Thats alot of pepper spray.

[shesulsa]

Okay. So ... I guess I'm supposed to vote against people who perpetuate the status quo and vote for people who have repeatedly demonstrated fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and who actively seek to protect the people.

I do.

I am to support small business with my patronage and refuse to shop at certain stores whose corporate policies I disagree with, boycott events and venues who perpetuate ideals counterproductive to the survival of the American economy.

I do.

I am to cooperate with all laws and efforts by law enforcement officials to maintain public safety and right-of-way.

I do.

Many do. Not much changes. The words "civil disobedience" mean nothing without the second word. I look forward to the day the cops sit down with the citizens ... but then they would not be doing their job.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There are cops in the movement. They get **** on from both sides.

For them, make it an espresso because Folgers just aint doing it.

 

[clfsean]

So ... our constitutional rights have an expiration date? Perhaps a good catalyst might be for citizens to be informed of this formally.

No there's no time limit on them... but when a LEO asks you to do something & you say no, tells you to do something & you say no, then orders you to do something, at that point you are breaking a lawful order of a law enforcement officer & therefore in breech of the law & subject to arrest according to your state's statutes.

Protesting is one thing & it's a great thing that we have the ability to do free of fear. Civil disobedience is another benefit as well.

However, when/if a law enforcement officer requests/tells/orders you to disburse from that gathering, acting on orders from a higher ranking official which has probably included advice on the legality of the action and you continue to refuse, you have done that to yourself. Not the other way around.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I see a difference here in that there was nothing stopping those idiots from complying.
They could have got up and left, then come back later.
They could have gone to the wire and got up at any time before being sprayed and walked away.

They choose to get sprayed.
No sympathy from me.

There is a difference between a lawful and unlawful order.
They refused a lawful one.
No sympathy.

Choices you make, have consequences.
Theirs included burning eyes.
An arrest record that will follow them the rest of their lives.
Possible long term side effects.


People go on and on about their rights to protest.
What about other students rights to a safe campus? To travel between classes safely? To not have to walk around a sit in and risk slipping in mud or gravel?
Whose rights trump whose?

 

[granfire]

Oh, come on, Bob!
Don't think to billi levels and calling the protestors by derogatory names!

Choices have consequences.

Very true.

We have made choices in the past and eating the consequences right now.

This is actually NOT about the lawful order.

This is about the failure to communicate.

You claim criminal intend requiring force, but I don't think any of those instances actually happened. Not in that case, in that location.

This is NOT about the poor demonstrators. They made the choice to take a stand (or seat) and took their punishment.

think big picture!

You are sort of applauding people not taking TSA orders without question, though by all means, it's lawful.

no omelet without broken eggs.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No there's no time limit on them... but when a LEO asks you to do something & you say no, tells you to do something & you say no, then orders you to do something, at that point you are breaking a lawful order of a law enforcement officer & therefore in breech of the law & subject to arrest according to your state's statutes.

Protesting is one thing & it's a great thing that we have the ability to do free of fear. Civil disobedience is another benefit as well.

However, when/if a law enforcement officer requests/tells/orders you to disburse from that gathering, acting on orders from a higher ranking official which has probably included advice on the legality of the action and you continue to refuse, you have done that to yourself. Not the other way around.

So in other words, protest until the cop says he really really means it, then just shut up and go home?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Everyone who has ever been arrested has said "You're violating my rights," and "You can't do this to me!"

If the police are in fact violating the rights of the protesters, then there are means to challenge that in court and get a ruling. The police do not sit down and say "You know what? I think maybe this would be a violation of old stinky's Constitutional rights here. Let's not arrest him." That does not happen. It will not happen. The fact that most of you don't seem to understand that just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the law and police procedure. You're the kind of people who ask cops why they didn't shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand instead of shooting them in the chest.

It is the job of the police to enforce the law. Citizens are responsible for obeying the commands given them by the police; failure to obey means getting arrested. If the initial order was illegal, then that's what court is for. Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds. You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now. You make me so angry I could spit. I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done. Have a great day.

 

[clfsean]

So in other words, protest until the cop says he really really means it, then just shut up and go home?

No it means protest. Do legally, do it loud, do it like you mean it.

But don't get upset when you're not doing it legally & are told to disburse, refuse to & then are handled the way any normal criminal is handled, because oh yes at that time you are a criminal, don't whine & try to hide behind the Bill of Rights.

You can't break the law & expect another law to protect you. If you do, then you should be politics!

 

[granfire]

Everyone who has ever been arrested has said "You're violating my rights," and "You can't do this to me!"

If the police are in fact violating the rights of the protesters, then there are means to challenge that in court and get a ruling. The police do not sit down and say "You know what? I think maybe this would be a violation of old stinky's Constitutional rights here. Let's not arrest him." That does not happen. It will not happen. The fact that most of you don't seem to understand that just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the law and police procedure. You're the kind of people who ask cops why they didn't shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand instead of shooting them in the chest.

don't be ridiculous!

