Officer pepper sprays lawbreakers - blame begins

[OldCannon]

I've had people cling to things to avoid being arrested. Employing an intermediate weapon to answer defensive resistance is lazy. There are all sorts of seemingly innocent looking places to touch that can make even the most determined resistance fold.

That's what I was getting at. The lazy aspect of taser and pepper spray use. LEO is a physical job just like construction and much of the stage hand work I do. If people had the slightest clue how much back breaking goes into setting up a show no one would ever want to be a Roadie. Speaking of which I have a piano to move and much like a protester it ain't gonna move itself.

Hmm...Roadies as Occupier Removal Crews. I can see the potential for a popular service to contract out to cities.

[knotquiteawake]

I've had people cling to things to avoid being arrested. Employing an intermediate weapon to answer defensive resistance is lazy. There are all sorts of seemingly innocent looking places to touch that can make even the most determined resistance fold.

That's what I was getting at. The lazy aspect of taser and pepper spray use. LEO is a physical job just like construction and much of the stage hand work I do. If people had the slightest clue how much back breaking goes into setting up a show no one would ever want to be a Roadie. Speaking of which I have a piano to move and much like a protester it ain't gonna move itself.

Hmm...Roadies as Occupier Removal Crews. I can see the potential for a popular service to contract out to cities.

NOW THATS PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK!

[tallmike]

There are times that protesting is necessary as a peaceful way to change the course of our nation. Someday it may be any of us out there, or our children, protesting the fact that guns or ammunition have been made illegal. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding here that this is folks exercising their first amendment rights just as vigorously as we exercise our second amendment rights.

We get mad when an officer needlessly disarms one of us during a routine traffic stop, but condone their use of force against folks who are peacefully sitting on a sidewalk to make a statement? That seems hypocritical to me.

I don't know if this is a necessary time to protest, but that is irrelevant to me. I think the government (in this case police) should be held to the same standard no matter the reason for the protest.

[A-R]

I have to disagree with the often repeated line that these protesters are just "peacefully" sitting on a sidewalk or camping out in a park. While I may agree or disagree with the laws that prohibit such activities, in all of these instances I'm aware of the protesters were in fact violating a law or ordinance at the time they were forcibly removed from the area (either a law against camping in a public park or a law against blocking a public walkway or whatever).

If you're openly breaking the law, I don't think you can wear the self-appointed label of "peaceful". I know some will disagree. But I think "non-violent" would be a more appropriate word. "Peaceful" connotes someone minding their own business, not hurting nor bothering anyone and generally going with the flow and following the law. Someone who is "non-violent" may still be breaking the law and still require some amount of police force to effect an arrest or whatever.

May be splitting hairs, but it's a trick that all protesters use to label police action as hostile against their supposedly lilly white purity of intentions. When in fact the protesters intention is to provoke a police response and their method to do so is to break a seemingly insignificant law or ordinance, then wait until the police react or "over react". This provocation is far from "peaceful".

I do agree with you though that we must always be mindful of tredding on 1A rights. If they were in public and NOT violating ordinances (as contrived as the ordinances may be), then "peaceful" label would be more fitting.

[OldCannon]

[quote="A-R"

I do agree with you though that we must always be mindful of tredding on 1A rights. If they were in public and NOT violating ordinances (as contrived as the ordinances may be), then "peaceful" label would be more fitting.[/quote]

I work by day in the tech industry in Austin, which is littered with Californian liberals (seriously, some of them are about as smart as litter, but I digress). I've had more than one "vigorous" discussion with them about this very issue, and one had the cajones to say that I was quick to stomp on 1A rights when I was so strong a supporter of 2A rights.

I pointed out that if I set up some paper targets in an indoor mall and started doing some target shooting, he wouldn't think twice about wanting me arrested promptly, even though I was harming nobody and expressing my "right" that is clearly outlined in the Constitution.

He shut up.

[tallmike]

I have to disagree with the often repeated line that these protesters are just "peacefully" sitting on a sidewalk or camping out in a park. While I may agree or disagree with the laws that prohibit such activities, in all of these instances I'm aware of the protesters were in fact violating a law or ordinance at the time they were forcibly removed from the area (either a law against camping in a public park or a law against blocking a public walkway or whatever).

If you're openly breaking the law, I don't think you can wear the self-appointed label of "peaceful". I know some will disagree. But I think "non-violent" would be a more appropriate word. "Peaceful" connotes someone minding their own business, not hurting nor bothering anyone and generally going with the flow and following the law. Someone who is "non-violent" may still be breaking the law and still require some amount of police force to effect an arrest or whatever.

