UC Davis Pepper Spray – What Really Happened

I got this in email from a friend:

“We all have seen the media coverage of the police pepper spraying the kids at UC Davis, but what really happened before and after that event? This video is 15 minutes long, but it shows all of the events leading up to the pepper spray heard round the world. The news failed to mention that the students had surrounded the police and were threatening them by not allowing them to leave or giving them an exit. They also had been given multiple clear warnings and sometimes even personal warnings of what would happen if they didn’t comply. Funny, I don’t remember hearing that on the news. Seeing this video, I think the police acted in a very professional manner, managing to keep calm…I knew there were two sides to the story, but didn’t think the agenda would be this blatant.”

UC Davis Pepper Spray – What Really Happened @ http://youtu.be/hhPdH3wE0_Y

Same video without text comments @ http://youtu.be/yjXcaoEAkq4?hd=1

Description on the video: This video shows the events leading up to the use of pepper spray by UC Davis police officers. Occupy protesters and the media have sensationalized this story by only showing short clips of the officers spraying the students with pepper spray. This video shows in chronological order how the protesters trapped the police and demanded the release of those they had arrested before they would be allowed to leave.

CtH: What I see is a handful of Leftist agitators surrounded by a bunch of disrespectful, ignorant, spoiled brats who are being used, loser-sheeple-fashion, to instigate an event (pepper spraying) that the Leftist agitators can use to further their agenda at the expense of the rule of law and the kind of calm and respectful society we need if we’re going to have anything good in our lives. Like, say, universities.

What kind of parenting did these class-cutting twerps have? The kind where Mommy and Daddy caved in and gave them whatever they wanted if they yelled loudly enough? The kind where Mommy and Daddy threatened to punish, but never actually did?

If you’re pressed for time, push the slider bar to 12:52. Thirteen minutes into the confrontation, the protesters have been repeatedly told to clear the quad. When police arrested some of them, the crowd moved to surround and menace the much smaller group of officers, yelling that the police could only leave if they let the arrestees go.

The police have given the protesters many, many warnings of the consequences of their behavior, including taking out their pepper spray, announcing what it is and very clearly shaking the cans to show their intent to use it.

At 14:00, one of the agitators is leading the kiddie crowd in a little exercise in mob rule where they surround the police and scream how the police will be PERMITTED to leave.

At 15:00, look how big and loud this crowd is compared with the police, who are backing themselves into a smaller, protective bunch.

Also check out how much laughing and horsing around there is among the students, even after the pepper spraying. My guess is that most of them are just there because a mob on the quad is more fun than classwork.

At 15:44, the Leftist agitator gets them yelling “Look at how they react to peaceful assembly.”

Dear God in Heaven. Peaceful?! Those police behaved very professionally. The students … I’m just glad none of them are MY kids.

Of course, my kids would know better!

61 Comments

Filed under Education, Law Enforcement, Videos

61 responses to “UC Davis Pepper Spray – What Really Happened

  1. For the life of me, I don’t see how you can complain about being pepper-sprayed if you have already been warned to leave or else run the risk of being pepper-sprayed and you choose not to leave. I’m thankful that none of those young hooligans was related to me, but if, God forbid, any of my kids had behaved that obnoxiously, I would consider the police to have been perfectly justified in pepper-spraying them. In fact I would probably write a thank-you note to the cops who did it.

    Like

    • chrissythehyphenated

      LOL … this reminds me of something that happened when my baby brother was about 12 or so. One of the boys in the neighborhood was a little hooligan with the kind of parents who paid no attention and gave less discipline, but if anyone else tried to corral the destructive little twerp, they were all up in arms about “Their Son.”

      Anyway, this boy was a bit of a trouble-making ring-leader for a group my brother hung with sometimes. A couple of them ended up in jail. My brother, thankfully, had my father raising him, not that brain-dead liberal up the street.

      When the boys broke a school window, my brother had to pay for it. $75 in the late 60s was a lot of money. For a kid with no job, it was a fortune.