It is the job of the police to enforce the law. Citizens are responsible for obeying the commands given them by the police; failure to obey means getting arrested. If the initial order was illegal, then that's what court is for. Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds. You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now. You make me so angry I could spit. I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done. Have a great day.

Scary idea.

yes, I have been raised on the tradition that police have been used to do evil. lawful orders that violated about any shred of decency on many levels.

So you suggest to shut up and go home? Then how do you take it to court?
With what money?

The system does not work well for the little guy. There are too many cases where wrongs are left untouched because there is no money to fight it and right it.

Wow, just wow!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No it means protest. Do legally, do it loud, do it like you mean it.

But don't get upset when you're not doing it legally & are told to disburse, refuse to & then are handled the way any normal criminal is handled, because oh yes at that time you are a criminal, don't whine & try to hide behind the Bill of Rights.

You can't break the law & expect another law to protect you. If you do, then you should be politics!

My point is that if all it takes is a cop saying "disperse" to turn your legal protest into an illegal one, thereby warranting arrests, pepper spray, firehoses, bulldozers, or whatever level of force is involved, then there's not much other option than protesting until the cop says he really really means it.

All the students here did was protest. That's it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Everyone who has ever been arrested has said "You're violating my rights," and "You can't do this to me!"

I sure as hell didn't.

Those of you who think there's some kind of People's Court going on in the streets are out of your freaking minds. You haven't got the first clue how the world works, and frankly, I have to stop now. You make me so angry I could spit. I'm about to say something I'll regret, so I'm done. Have a great day.

Who are you addressing?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So you suggest to shut up and go home? Then how do you take it to court?
With what money?

The system does not work well for the little guy. There are too many cases where wrongs are left untouched because there is no money to fight it and right it.

Wow, just wow!

The idea behind civil disobedience is this. First the citizen intentionally misbehaves. Then they get arrested. Then they go to court. That's the whole plan. That's the point.

Not getting arrested is not part of the plan. Any part of this unclear to you?

So no, they are not supposed to go home. That helps nothing for them.

They are supposed to get arrested. That means that when they are ordered to disburse, they refuse. THEN THEY TAKE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. If that means pepper spray, then that is what it means. That's what civil disobedience is. It is NOT the police ignoring behavior that they've been ordered to stop. It is NOT the protesters going home. It is everybody playing their part. Protesters protest and refuse to leave. Police arrest them. They go to court and we find out who's rights have been violated. Review Gandhi's peaceful protest when he lead a group to make salt; they took the beatings the police gave them; because the beatings, filmed and played back on newsreels around the world is how India gained its independence. Civil disobedience works, but it requires the protesters to take their lumps good and hard, in front of the media, so that people like you can whine and cry about the brutality of it all.

When the police order the protesters to leave, and they refuse, they have no choice left but to arrest them. So they do. And if that involves pepper spray, that is understood to be part of the protest; this is actually DESIRED by the protesters, because it gains them sympathy from people who haven't a clue how the world works.

Yeah, they got pepper sprayed. They wanted that to happen. It happened. They won. That's how civil disobedience works.

As to how they afford it, that is NOT MY PROBLEM. I DO NOT CARE. Not even a little bit.

However, the ACLU will be loving them long time, so no worries. They'll be well-coddled little criminals.

 

[ballen0351]

Simple solution would have been protest in the grass and don't block the sidewalk. Im sure there is a law about blocking sidewalks and streets. We have them where I work. You can't block free passage of the side walk. Your right to protest is not greater them my right to walk freely and not to be bothered by you. They blocked the sidewalks knowing that reaction would come from the police.

 

[oftheherd1]

ok, let me rephrase that:

As martial artist (yes, digging deep) is it ethical to attack an opponent who is not actively engaging you?

maybe this gets closer to the point.

(it is actually amazing how far the country has come in just a shade of over 200 years...yes, I am poking fun, since civil disobedience is at the heart of the nations foundation)

Sorry, I don't see the above as being the same. You are describing an MA who just decides to go up to somebody who probably can't defend themselves, and hurt them. How does that equate to police who have a duty to uphold the law?

If you sympathize with the protestestors, I can understand that. Some of the things they say they stand for, I can also sympathize with. But I will not likely break the law to say so. But if I do, I certainly won't be angry at the police fo doing what the law says they must do. And don't anyone bring up the trials against thow who in WWII were just obeying orders. US military law recognizes unlawful orders and the need to disobey them. Actually, the duty to disobey them. But anyway, I don't see this a crime against humanity. If you do (not what it might someday turn in to), then rant away with my blessing. But if you join a group protest that infringes on my rights, don't expect any sympathy if the police pepper spray you in protection of my rights.

I have only gotten to the bottom of the 3rd page, but I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative as Mr. Hubbard requested. What would you have preferred the police do in enforcing law as they are duty bound to do?

 

[clfsean]

My point is that if all it takes is a cop saying "disperse" to turn your legal protest into an illegal one, thereby warranting arrests, pepper spray, firehoses, bulldozers, or whatever level of force is involved, then there's not much other option than protesting until the cop says he really really means it.

All the students here did was protest. That's it.

