http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/m...222658156.htmlOriginally Posted by bae
Apparently Fox news agrees with you. How lovely.
I wonder if your constituents know you view pepper spray as nothing more than a condiment? Is that going to be in your next political ad? I'm sure that will go over at the food kitchen on movie night.
But freedom of speech includes the threat of violence with guns? I'd rather have someone peaceably block my sidewalk than demand to speak while fingering the trigger of his gun...but that's just me.
Did you know that all police officers are sprayed with pepper spray as part of their training with the substance? Most of them get lit up with tasers too.
Back in the old days when I carried government issued mace, their cannisters were just about guaranteed to leak causing me to mace myself on a semi-regular basis. These non-lethal irritants are pretty much just that, irritating.
Last edited by Alan; 11-23-11 at 9:28pm.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Now, now. I'd like to see a citation showing anyone with their finger on the trigger of their gun at a Tea Party event. Are you speaking metaphorically or just exaggerating?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
A sensible person uses a holster that covers the trigger, this helps avoid negligent discharges. I can point you at some quality training in your area if you have a need.
One would have to suspect that officer pike didn't pay attention in the training sessions on its use to details like how long to spray people since two of the protesters he sprayed wound up in the hospital. Of course I'd also be surprised if he's been trained that he should use it in situations where he's obviously not being threatened or intimidated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...yEoN_blog.html
If Megyn Kelly doesn't man up and eat some pepper spray on tv perhaps you can volunteer to go eat some popcorn on fox news for her.
I will assert that while I have seen images of Tea Party protesters with weapons, I have not seen them with "fingers on triggers." But, the issue does beg a number of questions.
The first issue that seems to be raised is about assembly and permits. There is a lot of law around this, and it should be noted that there is a lot of criticism as to how this permitting process negatively affects first amendment rights. Leaving that aside, lets talk about police involvement.
There are two areas where I find this involvement interesting: 1. the charges brought against arrested occupiers; 2. the use of force in the process.
There is one very easy law broken in this process -- protesting without a permit. Martin Luther King, Jr was arrested for protesting without a permit. OWS legal advisors have encouraged occupiers to protest without permits, which includes protesting against permits (i consider permits to have good uses, but i also consider the criticism against this permitting, which is becoming stricter and stricter, asserting that it inhibits freedom of speech/assembly). Yet, as far as I can tell, no one has been arrested for this.
IN the news reports, and various individual films online, I have noted that the police announce that the occupiers must disperse or will be under arrest for X. So far, I've heard: trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and unlawful assembly. I have not yet heard anyone being arrested for protesting without a permit.
Trespass is easily managed; unless a park has specific ordinances, or is not public land (or on public charter), then it isn't trespass and dispersal isn't required. Most of the charges are dropped.
Disorderly conduct is vague, but usually refers to public drunkenness and trying to start a fight. Interestingly enough, it includes that disorderly conduct occurs if a person is preventing peaceful assembly (protest), as well as general use of a space by the populace as a whole. The law is also clear that it cannot be used to clear a peaceful assembly.
Disturbing the peace is also vague, but usually has to do with loud noise or abusive language. The jurisprudence is also clear that a protest that is disturbing the peace is actually pretty much exempt from falling under this law.
The last one is most interesting, which is unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly has two forms: Rout and Riot. A rout is when 3 or more people intend to start a riot, even if they don't achieve those ends, and a riot is when a large group enacts violence against an authority, property, or person.
What is most interesting about this is that -- with the exception of Oakland -- the movements and protests have been peaceful according to all of the common practices and definitions of peaceful protest. This includes, btw, the incidents that we are speaking of -- the pepper spraying of UC Davis students, and I'll also include the baton use at the UC Berkley campus. There has been no evidence of rout or riotous behavior such that unlawful assembly would stick as a charge. And, those -- as with the others -- have often been dismissed by the judges.
In the second instance, the real question is about when police use the various tools at their disposal. To be sure, there have been very limited uses of pepper spray and batoning. But in order for these levels of force to be used, there needs to be a threat of danger to the police and/or the public (or a third innocent party), or their needs to be cause such as preventing a riot.
In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions. What i DO see is students following common non-violent, civil disobedience tactics AND peaceful protest procedures.
There is ore, but I have to teach now!
ore should be more.
So, to continue from "In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions.", I posit that the police used excessive force in these instances.
The next question that is raised, then, is why it is being used in these conditions, but not against Tea Party Protesters. I think the question leads to wild speculation, but here is my question about it:
Is the Tea Party, at it's demonstrations, not seeing the incidence of arrests and excessive force due to:
A. the fact that they have permits;
B. the fact that they are of a different demographic (largely white and over 40);
C. the fact that they have the support of a major political party and a major news network;
D. the fact that they are openly carrying weapons to some of their events?
As I said, it is largely speculation. Another might be that the Tea Party events are not as loud or large as the ows occupations. it may also be that they are not as long in duration, as the permits do often include a time limit for the protest.
I wonder, though, is the expectation that if a Tea Party protest were to be considered heading toward rout or riot behavior, would they use pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, those noise-things, and such on that crowd, knowing that they had firearms, or would the situation be vastly different?
accidental double
Does anyone have a compare-and-contrast of the number and types of incidents of violence and illegal behaviour at Tea Party vs. OWS gatherings? Sexual assaults, public sex, vandalism, homicide, theft, robbery, that sort of thing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote