<p>Be careful about deploring non-violent direct action (such as refusing to move when asked to. It has a long and vital history in this country, and a lot of important change has come about in its wake. Now, you may or may not agree with the issues being disputed, but if you think direction action, on the face of it, is wrong and deserves whatever punishment it incurs, I ask you to think back to a lunch counter in North Carolina, or marchers linking arms in Alabama. Or the Boston Tea Party, for that matter.</p>
<p>There is also a legal principle that a criminal should not be profiting from breaking the law. </p>
<p>With the focus on the purported excessive forces, all the negative issues created by this group of protesters has been conveniently buried. This group created havoc on campus and, in this precise example, were blocking public access.</p>
<p>It is a shame that the police decided to use force and sway the attitude of the observers from looking at those moronic protesters with the scorn they deserve to find some sympathy. It is a shame that they were not picked up “peacefully” and not confined in a cold cell for as long as the judicial system might have allowed. </p>
<p>Two wrongs do not make one right, but we really rewarded the originators of the problem. Let’s not forget why this happened in the first place. Unfortunately, we just gave incentives to others to exercice their purported rights to protest and impede on the rights of all who disagree with their tactics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Call it nonsense all you want; you simply confirmed your bias and the fact that you ignored large parts of the extended video. </p>
<p>There is no worst blind than the one who does not want to see. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for you. Now, we just have to take your word for it. Right?</p>
<p>Now, inform yourself. It only takes 15 minutes.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSxg5ZaCI4&feature=related[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSxg5ZaCI4&feature=related</a></p>
<p>Not my word. Images are worth 1,000 words, or so they say.</p>
<p>I figured this discussion would generate some strong opinions!</p>
<p>it is accepted that the videos that were circulating did not show the entire picture. We really do not know exactly what was happening. The protestors were refusing to move, and they were pepper sprayed. Beyond that, it is hard to know with certainty.</p>
<p>$30K seems like quite a lot. Yes, pepper spray is horrible, but they weren’t harmed for the long-term. Why isn’t an apology sufficient? Why do we need to ask for money when we have been wronged? Maybe we should cover the medical bills, but people did not lose life or limb because of this incident.</p>
<p>This was NOT Kent State.</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone with a weapon in that video. I don’t see anyone physically assaulting an officer in that video. Standing in large groups and chanting is not “mob” activity, nor does it pose a threat to officer safety. It might make an officer uncomfortable, but being placed in uncomfortable situations and handling them appropriately is something that we expect from those who are empowered to enforce the law.</p>
<p>When I pin on the bronze badge and go to work in the uniform of the Forest Service, I’m well aware of the fact that by doing so, I am held to a higher standard. It is a privilege to be a public servant, and with that authority comes responsibility. I have to take abuse and smile.</p>
<p>You are continue to show incredible bad faith here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the video shows nothing of the sort of a “belligerent mob on all sides of the police force.” Isn’t that blocking the path to the police leaving the area a belligerent act? Is “we will LET YOU go if you release the arrested” not a threat?</p>
<p>Oh well, it really does not matter. The evidence is clear to anyone who does not wear colored glasses or blinders. The students were the responsible party to this escalation. And the system of rewards failed all of us.</p>
<p>On a semi-facetious note, I am glad you do not wait for the bears to carry a weapon or start to physically attack a human before taking action with your pepper spray. Great that bears and humans get the same “higher standard” treatment. </p>
<p>A real study in contradiction!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. If the protestors physically resisted the officers as they tried to leave, that would be a belligerent act.</p>
<p>Moreover, the line of seated protestors was not “blocking” anything, unless you think police officers can’t step over a group of seated people. Even if we accept your “belligerent act” claim, the appropriate response would have been a use of force against the encircling protestors, not the seated human chain in the middle of the grass.</p>
<p>thanks for posting the entire video Xiggi…seeing what transpired leading up to the pepper spraying proves how stupid these “protesters” really were…They were actually blocking the police from leaving…they deserved what they got…IMO…At least 4 warnings to move…their parents should be proud. Confirms my opinion that they don’t deserve a dime…getting paid for disobeying the law and acting like a bunch of idiots…what a country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do not deploy pepper spray at a bear unless, in our judgment, the bear is posing a threat to human life. We are trained how to recognize such situations and in a variety of less-invasive interventions designed to de-escalate human/bear conflicts and establish dominance.</p>
<p>The use of bear spray is a last resort. It is not a “shoo bear” tool - it is a “your life or someone else’s may be in danger” tool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know a “sorry I never bothered watching the entire videos” would have worked. This spinning and twisting is really unbecoming. As I said, you’re demonstrating an uncanny unwillingness to look at the evidence. I also assume that your definition of belligerent is solely focused on the “waging war” origin and assumes the need to be violent. </p>
