UC Davis--What Really Happened

[Oreo Cookie]

There were also student arrested BEFORE the pepper spray, and they were with the police when they were surrounded and barred from movement.

I understand that there were students arrested before the pepper spray, what I am saying is that instead of pepper spraying start arresting the students obstructing the way.

I don't know if the students were breaking the law, but if they were then they should have been arrested. I do not believe pepper spray was appropriate in this specific incident.

 

[Keli]

I think the police did the correct thing in spraying the students with pepper spray when they surrounded the police trying to arrest students and refused to move.
For those that feel the students surrounding them should just have been arrested I'm really wondering how they were supposed to do that without letting go of the students they were already arresting?
When you are old enough for college you are no longer a child and it's ridiculous for the protectors to refer to themselves as children. If you are old enough to make adult decisions, move out of your parents home, sign your own financial documents and vote then you ARE NOT a child.

 

[AlwaysMoving]

I understand that there were students arrested before the pepper spray, what I am saying is that instead of pepper spraying start arresting the students obstructing the way.

I don't know if the students were breaking the law, but if they were then they should have been arrested. I do not believe pepper spray was appropriate in this specific incident.

The police were obviously outnumbered. With so few police, who were completely surrounded by an increasingly worked up crowd, what do you think would have happened if they had tried to arrest more?

 

[Jennasis]

If only the pepper spray wielding police in riot gear had been around for the aftermath of the firing of Joe Paterno. THAT kind of behavior warranted pepper spray.

 

[akhenaten]

I heard the police ask the seated protestors if they understand that force will be used against them. And I don't feel they were 'protestors' anymore, once they blocked police, it took it to a whole different level.




Way more than one person chanted F the police. It wasn't one person who yelled it once.

These *children* as they chose to identify themselves as, have no right to block our police force. They were trying to bully the police, saying "let them go and we'll let you go". Do these *children* think that those who have the biggest stick and is the strongest should win? THAT's a military state. These children were acting more like that than the police did. The police where within the law, within the constitution. What the protestors did was illegal - interfering with legal police activity.

These kiddies need to get back to class, get a job, pay some taxes, then I'd love to hear from them.

Except they did not spray anyone surrounding them... they sprayed a line of kids sitting down many feet in front of them.

What "children" had a bigger stick than the police... the ones sitting with arms linked...the multitude holding phones and recording , or the ones using their voices?

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

Except they did not spray anyone surrounding them... they sprayed a line of kids sitting down many feet in front of them.

What "children" had a bigger stick than the police... the ones sitting with arms linked...the multitude holding phones and recording , or the ones using their voices?

No, they sprayed a line of adults, sitting on the ground, being egged on by the hundreds of other adults around them, that were blocking thier path to the squad car that had come to take the arrested protesters to jail. Those people weren't sitting innocently on a park bench playing bongos, they deliberately sat down to block police access. They were warned multiple times that if they chose not to move, force would be used to move them, and they thought it was all a big joke.

Honestly, given the tenor of the crowd, based on the videos, had the police laid hands on the people (they aren't kids, or children) who were blocking them to arrest them, there's a very real chance that others would have tried to intervene, and violence would have erupted. Using pepper spray was less forceful that beanbag shooters, which is what they were carrying, not assault weapons, and accomplished what the police needed to do without laying a hand on the protesters.

Any time the odds sit at 40 to hundreds or a thousand, the 40 are going to be considered the underdog, the protesters got lucky that they didn't fire tear gas.

Thanks OP for the link, it's good to see the rest of the story.

 

[sasywtch]

I am amazed at those who believe the students at UCD were not at fault for the pepperspray. I worked for the sheriff's department in the neighboring town and when a mob mentality exists, you need to be proactive.

From what I could tell, they were there to take down the tents which I'm guessing is against their law/policy. Just because we have freedom of speech and can protest does not give anyone the right to do anything they want. That always blows me away when people cite the right to protest. You can protest on the capitol lawn in Sacramento but you can't block the doorway. Common sense. I'm guessing they could protest all they want on the lawns but setting up tents is not ok.

Once they surrounded the police, they were no longer peaceful. For those who say they should arrest the few? 50 police vs 2000 people? The protesters had already shown themselves that they were not peaceful on the few that they had arrested so common sense would dictate if they tried to arrest 100 that were blocking the path, the scene would deteriorate. The police never said they were going to arrest those not in the path therefore, a peaceful protest was being allowed. The protestors are at fault and pepperspray in my opinion was the correct procedure. No way would I want to have been one of those policeman in the middle of that crowd. They showed themselves that they were not going to adhere to police commands so how were the police to know exactly what would happen if they tried to arrest those blocking the path? Chances are the protestors might have done nothing however, why should the police have to take that chance when the protestors were the ones violating the law? (surrounding the police and not allowing them to complete their job?).

