Occupy (insert name of city here)

[Magiver]

@Martin_Hyde

If you have the manpower you just break the chain one by one. The guy you want to remove you have 3-4 officers on him, and you have 3-4 officers for each of the two people he has locked arms with. The 3-4 officers on his companions focus on physically unlocking their arms (and 3-4 police officers on each guy will definitely be able to do this) and the 3-4 officers removing him basically just carry him off.

I’ve seen some of these sit ins and you have dozens of officers on scene, so this isn’t impossible. If they get violent, use the pepper spray or TASER, but only if they get violent. If they just clench their arms, just use superior strength to force them apart. Unless you have Heracles in the crowd it’s not going to be difficult for multiple police officers to force people’s arms apart.

I disagree with your premise for a number of reasons.
This was an act of passive aggressive behavior that crossed the line into obstruction of justice. The people involved were given clear, express warning of the consequences. They chose to ignore this and by doing so elected to be pepper sprayed.

[John_Mace]

@magellan01

Wait, you think that all but a couple of protestors are part of the 1%?

:smack: I meant maybe one or two protesters are in the 1%. Actually, it would be their parents and good look to them staying in the 1% upon graduation!

[Bone]

What is the penalty for the crime of passive aggressive behavior? I don’t believe you are using the term “obstruction of justice” correctly.

So during the civil rights sit-ins in the 60’s it would be okay with you had they all been pepper sprayed? The escalation of force by the police here was absurd. If an individual did that even on their own front lawn they would be penalized both criminally and civilly. It is not okay to respond to non-violence with violence. You disagree with that?

[magellan01]

@John_Mace

:smack: I meant maybe one or two protesters are in the 1%. Actually, it would be their parents and good look to them staying in the 1% upon graduation!

Aha! So what you wrote was a lie?

[John_Mace]

@Magiver

I disagree with your premise for a number of reasons.
This was an act of passive aggressive behavior that crossed the line into obstruction of justice. The people involved were given clear, express warning of the consequences. They chose to ignore this and by doing so elected to be pepper sprayed.

The court disagrees with you:

The federal courts have ruled on such cases. At the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers courts in nine western states, the cases have centered on whether or not the protesters were involved in what is called “active resistance.”

The court used the term in considering a case about another highly circulated video of a group of passive demonstrators being swabbed with pepper spray in 1997. The protesters had linked arms on the floor of a California congressman’s office to protest the logging of old-growth redwood trees on California’s North Coast.

Because demonstrators were using a metal sleeve to prevent the county sheriff’s office from separating them, attorneys argued the protestors’ “active resistance” left officers no other way to disperse them than dabbing their eyelids with Q-tips soaked in pepper spray, said Jim Wheaton, an attorney who assisted in the prosecution of the civil case.

The 9th Circuit ruled that the protesters weren’t in “active resistance,” and because they were sitting peacefully, the use of pepper spray was excessive.

[Magiver]

@John_Mace

The court disagrees with you:

I based this on the comment that the protesters blocked the movement of the police. I’m not sure your example fits that.

[Magiver]

@Bone

What is the penalty for the crime of passive aggressive behavior? I don’t believe you are using the term “obstruction of justice” correctly.

So during the civil rights sit-ins in the 60’s it would be okay with you had they all been pepper sprayed? The escalation of force by the police here was absurd. If an individual did that even on their own front lawn they would be penalized both criminally and civilly. It is not okay to respond to non-violence with violence. You disagree with that?

You’re going to have to repost/expand your thoughts because I’m not seeing the link in your sentences. I don’t understand specifically what you’re referring to with the “60’s sit ins” nor do I understand the front lawn scenario.

[Erdosain]

@John_Mace

:smack: I meant maybe one or two protesters are in the 1%. Actually, it would be their parents and good look to them staying in the 1% upon graduation!

I highly doubt most 1%ers are going to let their kids fall out of the 1% upon graduation. They just give them a trust fund and buy them a house. Not to mention the kids get the whole kit and caboodle once the parents kick it.

[Martin_Hyde]

@John_Mace

Why would you say that? Not a lot of really rich families send their kids to UCD.

Certainly all of the cops are 99-percenters, and maybe one or two protesters, but I’d say it was pretty much a wash.

UC-Davis is one of the top 10 public schools in the country, behind Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, Texas and a few others. It’s not where poor people send their kids, either. It’s competitive admission and the people that go there are typically top of their class from around the country, which generally correlates to economic prosperity. It’s not like anyone graduating High School in California who feels like going to college gets in there, they reject some 60% of applicants.

Their parents would consider these kids failures if they grew up to become police officers, whereas in true lower middle class families becoming a police officer is seen as a good career move.

[John_Mace]

@Martin_Hyde

UC-Davis is one of the top 10 public schools in the country, behind Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, Texas and a few others. It’s not where poor people send their kids, either. It’s competitive admission and the people that go there are typically top of their class from around the country, which generally correlates to economic prosperity. It’s not like anyone graduating High School in California who feels like going to college gets in there, they reject some 60% of applicants.

Their parents would consider these kids failures if they grew up to become police officers, whereas in true lower middle class families becoming a police officer is seen as a good career move.

If they’re 1-percenters, and they don’t get into Berkeley (or maybe UCLA), they’ll got to private schools. Davis just doesn’t have the reputation. And besides, if you’re a 1-percenter, you’re not going to live in Davis (which is basically Sacramento). Unless you’re studying Oenology or something, for which Davis is tops.

[Bone]

@Magiver

You’re going to have to repost/expand your thoughts because I’m not seeing the link in your sentences. I don’t understand specifically what you’re referring to with the “60’s sit ins” nor do I understand the front lawn scenario.

Not quite clear on which part didn’t come across so I’ll be explicit.

The first sentence refers so your characterization of passive aggressive behavior as some sort of crime. The second clause of that sentence is questioning your understanding of the crime of obstruction of justice.

The sit in reference is analogous since those engaged were committing similar acts of civil disobedience. Trespassing and refusing to leave among other things. Sine you are apparently okay with pepper spraying the UCD protesters I infered you would be ok with the same treatment of the protesters involved in the sit ins. Would you be okay with that?

I drew a second analogy to an individual behaving similarly to the UCD police. If some one was trrspasimg on your front lawn and refused to leave - but was otherwise non-violent and non-threatening, it would be illegal to escalate force in the manner that the UCD police did. There is an obvious difference between an individual and the police but that’s why it’s an analogy.

Is that more clear?