      Their next prank involved throwing eggs at cars. One of them went through an open window and injured the driver. The boys ran, but the victim’s description took a police officer to our house where he asked my dad, “How do you want me to handle this?”

      Pop said, “Take him to the station and throw the book at him. Show him the jail and scare the crap out of him now while it’s still just pranks.”

      Baby Brother learned his lesson and, while he still hung with those boys, he always “had to go home” whenever they started doing something stupid or illegal. A couple years later, the boys got picked up for stealing a car and joy riding. Baby Bro was nowhere around.

      Like

  2. DK

    Why do these students belong to my generation…Sigh. Everything was fine until they blocked the police. Either they were brain dead bored, or they love being puppets to a cause they know nothing of.

    Like

    • chrissythehyphenated

      Well, Dennis Prager would say, “The Great Generation raised the Dumbest Generation which raised your generation.”

      Like

  3. anonymous

    “As chancellor, I take full responsibility for what happened and have been reaching out to the entire UC Davis community to make sure we never subject any of our students to anything like that ever again.”

    Like

  4. anonymous

    Chancellor had given permission allowing the students to have an assembly. It seems she developed amnesia after seeing the tents. She appears to have violated the schools Disciplinary Process. The police should have not been invited to the party, maybe even used under false pretense to clear the students out before the Regents meeting that following Monday. Without having the time to bother following her own Disciplinary Policy.

    Like

    • What A Hoot

      Interesting perspective. I am not so sure about the amnesia, though. Tents are more along the lines of squatting and not necessarily peaceful assembly. Most universities have established assembly/protest protocols and these do not typically include camping out. It is a breach of security for one, in that you have enclosed, hidden environments that is not included in the security budget and training to monitor.

      It would be justified and prudent to call in the police if a peaceful, permitted assembly turned hostile or developed into a situation that the university security could not handle. Putting up tents, planning to take up residence on university property, defying health codes, building codes, etc., is an act of aggression, theft, and violence; not to mention breaking a few laws and ordinances. Once the students chose not to peacefully assemble and broke local laws and ordinances and not just school policies, it makes sense to rely on the rule of law and call in the police whose jurisdiction the infractions and violations are within.

      Like

      • anonymous

        “As of the writing of its report(03/2012), Kroll indicates that it has been “unable to identify the legal basis for the decision of the Leadership Team to act against the protesters and for the operation mounted by the UCDPD.”

        Like

    • Amanda

      Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

      It’s not relevant why the police were called or what was happening the following Monday. This has no bearing on their actions. Especially if they were called under false pretense. It’s also not relevant whether or not the Chancellor followed Disciplinary Policy.

      http://nizkor.com/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

      Like

  5. anonymous

    It is undisputed in all account that the students were %100 peaceful and orderly until the police arrived and began using force. They were on their campus with official permission to be there and assemble, would you also not feel violated when you had done everything required?. Setting up a tent is a minor non-criminal violation of school rules that warranted a warring, fine or even expulsion for a repeated offense. I did not warrant sending armed police in riot gear. The police came there armed for a battle not to enforce a simple tent violation.

    Like

    • What A Hoot

      Setting up tents and preparing to camp/reside is not 100% peaceful and orderly since this is not following the assembly protocol and is not what they were given the space for use. Is this the same group that a protester so eloquently shared in an interview that the students surrounded the police and told them they would have to use force to break the circle? The one where the police warned the students if they did not clear out from their lawbreaking, albeit without any weapons except their bodies (which they used), they would resort to pepper spray and other measures?

      Blocking someone’s way is not peaceful. It is an act of aggression and what used to be called ‘silent bullying’.

      Like

      • What A Hoot

        To address the ‘simple tent violation’. NOT. The students publicly identified with the OWS, whose sole purpose (documented extensively) in erecting tents IS TO RESIDE IN THEM. Is to squat. Is to set up their own form of government, the General Assembly, that supersedes local laws, including handling rapes, which entails not reporting to local police. With all the video documentation all over the internet, the “simple tent violation” is a bit of a stretch masked in innocence…..Not buying.

