I"m fully aware of the fact that police can purchase chemical agents at different concentrations and volumes than private citizens can. I just never thought about it as a military thing, other than military police.

 

It's probably some label someone made up to make it sound scarier than "pepper spray." Which is sorta fine imo because "pepper spray" sounds pretty innocuous compared to what it actually does.

Edited November 22, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

it's technically a food product!

If they were warned beforehand that they were gonna get sprayed, and they said "ok", should they be as outraged as they are that they actually got sprayed? Just shows that they got the result they desired.

 

 

If they were warned beforehand that they were gonna get sprayed, and they said "ok", should they be as outraged as they are that they actually got sprayed? Just shows that they got the result they desired.

 

 

Yes, they should be, violent police actions on people sitting on the ground are never justified because someone says "ok"

btw thanks for the link to a video clearly showing zero provocation for the spraying from multiple angles.

If they were warned beforehand that they were gonna get sprayed, and they said "ok", should they be as outraged as they are that they actually got sprayed? Just shows that they got the result they desired.

 

 

And there you go.

And there you go.

 

Yup, clearly shows zero reason to spray them.

If officers are facing a dangerous situation, I have no problem with that response. The problem is that many times the dangers aren't going to be visible in the camera shot, which is the point.

 

This doesn't happen for absolutely no reason.

 

The target itself doesn't need to be the reason the violence happens. And yes, I have no reason to believe that police just happen to walk up to a random group of people and begin assaulting them for no reason at all. I have been at plenty of protests, very large, and very small, and have never seen the police react violently. Heck, even at times where people probably deserved a baton upside the head, they haven't gotten it.

 

Massive assumption there, and a leap of faith I am not willing to make at this time. Way too much goes on with creative editing to make a case for one side or another to make this assumption.

 

Protests happen all of the time all over the United States, and a miniscule amount of them end in police violence. There is a very good reason for that.

 

IF that was all that was done, which I really, really doubt it was, it was not justified. Like I said, I seriously doubt that was all that was going on there.

 

I can't answer that by simply trusting one video. My guess would be something else was going on there which was the trigger point.

 

But if you want to draw sympathy you set up someone with a video camera trained on the people not doing anything wrong, while people outside of the camera shot throw rocks, or throw bottles, or threaten police officers, attack police lines etc.

 

 

And your point has been that these sweet and innocent people would never do anything wrong ever, and it doesn't matter what they do.

 

 

I particularly enjoyed the cops letting everyone stand around to film them in their planned brutality practice sessions. Pretty smart if you are going to be beating up a bunch of people.

At least we can all agree how wrong this is now and that there was no "dangerous situation" present that necessitated spraying.

 

If students "got what they wanted" ie police brutality in response to nonviolent civil disobedience, that's a negative for the police, not protesters.

Edited November 22, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

At least we can all agree how wrong this is now and that there was no "dangerous situation" present that necessitated spraying.

 

If students "got what they wanted" ie police brutality in response to nonviolent civil disobedience, that's a negative for the police, not protesters.

 

The students were presented with a chance to leave and had clear warning. To me, that is pretty convincing.

The students were presented with a chance to leave and had clear warning. To me, that is pretty convincing.

 

Convincing of what? Are you shifting your goalposts now and claiming that "not listening to an order and being forewarned about police brutality" is justification for police brutality?

The students were presented with a chance to leave and had clear warning. To me, that is pretty convincing.

It is pretty convincing that action should be taken. That doesn't justify skipping a few steps on the force continuum against passive resistance.

 

Convincing of what? Are you shifting your goalposts now and claiming that "not listening to an order and being forewarned about police brutality" is justification for police brutality?

 

Are you shifting yours? All all along you have played this to be some kind of completely innocent situation. Now you have evidence that they were warned, and didn't react.

 

This is exactly what I have said all along. They wanted this, and they got it. The 50 people standing around with cameras only furthers that proof.

"I'm going to stab you"

"ok"

 

 

i see nothing wrong here.