May be splitting hairs, but it's a trick that all protesters use to label police action as hostile against their supposedly lilly white purity of intentions. When in fact the protesters intention is to provoke a police response and their method to do so is to break a seemingly insignificant law or ordinance, then wait until the police react or "over react". This provocation is far from "peaceful".

I do agree with you though that we must always be mindful of tredding on 1A rights. If they were in public and NOT violating ordinances (as contrived as the ordinances may be), then "peaceful" label would be more fitting.

Civil disobedience is a huge part of how our nation was formed, how many proud "Tea Party" members do we have here? Where would minority rights be without the civil disobedience of the 60's?

I personally do not think that these protests are as noble as those protests, but that is irrelevant.

[olafpfj]

A big difference with the Tea Party protests...they got permits and respected the laws,ordinances, and restrictions of the grounds where their events were held. Much to the dismay of many anti's the Tea Party events were held where there weren't any firearm restricions and no one that I know of broke any laws. Their message was heard loud and clear and there weren't any confrontaions of note throughout. Why do the progressives think that its OK to break laws and be a nuisance for the sake of their message but no one elses. Its that sort of self rightous arrogant hogwash that makes my blood boil with Liberals. Conservatives can be just as bad but at least they tend to exhibit some form of courtesy rather than shouting and throwing things at people. As much as I detest the Westboro Baptist people they do at least stay within the confines of the law to spout their garbage.

[tallmike]

You are missing my point, the "Tea Party" is named for America's most famous event of civil disobedience. The fact that they go out and get permits to make sure they don't violate any laws is not even keeping with the great tradition of the original Tea Party.

[A-R]

A big difference with the Tea Party protests...they got permits and respected the laws,ordinances, and restrictions of the grounds where their events were held.

BINGO!

I'm actually all for "civil disobedience" as long as those practicing it are willing and able to accept the consequences, which may include being pepper sprayed amongst other things.

[A-R]

You are missing my point, the "Tea Party" is named for America's most famous event of civil disobedience. The fact that they go out and get permits to make sure they don't violate any laws is not even keeping with the great tradition of the original Tea Party.

And did the Brits summarily punish all those original Tea Partiers that they found? (I honestly can't remember the details from long-ago American history classes). I'm guessing the Brits' punishments were not nearly as nice as pepper spray if they did.

Again, I stand by my point that civil disobedience is fine as long as those practicing it are willing to take the short-term consequences to further their long-term goals. After all, you can't be a martyr for your cause if nothing bad ever happens to you.

I'm just tired of the "blame the police" line of thinking that comes with these protests. Blame the politicians, blame Wall Street, blame whatever and whoever. But those cops are just there doing their job (with caveat to gigag's point about the laziness of resorting to pepper spray).

[olafpfj]

You are missing my point, the "Tea Party" is named for America's most famous event of civil disobedience. The fact that they go out and get permits to make sure they don't violate any laws is not even keeping with the great tradition of the original Tea Party.

Sorry I missed your point and I agree!!!

However...I believe the tone of the protest should fit the crime. The original Tea Party was to protest the tea tax by throwing the tea overboard and thwart the tax. The civil rights demonstrators broke unjust segregation laws such as using drinking fountains and bus seats that were off limits.

The OWS protestors are protesting unethical banking practices by blocking a city park, violating many health and safety ordinances, making a ton of noise and generally making nuisances of themselves?...

The civil disobedience should at least be somewhat germaine to the issue at hand IMHO.

[tallmike]

It is far easier to find fault with those you disagree with than to find a reason to support them.

We all agree that there are things wrong with this nation, we just disagree on what those things are. I respect the fact that the protesters are willing to put themselves out there in this way. I am not yet at the point where I believe our nation is broken enough to require me to inconvenience myself to such a degree, these kids disagree and are putting their proverbial "money where their mouth is" without violence.

That is worth some respect from me. Someday I may find myself with the desire to perform actions of civil disobedience to draw attention to unjust laws, we all might. It can't hurt for us to foster an environment that is friendly to us when we do.

[OldCannon]

BTW, there is legal precedent, set by the notorious 9th Circuit, that the use of pepper spray is a lawless act against passive protesters:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app ... 85/564832/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This must be awesome if you're a LEO -- do ANYTHING to a protester and you can be personally sued/tried for a crime. Might as well bring a lawn chair to the protests and just "observe and report."

[Tamie]

If a group of men "peacefully" encircles a woman and blocks her path, and she tells them to move and they refuse, does she have to try to make them move physically to see if they resist, before she can legitimately use pepper spray to make them move?

[A-R]

If a group of men "peacefully" encircles a woman and blocks her path, and she tells them to move and they refuse, does she have to try to make them move physically to see if they resist, before she can legitimately use pepper spray to make them move?

Wow. VERY good point.