|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
In sane times, someone who "occupied" something and was told to leave, refused, and the forcibly ejected would not be a victim.
I mean what if the Tea Party did this? Would we still scream police brutality? Would the right be cheering the police? I think not.
But ignoring ideology and looking at the tactics. If a bunch of "Nazis for David Duke" did that and got pepper sprayed, then we'd say they deserve it.
The police said leave, they didn't have permission to be there in that fashion, and then they refused to leave. Apparently it was at the wrong time or place or in the wrong manner. Their rights met limits there.
Now if there was no order or law for their forcible ejection, then police heads should roll, but if there was... |
So your for using violece against people not commiting violence, especially considering the extent of pain that comes from pepper spray. One person was vommiting blood for 45 minutes afterwards, thats brutality regardless of which group it is against. They held their mouths open and sprayed it in, and there was no threat of violence from the group. Legally speaking there is precedence that what the police did was illegal, see the humbold county trial, and I would love to see this taken to court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
In sane times, someone who "occupied" something and was told to leave, refused, and the forcibly ejected would not be a victim.
I mean what if the Tea Party did this? Would we still scream police brutality? Would the right be cheering the police? I think not.
But ignoring ideology and looking at the tactics. If a bunch of "Nazis for David Duke" did that and got pepper sprayed, then we'd say they deserve it.
The police said leave, they didn't have permission to be there in that fashion, and then they refused to leave. Apparently it was at the wrong time or place or in the wrong manner. Their rights met limits there.
Now if there was no order or law for their forcible ejection, then police heads should roll, but if there was... |
Well for one thing, the tea party is corporate backed and funded so they don't have to worry about the cops kicking their teeth in. Would be bad for business.
From your attitude to this sort of thing I get the feeling you'd be defending the use of dogs and fire houses on the civil rights marches in the 60s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But ignoring ideology and looking at the tactics. If a bunch of "Nazis for David Duke" did that and got pepper sprayed, then we'd say they deserve it.
|
Hell, no. This is America. Its called 'freedom of speech,' no matter how obnoxious the message (as long as it is not overtly threatening). You don't understand civil liberatarianism if you think the underlying message justifies the repression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The university campus is as close you can come to a home for university students. Getting violent with students who are peacefully demonstrating and only mildly obstructive on their own campus is pretty low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But ignoring ideology and looking at the tactics. If a bunch of "Nazis for David Duke" did that and got pepper sprayed, then we'd say they deserve it.
|
Hell, no. This is America. Its called 'freedom of speech,' no matter how obnoxious the message (as long as it is not overtly threatening). You don't understand civil liberatarianism if you think the underlying message justifies the repression. |
No, you didn't read my next paragraph which very much cuts to the core of free speech-
| Quote: |
| The police said leave, they didn't have permission to be there in that fashion, and then they refused to leave. Apparently it was at the wrong time or place or in the wrong manner. Their rights met limits there. |
My reference to Nazi loving David Dukesters was to speak to the emotional outrage that has surfaced.
If the police did this to some "Club for Growth" types would the same people (on both sides) have the same reaction? No, the OWS types would be preaching about "just desserts" and the Glenn Becks would be complaining about "Jack Booted Thugs".
So if we ignore message, we are left with time, place, and manner.
It may have been the right time, but apparently it was in the wrong place and in the wrong manner.
I really hate it when people run up to sleeping dogs, kick em, and then whine when the dog takes a chomp at them...There were any number of ways for OWS to get out its message lawfully, but they chose to challenge things. Well, be prepared for such backlashings. If you do it without whining and playing the victim card, but solemnly taking it, ala Salt Mines or Civil Rights, as part of your larger message, then I may listen. It's a subtle difference, but it's a very important one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But ignoring ideology and looking at the tactics. If a bunch of "Nazis for David Duke" did that and got pepper sprayed, then we'd say they deserve it.
|
Hell, no. This is America. Its called 'freedom of speech,' no matter how obnoxious the message (as long as it is not overtly threatening). You don't understand civil liberatarianism if you think the underlying message justifies the repression. |
No, you didn't read my next paragraph which very much cuts to the core of free speech-
| Quote: |
| The police said leave, they didn't have permission to be there in that fashion, and then they refused to leave. Apparently it was at the wrong time or place or in the wrong manner. Their rights met limits there. |
My reference to Nazi loving David Dukesters was to speak to the emotional outrage that has surfaced.