Are you shifting yours? All all along you have played this to be some kind of completely innocent situation. Now you have evidence that they were warned, and didn't react.

 

This is exactly what I have said all along. They wanted this, and they got it. The 50 people standing around with cameras only furthers that proof.

 

No, my point the entire time has been that these actions were completely unjustified police brutality. You've defended their actions multiple times and in multiple ways. Warning that "hey, we're going to spray you in the face with highly concentrated pepper spray at very close range because you're sitting on the ground' does not in any way, shape or form justify those actions. It's a disgusting abuse of authority.

 

To restate the point, if the the protesters wanted to get brutalized by the police for media coverage (an assumption, not a fact), and all they had to do was sit on the ground, that's an indictment of the police, not of protesters.

Gotta wonder, why were students participating in a nonviolent left-wing protest at UCD brutalized by police actions while Penn State students were allowed to riot over losing a football coach?

Gotta wonder, why were students participating in a nonviolent left-wing protest at UCD brutalized by police actions while Penn State students were allowed to riot over losing a football coach?

 

They shouldn't have been. But then again that was probably the product of police following your ideals of not doing anything.

No, my point the entire time has been that these actions were completely unjustified police brutality. You've defended their actions multiple times and in multiple ways. Warning that "hey, we're going to spray you in the face with highly concentrated pepper spray at very close range because you're sitting on the ground' does not in any way, shape or form justify those actions. It's a disgusting abuse of authority.

 

To restate the point, if the the protesters wanted to get brutalized by the police for media coverage (an assumption, not a fact), and all they had to do was sit on the ground, that's an indictment of the police, not of protesters.

 

Trespassing+disobeying the police to start with. Not just "sit on the ground".

Hahaha. All is justified. The same lack of accountability you so decry in teachers unions is a matter of intense justification for the police. They can never be wrong, they can never be punished.

Gotta wonder, why were students participating in a nonviolent left-wing protest at UCD brutalized by police actions while Penn State students were allowed to riot over losing a football coach?

Because police departments are not part of some giant conspiracy, or even in any communication with each other for the most part. They act differently, that's the nature of the beast. Do you think the chief of the Happy Valley PD is on the phone with Davis PD every morning over coffee to talk shop?

 

 

They shouldn't have been. But then again that was probably the product of police following your ideals of not doing anything.

 

Stop lying, please.

Trespassing+disobeying the police to start with. Not just "sit on the ground".

 

Yes, just sitting on the ground. It was a public space on their own campus. It was nonviolent civil disobedience and that never justifies police brutality.

 

 

Hey man, cops said to get outta the street! Your fault!

Because police departments are not part of some giant conspiracy, or even in any communication with each other for the most part. They act differently, that's the nature of the beast. Do you think the chief of the Happy Valley PD is on the phone with Davis PD every morning over coffee to talk shop?

 

This goes back to Balta's earlier post regarding the militarized response that's common to left-wing protests since WTO/Seattle '99, but it wasn't actually serious beyond wondering about the disparity of force. I can't imagine that the Happy Valley PD would have responded the same way to an anarchist smash-and-grab riot as they did to the JoePa! riot.

Hahaha. All is justified. The same lack of accountability you so decry in teachers unions is a matter of intense justification for the police. They can never be wrong, they can never be punished.

 

Merely questioning authority is enough justification for any punishment said authority might dish out!

This goes back to Balta's earlier post regarding the militarized response that's common to left-wing protests since WTO/Seattle '99, but it wasn't actually serious beyond wondering about the disparity of force. I can't imagine that the Happy Valley PD would have responded the same way to an anarchist smash-and-grab riot as they did to the JoePa! riot.

 

Speaking of lying... There have plenty plenty of left wing protests since 1999 that didn't end in violence. Again the vast majority of them. But don't let that this wonderful rant.

Speaking of lying... There have plenty plenty of left wing protests since 1999 that didn't end in violence. Again the vast majority of them. But don't let that this wonderful rant.

 

Many left-wing protests are met with a militarized police response. I didn't say they are always or mostly met with violence, though some are.