<p>The definition of belligerent is more complex than that, as it is commonly used to describe a person who inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness. I would truly hard-pressed to find better qualifiers for what this mob of students was doing. </p>
<p>But heck, feel free to ignore the crystal clear evidence from the video and continue to focus on the apex of the confrontation. It is obvious that you will never admit to the wrongdoing of the students. Just as I never will consider that group as victims.</p>
<p>Being “belligerent” isn’t sufficient grounds to support the use of pepper spray. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.</p>
<p>There is plenty of wrongdoing among the students - and arresting them for civil disobedience would be expected. But their wrongdoing does not permit the police to act as judge, jury and executioner in carrying out, effectively, an on-the-spot punishment for their crimes via pepper spray directly applied to the face. [That</a> unprovoked use of chemical weapons (and yes, pepper spray is properly a chemical weapon) was neither necessary nor morally justified.](<a href=“http://catholicmoraltheology.com/occupy-wall-street-protests-police-and-pepper-spray-nothing-to-sneeze-at/]That”>Occupy Wall Street Protests, Police, and Pepper Spray: Nothing to Sneeze At | Catholic Moral Theology)</p>
<p>Such is not the role of the police in our society. The law recognizes that, judges recognize that, juries recognize that - and, thankfully, the University of California has recognized that.</p>
<p>^maybe…but acting disobedient doesn’t deserve you getting 30K either…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it ridiculous from a purely short-term financial point of view to pay a settlement when continued litigation could be “even more expensive” as you put it?</p>
<p>Now, if you made the argument that paying settlements too easily may encourage more (possibly marginal) lawsuits, that may be a better argument. But that is not what you said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If your civil rights are violated in a manner far disproportionate to the offense, yes it does. If you’re arrested for DUI, do the police have the right to beat you with nightsticks? No? But you were disobedient - you broke the law!</p>
<p>If the officers in question had simply physically separated each protestor, handcuffed them and taken them away to a paddy wagon, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this. The cops chose the lazy way out.</p>
<p>I agree with xiggi and geeps - these students were out to make a scene, deliberately blocking paths ignoring direction to disperse, and taunting the police, and then of course, whined like babies when the police followed through on their warnings that the students chose to ignore. They wanted to make a statement and they managed to do that thanks to the pepper spray. The campus police were quite tolerant of them for a long time. </p>
<p>I think better choices of dispersal methods could have been chosen, including UCD informing each non-compliant student (although I don’t know whether they were all actually UCD students) they were going to be subject to disciplinary action if they don’t comply and protest in a non-obstructive manner rather than the way they chose. There’s such a thing as being able to protest peacefully without causing obstruction and destruction. I don’t consider being obstructive as ‘peaceful’.</p>
<p>The real losers here are the taxpayers and the UC students who now have $1M fewer dollars in a system already fiscally challenged. The winners are these students who were doubly rewarded - the use of pepper spray got them the press they wanted for their silly protest and now they’ve been heavily remunerated for it as well. The clear message to the UC students is to protest whatever you want, do it in an obstructive way, ignore whatever law enforcement directs, and taunt them to use some level of force that you can turn around as a basis of a lawsuit so you can reap financial rewards to boot.</p>
<p>Something interesting about this thread: considering who the OP is, there is no mention of the National Buckeye Scholarship at The Ohio State University. :)</p>
<p>Mall Cops.</p>
<p>how about showing some common sense? Cops give you 4 warnings to stop blocking their path. They take out and start shaking pepper spray and these idiots still sit there?</p>
<p>stupid…stupid…stupid…Let’s reward them with $30k of taxpayer money…</p>
<p>geeps, what level of force do you feel would have been inappropriate for the police to have used? Nightsticks? Tear gas? Rubber bullets? Real bullets to extremities? A double tap to the head? After all, the officers could claim they were in fear of their life, right?</p>
<p>There is a lot more to the story than what the video does or doesn’t prove. Two independent task forces assembled by the UC system concluded UC Davis–from the chancellor down to individual police officers–failed in numerous respects to properly handle the Occupy protest. [ul][<em>]Internal, state and national guidelines for emergency management were not followed; [</em>]University leadership made many poor operational decisions; [<em>]“The pepper spraying incident … should and could have been prevented;”[li]“[The] use of force in pepper spraying seated protesters was objectively unreasonable;” and [</em>]The MK-9 pepper spray weapon was not an authorized UCPD weapon, the campus police force did not train its officers how to use it and “[the officer who used it on the protesters] did not use it correctly” (spraying people at close range when the MK-9 was designed as a high-pressure crowd dispersal spray to be applied at a minimum six feet range).[/ul] <a href=“http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf[/url]”>http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf</a> </p>[/li]
<p>It’s not difficult for me to imagine the UC’s legal team estimating a high chance of liability to the protesters, hence the decision to settle.</p>
<p>I’m scratching my head, though, over the decision to settle for $30,000 per student. That sum is sounds wildly excessive considering the extent of physical injury and emotional distress sustained. I think they would have fared far better in front of a jury on damages.</p>