If the police did this to some "Club for Growth" types would the same people (on both sides) have the same reaction? No, the OWS types would be preaching about "just desserts" and the Glenn Becks would be complaining about "Jack Booted Thugs".
So if we ignore message, we are left with time, place, and manner.
It may have been the right time, but apparently it was in the wrong place and in the wrong manner.
I really hate it when people run up to sleeping dogs, kick em, and then whine when the dog takes a chomp at them...There were any number of ways for OWS to get out its message lawfully, but they chose to challenge things. Well, be prepared for such backlashings. If you do it without whining and playing the victim card, but solemnly taking it, ala Salt Mines or Civil Rights, as part of your larger message, then I may listen. It's a subtle difference, but it's a very important one. |
Yeah, place/time/manner restrictions. So, I understand this to mean 'hurling profanities at soldiers' funerals' is unprotected speech. You understand this to mean that any speech can be strictly regulated on place/time/manner.
I'll give you some props for mentioning a relevant and important legal exception, Steelie. Not bad. But how should it be applied? In this case, even if the time/place/manner were violated, you still have an enforcement problem. I mean, given that these protestors were non-threatening, the police could have retreated and returned with a court order. We're far away from that scenario, aren't we? No, we have a situation in which non-violent protestors were subdued with pepper-spray. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swinewho
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yeah, place/time/manner restrictions. So, I understand this to mean 'hurling profanities at soldiers' funerals' is unprotected speech. You understand this to mean that any speech can be strictly regulated on place/time/manner.
I'll give you some props for mentioning a relevant and important legal exception, Steelie. Not bad. But how should it be applied? In this case, even if the time/place/manner were violated, you still have an enforcement problem. I mean, given that these protestors were non-threatening, the police could have retreated and returned with a court order. We're far away from that scenario, aren't we? No, we have a situation in which non-violent protestors were subdued with pepper-spray. |
Court order = 1. Money 2. time 3.effort
Can of pepper spray about $5! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then the question is, is pepper spray a legitimate means to remove a non-violent trespasser?
I for one would say that, it is, but I would also say that if I was in charge of the officers there, I would have recommended physical removal, rather than pepper spray. "Carry them off". Of course if someone gets accidentally dropped or tangled, there are some issues, but I would try to negotiate that if they agree to be "peaceably carried off" we can meet the midway of the officers having to enforce their authority and the protesters not backing down.
If reason fails, give a countdown. After that, rough removal. If they resist, spray or taze.
But you can't struggle against the police and then scream "Don't taze me bro".
So I do not agree with the decision to spray, but I would not declare it prohibited. Perhaps the officer involved thought that pepper spray would be safer and more effective than attempting to physically remove them.
One thing, it seemed that there wasn't a high level officer on the seen to oversee the whole thing. For a situation such as that, the shift commander, at a minimum, should be there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Then the question is, is pepper spray a legitimate means to remove a non-violent trespasser?
I for one would say that, it is, but I would also say that if I was in charge of the officers there, I would have recommended physical removal, rather than pepper spray. "Carry them off". Of course if someone gets accidentally dropped or tangled, there are some issues, but I would try to negotiate that if they agree to be "peaceably carried off" we can meet the midway of the officers having to enforce their authority and the protesters not backing down.
If reason fails, give a countdown. After that, rough removal. If they resist, spray or taze.
But you can't struggle against the police and then scream "Don't taze me bro".
So I do not agree with the decision to spray, but I would not declare it prohibited. Perhaps the officer involved thought that pepper spray would be safer and more effective than attempting to physically remove them.
