police are just as reponsible for their own actions as anyone else. your action, your choice, your responsibility.

and no having their be a law, or an order by a superior officer (and a law is just an order by proxy) does NOT absolve you of that responsibility. The responsibility is not shared or re-directed it’s doubled, both the person acting and the person ordering is equally and fully responsible.

Their is no conceivable moral basis for initiating physical harm when your own physical safety is not direct danger. You can still initiate physical force, but you do not get to claim the moral highground.

Next there’s the simple fact that when you initiate physical force you cannot legitimately complain when the person you’re attacking responds in kind.

Translated that means that whenever an enforcement officer is causing physical harm he is risking his live BY CHOICE. I have no idea why so many enforcement officers are willing to risk their live to stop people peacefully sitting on a sidewalk, how much of an idiot, sadist or bought goon do you need to be to consider that a worthwile risk?

A rotten apple spoils the bunch (the first part is always used as excuse, and you the second part always conveniently forgotten). What (L)EO’s reactions on stories like this make abundantly clear is that that is that the current bunch of cops is spoiled completely.

Sooner or later the dam is going to burst, and the American public is armed.
That means that when the dam bursts we’re gonna have a shooting war on enforcement officer’s, and given the realities of urban live it’s impossible to avoid an ambush by a determined citizen on an enforcement officer.

I keep hoping (L)EO’s will clean up their act and go back to being peace officers instead, but at this point that hope is very very slim, and getting slimmer. If (L)EO’s as a group keep going the way they are their life isn’t gonna be worth a nickle, and they’ll have brought it on themselves.

Not necessarily. Everything depends on the circumstance. If the protesters were preventing people from getting where they needed to go, if they were causing a disturbance and people were complaining, then, sure arrest them. But they cops only received (unless you have information to the contrary) one complaint, and that was from the Chancellor.

Finally, there are different kinds and levels of force depending on the amount and type of training. There are elementary techniques derived from arts like jiu jitstu and aikido that, with but a second of discomfort, can be used to relatively gently manipulate joints. But those techniques require not just training, but a desire to not injure, both of which are in short supply at your average police department.

You’re right that if the technique was misused and someone was injured, there would be complaints. But, like I said, if the arrest was based less on legal technicalities and actual necessity (including simple squatting on private property, which this wasn’t), and if the cops had shown any interest in treating the protesters humanely (there’s no evidence that they did), those complaints would have little to no weight.

Finally, the fact that the Police Chief Annette Spicuzza lied about the police being in danger indicates that they know there was no excuse for what they did, and their only way out is to make things up, as if there were no cameras around to record the reality of the situation.

And finally, finally, it’s Thanksgiving and so I’m leaving this thread for food shopping and prep. Rob, it’s been a pleasure disagreeing with you as you’ve been very thought provoking and endlessly polite. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. Have a great holiday!

This cop’s attitude was similiarly despicable.

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Technology-56895-Stream-Pepper/product-reviews/B0058EOAUE/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending&tag=theagitator-20

I’ve said my peace, I’m checking out with Mark Z. I really don’t know what more I can say to inumerate the vast difference between the declared intent of law and “keeping the peace” and what it actually amounts to.

I also don’t think that there is a magic First Amendment bubble that protects someone with a camera (or a political message) while they do things that someone without a camera/message would be forbidden to do. Burn flag in front yard: lawful. Burn flag in gas station: unlawful.

The police hate the protesters and their message and use any and every excuse they can to inflict violence.

You have absolutely no way of knowing if this is true.

If the cops there didn’t hate the protesters and their message, they would be defending their right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, instead of deliberately and individually spraying them in the face with a chemical agent. That kind of violence against a seated and immobilized target says “hate” to me. Or maybe you’re right, police are just robots who can deal out dehumanizing violence without batting an eye or giving a damn what their victims are protesting.

A few weeks ago Radley posted about the ticket fixing going on at the NYPD and posted about how the other officers all showed up in support of the officers on trial. (http://www.theagitator.com/2011/10/29/nypd-cops-demand-the-right-to-be-corrupt/)

“As the defendants emerged from their morning court appearance, a swarm of officers formed a cordon in the hallway and clapped as they picked their way to the elevators. Members of the news media were prevented by court officers from walking down the hallway where more than 100 off-duty police officers had gathered outside the courtroom.

The assembled police officers blocked cameras from filming their colleagues, in one instance grabbing lenses and shoving television camera operators backward.”

The police sure don’t mind gathering and obstructing other people’s access to public spaces when it’s their public protest. Violently, I might add.

If that’s the case, then the police should be up on assault and false imprisonment charges. My suspicion, however, is that they did break a law, just not a law you approve of. Which is quite a different matter.

The more basic reason is that they weren’t causing harm to anyone by being there.

To the extent that they were hindering access to a building, they were causing harm. I don’t know if they were really stopping anyone from getting in (which merits police action), or just blocking one entrance when others were available (which is harmless), or maybe not blocking access at all. The fact that they were just sitting there doesn’t really matter; nobody should have to step over a potentially hostile crowd to go about their legitimate business (although stepping around is no big deal).

How do you know this?

And are you saying that if an effort to talk was made, but the protesters steadfastly refused to leave voluntarily (as seems rather likely), that force would then be OK with you?

But again, you’re not making your case that it was necessary to remove these particular protesters at that time.

That’s because I reject the notion of “necessary” here. Rare is the law enforcement action which cannot be criticized on the grounds that it is “unnecessary” at some particular place and time. There is almost nothing that truly can’t wait. Yet if no action is ever taken, the result is anarchy. I understand that sounds like a good idea to some people, but not to me.