These students are not stupid. UCD is a top school of medical/veternarian education which takes a 4.0 and above to get in to. I too was taken aback by the pepperspray as that's all we've seen on the news here until I saw them blocking the police. If my kid was sprayed while protesting on the lawn, I'd have a problem. If they were surrounding the police, they'd get no sympathy from me. ***disclaimer since it will come up---I do not believe all police are wonderful. I am citing this one particular instance and that's all.

If the students had taken down the tents and had not blocked the paths, their freedom of speech and right to protest was still there. THAT was never taken away. The law does not provide you the absolute right to do anything you want while protesting which I think some think it does.

 

[Magic Mom]

I understand that there were students arrested before the pepper spray, what I am saying is that instead of pepper spraying start arresting the students obstructing the way.

I don't know if the students were breaking the law, but if they were then they should have been arrested. I do not believe pepper spray was appropriate in this specific incident.

They weren't in a position to arrest more students due to the actions of those surrounding them. Climbing over students sitting on the ground would have endangered everyone. The police had weapons, if they had tried to climb over it would have taken just one joker tripping an officer and the weapon could have ended up in someone else's hands.

If they had started dragging students more would have sat in their place and the tone of the crowd was volatile enough that just one scuffle with a dragged student could have set off a riot.

 

[Wadecool]

They weren't in a position to arrest more students due to the actions of those surrounding them. Climbing over students sitting on the ground would have endangered everyone. The police had weapons, if they had tried to climb over it would have taken just one joker tripping an officer and the weapon could have ended up in someone else's hands.

If they had started dragging students more would have sat in their place and the tone of the crowd was volatile enough that just one scuffle with a dragged student could have set off a riot.

Great point!

 

[akhenaten]

No, they sprayed a line of adults, sitting on the ground, being egged on by the hundreds of other adults around them, that were blocking thier path to the squad car that had come to take the arrested protesters to jail. Those people weren't sitting innocently on a park bench playing bongos, they deliberately sat down to block police access. They were warned multiple times that if they chose not to move, force would be used to move them, and they thought it was all a big joke.

Honestly, given the tenor of the crowd, based on the videos, had the police laid hands on the people (they aren't kids, or children) who were blocking them to arrest them, there's a very real chance that others would have tried to intervene, and violence would have erupted. Using pepper spray was less forceful that beanbag shooters, which is what they were carrying, not assault weapons, and accomplished what the police needed to do without laying a hand on the protesters.

Any time the odds sit at 40 to hundreds or a thousand, the 40 are going to be considered the underdog, the protesters got lucky that they didn't fire tear gas.

Thanks OP for the link, it's good to see the rest of the story.

My use of the word "children" was from the quote I posted...

and my main point is that the Chancellor of the school created the dangerous situation in her over reaction to the student protestors... perhaps instead of having to create a committee to investigate the stand off she created, she should have created a committee to work with and negotiate with the protestors before she called in the police ....

That would have been the prudent and intelligent solution...

 

[dfchelbay]

There are rules that need to be followed in order to protest, i.e. in certain areas, with permits, etc. Without these very basic and quite simple rules, there would be chaos and mayhem. When you are told to move by a police, or suffer the consequences of an arrest...then move. The police do not need to announce to anyone the method in which they are going to subdue you, prior to your arrest.

Let's not forget that the protesters were warned repeatedly. They chose to ignore that.

 

[bellebud]

Except they did not spray anyone surrounding them... they sprayed a line of kids sitting down many feet in front of them.

What "children" had a bigger stick than the police... the ones sitting with arms linked...the multitude holding phones and recording , or the ones using their voices?

the mob was working as a whole, as one unit. The surrounding ones were watching, waiting to see what the police would do. The police needed the seated ones to move for them to leave. They kept on asking them to move.

In regards to the children having a bigger stick than the police... the children were surrounding the police, greatly out-numbering them, and had moved in on them. Chanting to the police their demands of "let them go". Then chanting "we'll let you go if you let them go" (not quoting, can't remember the exact words). IF is a threatening, big word to use to the police. They were threatening the police at that point. Threatening them with their actions (moving in on them and surrounding them), and threatening them with their words.