One thing, it seemed that there wasn't a high level officer on the seen to oversee the whole thing. For a situation such as that, the shift commander, at a minimum, should be there. |
One student was vomiting blood for 45 mins after they forced his mouth open and sprayed it down his throat, so saying it might be safer or more effective is absurd. Who were these officers protecting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Then the question is, is pepper spray a legitimate means to remove a non-violent trespasser? |
Even if they are breaking the school rules, I don't think a university should consider its students as trespassers. Students are the heart of a university, and the administration can very fast lose the support they have among the student when they start pepper spraying.
| The Washington Post wrote: |
| After a video of two police officers pepper-spraying non-violent protesters at point-blank range sparked nationwide outrage, the University of California at Davis has placed them on administrative leave. |
Seems like it had some consequences for the policemen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a UC-Davis alumni, so it's not a surprise that I'm on an alumni mailing list. I just received the following e-mail:
| Quote: |
Subject: Message from UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi
November 20, 2011
Dear Alumni and Friends,
Friday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent. This past week our campus was a site of week-long peaceful demonstrations during which students were able to express their concerns about many issues facing higher education, the University of California, our campus, our nation, and the world as a whole. Those events involved multiple rallies in the Quad and an occupation of Mrak Hall which ended peacefully a day later.
However, the events on Friday were a major deviation from that trend. In the aftermath of the troubling events we experienced, I will attempt to provide a summary of the incident with the information now available to me and the steps we will follow going forward.
After a week of peaceful exchange and debate, on Thursday a group of protestors including UC Davis students and other non-UC Davis affiliated individuals established an encampment of about 25 tents on the Quad. The group was reminded that while the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds.
On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.
During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful. However, a group of students and non-campus affiliates decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. The events of this intervention have been videotaped and widely distributed. As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way. The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this.
To this effect, I am forming a task force comprised of faculty, students and staff to review the events and provide to me a thorough report within 30 days. The task force will be chosen this week and convene immediately to begin their work. As part of this, a process will be designed that allows members of the community to express their views on this matter. In addition, I will hold a series of meetings and forums with students, faculty and staff to listen to their concerns and hear their ideas for restoring civil discourse to the campus. In the interim, two UC Davis police officers involved in the incident have been placed on administrative leave following their use of pepper spray.
Related to current policies, I am asking the office of Administrative and Resource Management and the office of Student Affairs to review our policies in relation to encampments of this nature and consider whether our existing policies reflect the needs of the students at this point in time. If our policies do not allow our students enough flexibility to express themselves, then we need to find a way to improve these policies and make them more effective and appropriate.
Our campus is committed to providing a safe environment for all to learn freely and practice their civil rights of freedom of speech and expression. At the same time, our campus has the responsibility to ensure the safety of all others who use the same spaces and rely on the same facilities, tools, environments and processes to practice their freedoms to work and study.
I spoke with students this weekend and I feel their outrage. I am deeply saddened that this happened on our campus, and as chancellor, I take full responsibility for the incident. I pledge to take the actions needed to ensure this does not happen again. I feel sorry for the harm our students were subjected to and I vow to work tirelessly to make the campus a more welcoming and safe place.
Sincerely,
Linda P.B. Katehi |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Then the question is, is pepper spray a legitimate means to remove a non-violent trespasser?
I for one would say that, it is, but I would also say that if I was in charge of the officers there, I would have recommended physical removal, rather than pepper spray. "Carry them off". Of course if someone gets accidentally dropped or tangled, there are some issues, but I would try to negotiate that if they agree to be "peaceably carried off" we can meet the midway of the officers having to enforce their authority and the protesters not backing down.
If reason fails, give a countdown. After that, rough removal. If they resist, spray or taze.
But you can't struggle against the police and then scream "Don't taze me bro".
So I do not agree with the decision to spray, but I would not declare it prohibited. Perhaps the officer involved thought that pepper spray would be safer and more effective than attempting to physically remove them.
One thing, it seemed that there wasn't a high level officer on the seen to oversee the whole thing. For a situation such as that, the shift commander, at a minimum, should be there. |
One student was vomiting blood for 45 mins after they forced his mouth open and sprayed it down his throat, so saying it might be safer or more effective is absurd. Who were these officers protecting? |
THAT is unacceptable. No reason that that should happen. Officer should be stripped of their badge and criminal charges brought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Kuros's first post: things are starting to spiral out of control.
Glenn Greenwald has a good post up on Salon about UC-Davis:
The roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/
Greenwald makes several points, but the one I'd like to focus on is this: The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed � or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet � many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power...The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free. They believe that they are free to do everything they choose to do, because they have been �persuaded� � through fear and intimidation � to passively accept the status quo. As Rosa Luxemburg so perfectly put it: �Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.� Someone who sits at home and never protests or effectively challenges power factions will not realize that their rights of speech and assembly have been effectively eroded because they never seek to exercise those rights; it�s only when we see steadfast, courageous resistance from the likes of these UC-Davis students is this erosion of rights manifest.