The rules should be clear, fair, and swiftly enforced. And hey, if you’re into civil disobedience and getting arrested to make a point, I don’t see why you would object to…getting arrested.

You can’t treat protesters as if they were vagrants.

On the contrary, if the protesters are doing the sorts of things that get call vagrants to the attention of the law, then you must treat protesters like vagrants.

Look, Portland (where I live) has been hassling homeless tent cities for a long time. Then a tent city of non-homeless people springs up downtown, and suddenly the mayor is all hands-off and supportive–until the homeless people started showing up in large numbers at the non-homeless camp (gee, who could have seen that coming?), causing the city to crack down on it.

That behavior, which took place a couple of blocks from my office, offends my notion of fairness and equality. Either camping out is OK or camping out is not OK.

Defending the enforcement of a bad law with this phrase…

I don’t see anything wrong with a law that says “don’t block access to campus buildings during business hours” or “don’t block the roads.” A law that says “don’t sit on campus sidewalks” is probably a bad law.

They broke NO LAW, Rob. That’s NO LAW, as in “Congress shall make NO LAW”.

Many commenters here have argued that there should have been no enforcement action at all. It seems to me the main reason for that is the view that the protesters are engaged in some kind of noble enterprise of speaking truth to power.

That’s one reason, sure.

The more basic reason is that they weren’t causing harm to anyone by being there. They weren’t threatening people or destroying property or setting shit on fire or otherwise endangering the safety of the community. They were SITTING and TALKING.

Thanks to StrangeOne for more precisely laying out the problem with “vagrancy” (i.e. standing on public property) laws. I would try to make that argument but I’m sick of arguing with someone who can’t even pass the Turing test.

This implies that all laws require the respect of equal application at all times. Defending the enforcement of a bad law with this phrase is how people have defended the enforcement of terrible laws for hundreds of years.

My point is that no attempt was made to talk with, to humanize the protesters. Sit down next to them and have a talk. Explain the situation. That’s all the effort that’s needed.

But again, you’re not making your case that it was necessary to remove these particular protesters at that time. You can’t treat protesters as if they were vagrants. And using force to remove people who don’t need to be removed can only escalate a non-violent situation into a violent one.

I disagree rather strongly with the “dire need” criterion as a broad general rule. In the case of a sidewalk on campus that can be easily walked around, that probably makes good sense, as long as it is evenly applied to protesters and apolitical sidewalk-sitters alike. In the case of an ordinary street which is normally open to vehicles but is blocked by protesters, get the hell out of the street, you idiots, I’m trying to get to my kid’s daycare.

You want a content-neutral approach, but haven’t recognized that the broadness of laws *as written* combined with *police discretion* results in nothing less than a content censoring approach.

So rewrite the law.

I’m pointing out that if such a law includes people who are peacefully assembled on public property, then a non-content-neutral approach to law enforcement would by to arrest everyone on public property at all times. Since that’s impossible, it leaves everyone subject to the whims of law enforcement, i.e. a police state.

You want a content-neutral approach, but haven’t recognized that the broadness of laws *as written* combined with *police discretion* results in nothing less than a content censoring approach. Thats the practical reality of the situation.

A peace officer would have requested the protesters make way for use of the land IF, and only if, some dire need of the space was required by others, say emergency vehicles. Beyond that they have no obligation other than to sit and watch in case the protesters or possible detractors attempt to escalate a peaceful situation into a violent one. Instead they escalated the situation and did a fine job of making themselves look like incompetent thugs.

Um, well, yes, my whole point is that whatever law the protesters broke should be enforced neutrally. If it is typically not enforced, then it should not have been enforced here (and indeed, should be repealed). If it is enforced against vagrants, pro-life protesters, or drunken frat boys, then it should be enforced against these protesters, too. The law, and its enforcement, should be based on conduct, not thoughts or speech.

Many commenters here have argued that there should have been no enforcement action at all. It seems to me the main reason for that is the view that the protesters are engaged in some kind of noble enterprise of speaking truth to power. If this were a bunch of homeless people with no place to go, most people would agree they should be removed so that students can freely use the sidewalk. And my point is that their nobility and their message do not, and must not matter.

The police hate the protesters and their message and use any and every excuse they can to inflict violence.

You have absolutely no way of knowing if this is true.

However, to the extent that you would endorse enforcement of vagrancy laws against actual vagrants, but not against student protesters, you are recommending a non-content-neutral approach to law enforcement, which strikes me as a lot more dangerous than pepper spray.

What are the protestors options? File a form to make a civil demonstration? I’m sure they would get approval for like 2 hours on a tuesday afternoon. But lets be real, if you want to form an ongoing and noticible protest, the authorities won’t allow you to. Neither the university nor the state would have allowed the protesters the right to peacefully assemble for extended periods of time, whether they were on the grass or the sidewalk or behind a concrete wall, they simply wouldn’t get permission.

I would love to live in a world, or at least a country, where the laws were fairly enforceable and the right of people to peacefully assemble in public was respected by them. But thats not the way it is. Our laws are written to give the greatest possible discretionary power to the state. How many people that speed on highways or jaywalk actually get ticketed for the offense? I doubt its a thousandth of a percent, but since “contempt of cop” isn’t an actual crime, yet, we see these and other rules selectively enforced all the time. Or worse yet they are used as an indirect tax, a literal extortion of the general public.

The “law’s the law” approach is principly undermined by unjust laws. Choosing to always opperate within the confines of the beuracracy just serves to empower the beuracracy, it does nothing to garauntee your rights or that justice is served. Its nice to have the right to peacefully assemble enumerated on paper, but the de facto stance of authorities in this country is that it doesn’t exist. It hasn’t existed for a while. This whole incident is indicitave of that.