I think the police showed great restraint. They really looked like they did not want to have to take it that far. They kept going up to the kids who were in violation of the law by blocking the path of the police, and asking them if they understood that force would be used it they didn't move. The police really, really wanted the kids to move to the side. The police didn't care if they kept on protesting, in a legal way. The police just wanted to get out of there.

And them calling themselves "children"... (ok, they're really adults of course), but it really pissed me off when they started yelling "don't hurt your children". They want to be "heard"... to be seen as adults and taken seriously... but only when they thought it was working for them. As soon as they had to face the serious consequences brought on by their own actions, they reverted to calling themselves "children". VERY immature, and I cannot even listen to what they have to say after that. I think mentally and emotionally, they are children. Just because someone got a 4.0 to get into that school, doesn't mean they have any common sense, or maturity. Honestly, spoiled brats is what this looked like... *we will do whatever we want and you can't stop us... we're adults protesting something really important... we don't care if we're doing it illegally... oh wait, you have pepper spray? wait, no-no, we're not adults, really, we're only children!! waaa-waaa*

God, they made me sick.

 

[akhenaten]

There are rules that need to be followed in order to protest, i.e. in certain areas, with permits, etc. Without these very basic and quite simple rules, there would be chaos and mayhem. When you are told to move by a police, or suffer the consequences of an arrest...then move. The police do not need to announce to anyone the method in which they are going to subdue you, prior to your arrest.

Let's not forget that the protesters were warned repeatedly. They chose to ignore that.

Rules being followed to protest, is an absurd concept and also will lead to a total loss of the right to protest. It does no good to "protest" a nuclear power plant from miles away for example.

I do believe that the protestors who chose to stay in areas that they are not allowed to be in, are in effect agreeing to be arrested and should also co-operate while the police are doing so... putting hands behind backs and rising with the officer as they lift them off of the ground. This would be civil disobedience.
I do not believe that protestors should be sprayed with pepper spray to make it easier to arrest them This is what I think this officer was doing... either that or he was just reacting in anger , which is not what you want a police officer to do.

 

[PeterPan09]

I've seen a few videos of this event, including this one-and I still do not think that it was necessary to resort to pepper spray. I still firmly believe that the technique of picking protestors up and dragging them off to the "paddy wagon" would have worked just as well, without having to send anyone to the hospital.

My concern is that protests will not stop because of this, and I'm afraid of the next step that the authorities will feel it is acceptable to take. Pepper spray was acceptable, so if they are standing instead of sitting do we use billy clubs? What if they step forward towards police, do we shoot them?

What if it was your kid? Although I know all DIS children are quietly obedient to authority and never, ever would protest anything, because whatever the decision or law that is made by the PTB is always right-but use your imagination. And when you're doing that-remember that the police didn't pepper spray the angry crowd around them-they sprayed the kids sitting with their arms folded who were not being aggressive towards them at all. If your kid was in that line-would you still think it was ok as you went to the hospital to see them? I know I wouldn't be.

 

[bellebud]

I've seen a few videos of this event, including this one-and I still do not think that it was necessary to resort to pepper spray. I still firmly believe that the technique of picking protestors up and dragging them off to the "paddy wagon" would have worked just as well, without having to send anyone to the hospital.

My concern is that protests will not stop because of this, and I'm afraid of the next step that the authorities will feel it is acceptable to take. Pepper spray was acceptable, so if they are standing instead of sitting do we use billy clubs? What if they step forward towards police, do we shoot them?

What if it was your kid? Although I know all DIS children are quietly obedient to authority and never, ever would protest anything, because whatever the decision or law that is made by the PTB is always right-but use your imagination. And when you're doing that-remember that the police didn't pepper spray the angry crowd around them-they sprayed the kids sitting with their arms folded who were not being aggressive towards them at all. If your kid was in that line-would you still think it was ok as you went to the hospital to see them? I know I wouldn't be.

If a person is moving towards a police officer, and he/she is told repeatedly to stop, and the person doesn't stop, I believe the officer has every right to be proactive. You have to be a real idiot to keep moving towards a police officer when you're told to stop.

As for the ones sitting there, they were sitting there ILLEGALLY. The were told this many, many times. THEY were the ones the officers needed to deal with. That's why they got pepper sprayed. It only took a couple/few officers to use the pepper spray, and the rest could stand guard. If they had to physically remove the sitters, it would have taken more officers, leaving less to stand guard. The officers didn't want to turn their backs on the crowd surrounding them. The officers didn't have many options. The pepper spray allowed them to subdue the sitters with the least amount of officers being used, so the rest could make sure they all weren't attacked.