        Like

      • anonymous

        “At times the chants took on a more adversarial tone. In the hours of video reviewed by Kroll,however, not a single violent act on the part of the activists was captured.”

        Like

        • What A Hoot

          Did not say in comment that these activists were violent; said they publically identified with the OWS, whose sole purpose was to reside in them.. Perhaps you intended for this recent comment to be placed elsewhere. ..

          Like

    • That’s great! I haven’t heard the “but they started it defense” from anyone other than a small child in a long time. I fail to see how the arrest of a handful of students justifies threatening the police and refusing to let them leave. The threat of violence is just as real as an act of violence. Those police officers were outnumbered 10 to 1 easily. Put yourself in that situation (and I mean that literally, not figuratively) for a little bit and then get back to me.

      If you talk to any police officer, they will tell you it’s SOP to enter any protest situation where you will be that outnumbered in riot gear. It’s not because the police plan to start trouble, but because they have no way of predicting the reaction of the crowd which, again, greatly outnumbered them. Anyone who’s been in a similar situation can testify to the power of group think. The gear is for their protection. They might be police officers, but they’re not invincible. They’re people, too. And they have real lives and families just like the rest of us. Stop trying to dehumanize them, please.

      Like

  6. chrissythehyphenated

    Defying the police was dumb. Seems like it would’ve been better all around if they’d cleared out when ordered, then sent a delegation to the chancellor to take issue with her screwy decision to give and then remove permission.

    It wasn’t the chancellor out there risking her pretty little butt in the face of that angry crowd, now was it? No. She hid behind brave men in uniform who did their best to follow lawful orders without causing any lasting harm to anyone and got demonized by the press for their troubles.

    Like

  7. anonymous

    Please be sure to find and look at the event in it’s entirety not just some of short edited clips. The overreaction and inappropriate punishment did not fit the crime. The administration and police created the disturbance at an otherwise orderly gathering. The tents were empty at this point merely a statement no health hazard. Forget all the hype for a moment and ask yourself who created and posed the greatest danger to the students and campus. When the only cause of injury or true act of physical violence was the police.

    Like

    • Viewing the event in its entirety was the point of this whole post. Perhaps you missed that. The video certainly showed enough to prove, beyond a doubt, that the students were violating the law. Physical violence is not the only justifiable cause for disciplinary action. That’s one big point that the OWS protestors are overlooking. They think that as long as they don’t phsyically assault someone that everything they are doing is legal and A-OK!. Newsflash…it’s not. When they break the law, violently or non-violently, they will be arrested and/or dealt with accordingly.

      FYI…refusing to leave (i.e., physically remove your body) and/or allow others to leave IS a physical threat, just like a lie of omission is still a lie. I’m fairly certain the human beings who were barracaded in felt threatened. I know I would have.

      You can win any argument if you redefine the terms to your liking as you go.

      Like

  8. anonymous

    In case you think my perspective is singular. There are currently 112,000 (and growing) other people in agreement that have signed the petition asking for the Chancellor to resign. There is also a petition supporting her at just over 200 people.

    Like

  9. anonymous

    Just in case you missed this part.

    “All criminal charges against those arrested last Friday are being dropped. I am eternally sorry for any injuries and harm we caused those young people.
    The university will pay related immediate medical and emergency bills.” Linda P.B. Katehi Chancellor

    Like

    • This is a fallacy. You’re confusing cause and effect. Dropping criminal charges is not necessarily due to a lack of guilt or even a lack of evidence. In this particular instance, you’ve already made the case that the chancellor is following popular opinion in order to save face. You can’t have it both ways.

      Like

  10. anonymous

    Only one way…
    These police work for the Chancellor she gave “explicit instructions”, “no force”. They and the safety of the “entire” campus are her responsibility.

