saying now..."well, it's just a little rule, go ahead and break it"

No, the way we have it now is "follow the rules". If one chooses to break a rule and gets caught there are consequences.

This whole thread is not about "what rules were broken and what rules should be in place?" its about "did the police respond appropriately to the rules being broken?". Its gone off on this tanget that really doesnt make any sense.

 

[MEKer]

you are a reasonable person, so please don't take what i am about to say as flaming...but i must comment about the part of your post i have highlighted.

no, you don's HAVE to get in peoples' faces, you CHOOSE to get into peoples' faces. there is free will and what you are saying is, i can't get enough people to agree with me, so i must resort to any tactics that i think will work. (note- my use of the word "must" is theirs not mine) whether protesting out in a field would work or not depends upon YOU making your case, and these wet-behind-the-ears 60s wannabes have not made it.

and please don't confuse the fact that we may see more of these with most people agreeing with them. they do not represent the majority or even a sizable minority. this may be the tip of the iceberg as you call it, precisely because these nuts are such a small minority that they will become increasingly frustrated as their protests continually fall on deaf ears.

right on, right on, right on

in keeping with an earlier OP's thread let me add: +1



how dare you deal with my stupid behavior, I can dis anyone I want and if anyone takes action against me IT IS TORTURE--big f'in WAAAAHHHHHHHH! I'd rather play baseball with their skulls---they are empty enough and besides---I am mean.

 

[Jinro]

so you are saying then, that they did not block a public walkway on campus? I have already said I have no problem with peaceful protest which did not block other people. and i have said i consider it police brutality IF the cops sprayed people who were protesting on the grass and not affecting others in any way. so, are you telling me that we agree?.

I agree that they were blocking a public walkway. BUT that public walkway was not a sidewalk, and rules regarding obstruction of pedestrian traffic apply only to sidewalks. Yes I agree they were blocking people. No I do not agree that the police response was appropriate, because there is no law or regulation regarding blockage of a public walkway other than a sidewalk.

well, i thought the gist of the people on the other side was "it's ok to break a rule in the name of the greater good" ie, protesting corporate greed (or whatever it was you said)...are you now saying it's not ok?

If they thought that the students were breaking a rule by blocking a public walkway that was not a sidewalk, they were misinformed. I was misinformed as well until about 20 minutes ago when I did some research.

Just as a side note, I have to say that I have noticed a pattern amongst people who oppose the "Occupy" movement: they are all financially secure or rich. A bold assumption, yes.

While I don't wholeheartedly agree with the "Occupy" movement, there is corporate greed and corruption, as well as government greed and corruption. I personally think the movement is targeting only a portion of the problem, and that if government officials had turned away big bucks from corporations who want a Senator in their back pockets the problem probably wouldn't be as big as it is.

 

[Tsal]

As I see it, the protesters were engaging in civil disobedience by refusing to obey commands by the police; however, before they engaged in civil disobedience, they were peaceably and legally assembling in a public park, where the authorities have no right or authority to tell the protesters to leave. This is a case of the authorities overreaching, resulting in the protester's civil disobedience, which in turn resulted in excessive force on the part of the authorities.

I'm not sure, but wasn't the problem that the demonstration had been in a park with people camping there a night or two already? I assumed it was slowly becoming a "public festival ground" and causing damage to the public property? At least this and sanitation reasons was the reason they kicked people temporarily out from parks in NY, and banned camping. Also, I thought the police was only removing them from the park property, and not trying to shut the demonstration down?

In any case, this is very poor PR handling from the campus police. They should had gone public ASAP, stating what were their orders, what were they doing, and who's idea it was to close the park.

 

[etoncrow]

In 1969 I was in DuPont Circle and the DC police told people to disperse w/o giving them a way out; they began using tear gas and then waded in with clubs.
In 1970 I was in College Park, MD, walking home with my girlfriend after a war protest when six PG county police came up to us and began beating the hell out of me with clubs and then arrested me for disturbing the peace.
In 1972 after a police induced "riot" the police came into the Student Center at Marshall University in Huntington, WV, with a pepper gas machine; they began beating anyone who exited the building with clubs. That same evening I saw a police car swerve onto the curb, narrowly missing a girl; five cops jumped out and began beating everyone within reach with clubs.
After reading about five pages on this thread I can only shake my head in disbelief...

edit: funny how living history can change one's perspective