The police have to make judgement calls all the time. How many people are there? How many officers are there? How 'active' is the crowd? Is it turning into a "mob-mentality?" It certainly seemed that way to me watching the video. The protestors were mindlessly repeating what that one person was saying on the megaphone. Would they have mindlessly charged at and attacked the officers if the ones sitting were physically removed?

I don't blame the officers one bit for doing what they did. Given the circumstances (being surrounded, being moved in on, being greatly out numbered, and being chanted at "F the police", and "IF you let them go, we'll let you go"), how can anyone expect the officers to just sit there and wait to see if they'll be attacked. Taking it all into consideration, I feel they did the right thing.

If my kid got pepper sprayed and I went to visit him in the hospital, I would have told my kid that he should have moved to the side and out of the officers way. I would have told him that what he was doing was completely illegal (blocking the officers). I would have told him to make sure he was protesting legally the next time.

 

[AlwaysMoving]

What if it was your kid? Although I know all DIS children are quietly obedient to authority and never, ever would protest anything, because whatever the decision or law that is made by the PTB is always right-but use your imagination. And when you're doing that-remember that the police didn't pepper spray the angry crowd around them-they sprayed the kids sitting with their arms folded who were not being aggressive towards them at all. If your kid was in that line-would you still think it was ok as you went to the hospital to see them? I know I wouldn't be.

If one of these students was my kid, then I say he would have gotten what he deserved. A student sitting on the ground, in my opinion, is no different than the ones standing up. Although seemingly not acting aggressively by sitting, the act of blocking the police is. The sitting students were no more than reinforcement for the others standing, which, in my opinion, made them more of a problem, because they are the reason the police could not move through the crowd. And if my kid had been pepper sprayed and I met him at the hospital I would react no differently than I did when he was younger and I warned him of consequences before doing something I had forbidden. You help block the police after being warned to move, then I will offer a tissue and tell you I bet it hurt like hell and I bet you won't do it again, then tell him I will wait for him in the waiting area and we will discuss tuition assistance for the future later at home. Of course, here is the problem with that scenario. I wonder how many of those students told their parents the truth about what happened? How many of them said "We were just sitting there, doing nothing wrong, and the police just (out of nowhere) started spraying us for no reason"

 

[cornflake]

There are rules that need to be followed in order to protest, i.e. in certain areas, with permits, etc. Without these very basic and quite simple rules, there would be chaos and mayhem. When you are told to move by a police, or suffer the consequences of an arrest...then move. The police do not need to announce to anyone the method in which they are going to subdue you, prior to your arrest.

Let's not forget that the protesters were warned repeatedly. They chose to ignore that.

I don't recall anything in the First Amendment about rules to be followed in order to protest.

Nor do I condone obeying police because otherwise you'll be arrested. Fine, then arrest them. That's a choice. Arrest does not equal or necessitate the use of force.

The police DO need to use ONLY the appropriate amount of force needed to subdue someone who is an active, immediate threat, or in response to force used by perpetrators. Neither was the case.

Again, if the cops warn you they're going to shoot you if you don't disperse from your protest, it's still not ok to shoot you.

Yes, they were blocking the cops. The cops had the choice to arrest them for some random little charge related to that. They chose to escalate the situation.

 

[plutotek]

After reading some of the "defenses" in this thread for the protesters, it's no surprise to see where this generation's feelings of self-entitlement come from. These students went from civil disobedience to aggressively threatening the police in the lawful performance of their duties. To those saying that these students did not deserve to suffer the consequences of their criminal and threatening actions are just part of the problem.

 

[AndyLL]

After reading some of the "defenses" in this thread for the protesters, it's no surprise to see where this generation's feelings of self-entitlement come from. These students went from civil disobedience to aggressively threatening the police in the lawful performance of their duties. To those saying that these students did not deserve to suffer the consequences of their criminal and threatening actions are just part of the problem.

If enough people felt like this through history we'd

- still be under the king of england
- woman would not be voting
- blacks woud still be segregated

and so on.

 

[plutotek]

If enough people felt like this through history we'd

- still be under the king of england
- blacks woud still be segregated
- woman would not be voting

and so on.

Comparing Davis to 2 of these is like apples to oranges, and the third marks the decline of western civilization