Pervasive police abuses and intimidation tactics applied to peaceful protesters � pepper-spray, assault rifles, tasers, tear gas and the rest � not only harm their victims but also the relationship of the citizenry to the government and the set of core political rights. Implanting fear of authorities in the heart of the citizenry is a far more effective means of tyranny than overtly denying rights. That�s exactly what incidents like this are intended to achieve. Overzealous prosecution of those who engage in peaceful political protest (which we�ve seen more and more of over the last several years) as well as rampant secrecy and the sprawling Surveillance State are the close cousins of excessive police force in both intent and effect: they are all about deterring meaningful challenges to those in power through the exercise of basic rights. Rights are so much more effectively destroyed by bullying a citizenry out of wanting to exercise them than any other means.
If people are not free to peacefully express their views, then only radicals will be left to do so. That is quite possibly the goal of some of these people in authority using extreme methods to quell the protests. It is one way to discredit a movement and ultimately shut it down. Manufacturing 'consent' indeed.
At least as disturbing is this: At the root of all of those views is the classic authoritarian mindset: reflexive support for authority, contempt for those who challenge them, and a blind faith in their unilateral, unchecked decisions regarding who is Bad and deserves state-issued punishment.
Nixon made a great deal of political hay out of his 'law and order' stance. In those days it wasn't just a TV franchise.
A curious irony: the Tea Party went from attacking Wall Street to allying with the GOP in Congress to protect Wall Street and now Fox is focused on attacking Occupy Wall Street. I think I need to get out my old copy of Eric Hoffer and re-read 'The True Believer' again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bentobento
Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Location: US of A (for now)
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
Well for one thing, the tea party is corporate backed and funded so they don't have to worry about the cops kicking their teeth in. Would be bad for business.
|
The tea party is corporate backed? Where do you people get this info.
Also:
| Quote: |
| A curious irony: the Tea Party went from attacking Wall Street to allying with the GOP in Congress to protect Wall Street and now Fox is focused on attacking Occupy Wall Street. |
The tea party was never attacking Wall Street to begin with. The tea party is against big government and corrupt politicians. I feel like the majority of people who deface the tea party movement have never even gone to a tea party and observed. The organizers actually secure the areas in which they protest (which I don't think can be said for OWS protesters).
I think the pepper spraying thing is pretty bad, but I'm curious to see video of the WHOLE incident, not just an isolated part of it. Media can easily change a story by not showing certain parts of a video. I'm sure neither the police, nor protesters, are completely innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bentobento wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
Well for one thing, the tea party is corporate backed and funded so they don't have to worry about the cops kicking their teeth in. Would be bad for business.
|
The tea party is corporate backed? Where do you people get this info. |
Let's see, the news?
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Tea Party organization's donor list
| Quote: |
The tea party was never attacking Wall Street to begin with. The tea party is against big government and corrupt politicians. I feel like the majority of people who deface the tea party movement have never even gone to a tea party and observed. The organizers actually secure the areas in which they protest (which I don't think can be said for OWS protesters). |
Secure the area? What do you mean? As in get permits? Some of the OWS protests and movements have gotten permits, such as Occupy DC. They are permitted to be there for a couple months. The owner of Zucotti Park could have brought in the cops earlier if it wanted to, but it remained silent.
| Quote: |
| I think the pepper spraying thing is pretty bad, but I'm curious to see video of the WHOLE incident, not just an isolated part of it. Media can easily change a story by not showing certain parts of a video. I'm sure neither the police, nor protesters, are completely innocent. |
There are a ton of videos that have plenty of footage and plenty of news stories out there. Sure, some of the protestors were douche bags, but that does not excuse a cop casually walking up to them and spraying pepper spray on them. It is clear in the video that the cops could have stepped over the protestors. They were no threatened in any way.
What is clear in the videos is there is a SERIOUS LACK OF LEADERSHIP by campus and police authorities. Why was no police officer or university administrator speaking up? Shouldn't have the cops at least announced that the protestors were violating such and such code? And that the cops had the authority to move those protestors by force? And if they did, why the hell aren't they out there justifying themselves right now instead of some bullshit excuse saying that the cops were feeling threatened? When all video evidence shows otherwise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
