Surely this is a GOOD thing. After all, it doesn’t matter how much this one guy looses financially in the big picture; punishing him isn’t likely to do much to stop future incidents like this. But every dollar the university pays out encourages them and other employers to take a look at their policies to prevent another payout. After this judgment, maybe they’ll be saying to themselves, it’s not enough just to cover our own asses; if we hire someone who goes against policy and sprays someone, we’ll be paying his fucking bills, too! We’d better make sure our security staff actually know how to resolve situation peacefully!
I read for detail. When police are involved in an incident, people on the internet call them jackbooted thugs. Part of the job. The workers’ comp system cannot survive if you allow people to take a job and then collect because of emotional damages related to KNOWN stresses of the job.
Can telemarketers collect because they hate being yelled at over the phone?
If they suffer a psychological breakdown I think the answer is yes.
Similarly, I don’t think any of us would object if a police were given a workman’s comp award if he suffered a breakdown due to the stresses of the job and hadn’t been involved in police brutality.
For that matter, while I doubt being a campus cop is all that stressful, from what I’ve heard, overall, being a police officer is one of the more stressful jobs in the US.
From what I’ve heard they have about the highest rates of alcoholism, divorce, depression, and the biggest indicator of all, suicide.
I suspect if one only examined those from high crime areas, the rates are even higher.
That said, I’d think being a police officer from UC Davis would be a fairly cushy gig compared to being a member of say the LAPD or the SFPD.
Bull, there is no way whatsoever that he could have possibly known, when applying for the job that if he used pepper spray it might result in this.
Yes, cops do know that there’s going to be some emotional baggage that comes with the job, especially if they have to shoot someone, use a LTL weapon or even kill someone. But there’s no way he could have known that using his pepper spray would result in him being called a sadistic douche or having his picture plastered all over the internet for the next few months, out of context and shown spraying just about everything people could paste it on top of…or make cookies out of him.
Find that in the police handbook and I’ll say admit that this was a known possibility.
Oh, and UC can and does pay out for things that happen on the job, that’s what it’s there for.
The workers’ compensation system has some nuanced rules, but the idea is that job related injuries are very common and we don’t want to fill up the courts will employees suing employers, so we set up a two-fold system to help them both:
-
An employer is not liable for negligence in hurting his employee.
-
An employee gets compensated for an injury on the job, even if it wasn’t his employer’s fault; even if it’s his own fault (some situations like intoxication or intentional self-inflicted injuries excepted by law)
What you describe are injuries resulting from what a completely UNRELATED third party posted on the internet that caused no physical injury. Can the state WC system be responsible for third party actions that would have not been attributable to the employer in the first place?
That seems to take several creaky steps away from the intention of the WC system so as to make it silly to award compensation.
The students were right. I sympathize with them
They were right to confiscate public property through occupation?
Yes, obviously I’d have to become a government employee before I could get paid for this sort of thing.
There was no “award”. This was a settlement. In any event, why do you think that makes a difference?
So it is your opinion the cops couldn’t leave the ring if they wanted to? They were being held against their will by threat of violence?
Occupation is not confiscation any more than me using a park bench at the moment means I own it. They had as much right to sit and stand there as anyone. Therefore, the students were in the right and those opposed are wrong
The only reason we even have parks and schools is because their use is regulated in such a way that they are not turned into campgrounds. People use public space for all kinds of uses all of the time, including political ones. A main characteristic of the Occupy movement was it’s adherents belief that they were above the regulations that govern and ensure our continued shared use of these resources, simply because of the righteousness of their cause.
So yes, taking over a park or a schoolyard and turning it into a semi-permanent campground through occupation is an extra judicial confiscation of public property.
The cops could have left the ring, and in fact they did. It wasn’t active violence, but the protesters were obviously trying to keep the cops from being able to leave by physically blocking them, that was the point. I would like to know how non-violent it would feel to you, if you were being barricaded in somewhere in this manner.
What would you suggest they do at that point, just drive over them? Start wrestling with them? The reason pepper spray was used is because it is the least likely to cause injuries.
Seems to me that a fair number of people (not necessarily posting here) wish the man be punished above and beyond the punishment he already received. Those who attempted to inflict such extrajudicial punishment led to his suffering. How is that not actionable on his part?
How does a right of action against those people translate into a recovery from the University of California system?
It could be…against those third parties causing him harm.
That would be applicable if the students were there for an excessive amount of time and it was being used improperly and someone else was also trying to use the space were wrongfully blocked from doing so. Can you claim all 3 criteria were present before the cops decided to forcibly move them?
Or, not and. To set up semi-permanent camps in public spaces is to confiscate them from public use. The point of the movement is to do this, it’s right there in the name.
I have heard a lot of people try to defend the Occupy movement, but no one uses the defense that they were following zoning requirements and only camping in designated areas. The defense is always that they somehow had a right to the public property, that they should be exempt from the normal rules, because they were fighting the good fight.
But all of this is beside the point anyway. Even if you think the original arrests were not legitimate, the way to respond is not by physically blocking the police from exiting. That is why we have courts. I do not know what other response you would expect from the police in this case.
The situation was resolved in the most peaceful way possible, other than simply submitting to the will of the mob.
The issue of whether the Occupiers were justified is kind of irrelevant to the topic of the OP.
They were not physically blocking them. They were sitting down and not resisting. If you looked at your own video, the pepper spray cop calmly steps past the sitting students and sprays them. Each of the cops could have done the exact same thing. As for your other points, the students did not take the space from anyone. That assumes other people have a claim to it. The correct claim, of course, is whoever is using them. Again, if I’m sitting down at a public bench, neither you nor anyone else can tell me to move so you can use it. The students used that space for the purpose it was intended. It just so happens some people didn’t like the message they were presenting. They shouldn’t have been arrested and certainly shouldn’t have been pepper sprayed