Nope... a legal protest garners police assistance & protection.

An illegal protest garners police orders to disburse & then the circus ad infinitum.

All the students didn't do was to get the universities permission to stage & the protest. All the students didn't do was disburse when ordered. Some did, actually the majority did. They weren't pepper sprayed.

All the students did was set up a shanty town camp. It's unsanitary without proper facilities. It's unsafe as not too far off Oakland has shown.
All the students did was to encircle the LEO's there, not like the infamous "cowboys & indians" manner, but they weren't allowing ease of disgress. Plus with shear volume of number, they intimidated the LEOs intentionally or not.
All the students did when asked to disburse was not.
All the students did when told to disburse was not.
All the students did when ordered to disburse was not.

All the students did was break the law & then were treated as common criminals. Ask for it, sometimes you get it.

 

[shesulsa]

My husband says to me all the time, "the Constitution is not in effect anymore - police can order you to do anything and you must comply even if it is in direct conflict with the law, either local, state or federal, if they want you to do it you must comply."

I *try* not to believe that. Sounds like many do.

So ... you who treasure your rights would not fight for nor get arrested nor pepper-sprayed for them. I'll remember that when I read how much you detest the representation of the land.

Buh-bye.

 

[granfire]

Sorry, I don't see the above as being the same. You are describing an MA who just decides to go up to somebody who probably can't defend themselves, and hurt them. How does that equate to police who have a duty to uphold the law?

If you sympathize with the protestestors, I can understand that. Some of the things they say they stand for, I can also sympathize with. But I will not likely break the law to say so. But if I do, I certainly won't be angry at the police fo doing what the law says they must do. And don't anyone bring up the trials against thow who in WWII were just obeying orders. US military law recognizes unlawful orders and the need to disobey them. Actually, the duty to disobey them. But anyway, I don't see this a crime against humanity. If you do (not what it might someday turn in to), then rant away with my blessing. But if you join a group protest that infringes on my rights, don't expect any sympathy if the police pepper spray you in protection of my rights.

I have only gotten to the bottom of the 3rd page, but I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative as Mr. Hubbard requested. What would you have preferred the police do in enforcing law as they are duty bound to do?

well, it's the same scenario:
a person not offering to enter your space in person or via proxy.

is it morally justified to engage such a person?


And golly, people....read for comprehension:
I am not even blaming the cops for being in the situation.

I am questioning the actions put in motion by the dean of the college.

But I find it - not unlike Elder - troublesome that so many just shrug and leave it at that.
Yep, we let it happen, we deserve what's coming to us.

Following orders given without questioning makes us sheeple at best.

I fear that dispersing people - peaceful people - by means of elevated aggression will in turn reduce the peacefulness and elevate the potential for aggression and violence.

I suppose it's all good, then the naysayers can say 'told you so' while other than pepper spray is rolled out.

 

[ballen0351]

My husband says to me all the time, "the Constitution is not in effect anymore - police can order you to do anything and you must comply even if it is in direct conflict with the law, either local, state or federal, if they want you to do it you must comply."

I *try* not to believe that. Sounds like many do.

Your husband wrong. Point balnk. period.

So ... you who treasure your rights would not fight for nor get arrested nor pepper-sprayed for them. I'll remember that when I read how much you detest the representation of the land.

Buh-bye.

Im not getting arrested for my right to sit my lazy butt on a side walk. If your husband doubts the right to free speach and assembly and wants to talk about us evil Police Officers I personally invite him to come with me next time I stand guard Protecting the westboro church creeps rights to protesting a Military funeral. Your both welcome to come stand with me and get things thrown at you also for protecting these evil people as cars ride by pissed that they are there.

 

[ballen0351]

I am questioning the actions put in motion by the dean of the college.

.

A school is a place people go to learn. The dean is charged with running that School to make sure education is taking place. So when these protesters start to disrupt that mission the dean must act.
What should the dean have done? "Just say ok all students walking to and from class dont go down path XYZ because its blocked by a mob of protesters. I know you may need to go that way to get to your next class but take a different route and maybe by spring they will leave and we can get back to normal. Never mind the HUGE sums of money your partents are paying with the expectation of us keeping you safe and giving you a top notch education. we cant do anything on our own property that might upset people"

 

[RandomPhantom700]

They go to court and we find out who's rights have been violated. Review Gandhi's peaceful protest when he lead a group to make salt; they took the beatings the police gave them; because the beatings, filmed and played back on newsreels around the world is how India gained its independence. Civil disobedience works, but it requires the protesters to take their lumps good and hard, in front of the media, so that people like you can whine and cry about the brutality of it all.

Interesting you should make that comparison. So, relying on Ghandi's example, would you look at the cops there who were beating the civil disobedients and say "they're just doing their jobs" and "they're stuck in an unfortunate situation"? I'm not going to say whether pepper spray and police beatdowns are equivalent because, thankfully, I've received neither in my life. But these protester's pepper spray is, for example's purposes, the same as Ghandi's beatings, or at least occupying the same spot.

So was the public correct in whining and crying over the beatdowns they saw, or was it just business as usual?