    “In my position as Chancellor, there is no responsibility I take more seriously than the safety, protection and well-being of our students. Multiple investigations and reviews are underway to learn why police – despite my explicit instructions that no force be used in removing tents and other equipment from the area – elected to employ pepper spray. But let me again be clear: it was absolutely wrong and unnecessary.”

    Like

    • The chancellor’s “explicit instructions” to police are completely irrelevant to their use of pepper spray. She gave that instruction prior to, and without knowledge of, the future behavior of the students, which was to surround the police and refuse to let them leave. When they feel that their personal safety is at risk due to the behaviors resulting from mob mentality, they are justified in using force to protect themselves and carry out their duties in enforcing the law, regardless of anything the chancellor said to them. This is a textbook example of appeal to authority. It doesn’t matter what the chancellor said. Her position as chancellor does not automatically qualify every statement she makes as correct, and her statement in this particular instance is incorrect. She contradicts herself in her own statement by saying “investigations and reviews are underway,” followed by “it was absolutely wrong and unnecessary.” How was she able to reach this conclusion prior to the investigation being complete? This is not only based on false premises, but the reasoning is unsound, as well.

      Furthermore, every statement you have made thus far in regards to this particular incident has been based on a logical fallacy. If you would like to argue why the police were unjustified in their actions OR why the students were justified in theirs, please feel free to do so. However, to simply make statements akin to “watch the whole story” or “I’m not the only one with this opinion” or “The chancellor said…” are distractions from the real issue at hand. So, please, convince me, using sound logical arguments, why police, who were being physically confronted and held against their will were unjustified in using the least potentially harmful form of physical force available to them to free themselves from the situation.

      We employ police in this country to enforce and uphold the law to protect the citizenry from angry mobs who believe they are above the law and can behave any way they choose simply based on their numbers and the popularity of their particular position. An inflated sense of self-righteousness is a poor excuse for failing to follow the law and legal instructions given to you by police officers. I, for one, am glad that our police force will not be bullied and back down any time an angry mob decides that their numbers justify their actions. If that were the case, why have a police force at all?

      Like

    • So the chancellor said, essentially, “the police acted stupidly.” Hmmm… what other moron have we heard that statement from lately?

      Like

  11. anonymous

    Your absolutely right and thank you for the enlightenment.

    Have a nice day.

    Like

  12. What A Hoot

    Wow! Double and triple WOW! This discussion, minus my contributions, has made this a total ‘brain candy day”. Thank you for the refresher course in logic and fine examples of application. I am still shaking my head in awe.

    Like

  13. anonymous

    Pssst.. “Absolutely right”, Think about it.

    Forgive me in not falling for the fallacy in your vichyssoise of verbose verbiage. I was actually done here, but received communiqué from a college; it reminded me of a misguided mindset that manifested before my meager eyes.

    The multitude of the points may escape you, but oh well;
    http://www.theinspiration.com/2011/09/carlsberg-stunt-in-cinema/

    In reply to your questions; it’s imposable to have a rewarding debate, let alone a discussion with someone that wears their personal prejudice and bias so proudly on display. If you remove the Rose colored glasses for a moment you might be able to differentiate between an “angry mob” and a bunch of disgusted collage students. To you they are one in the same, seen only as a threat to your personal view of a single dimensional idealistic world. With those who refuse to identify, rationalize and respect the difference of such a simple concept, discussion seems merely a wasted effort.

    Furthermore; the views promoted and accepted by the vox populi here seems to be the letter of the law shall always over ride the intent of law. You appear to prefer expending your efforts promoting incarceration over education as a method of teaching. Not very nurturing, but that’s my opinion. Then again, perhaps the self-serving logic is that nurturing should only be administered once the beating into submission has concluded.

    My personal hope is that we can adequately educate subsequent generations to take on the challenge of rectifying not repeating our mistakes.

    Have a very nice day.

    Like

    • Oh, gee…you got me! You’re right and I’m…wait…what does that make me again?

      All I can say to your nonsensical string of alliteration is…coffin, meet nail. You’ve done absolutely nothing for your cause.

      The video, while entertaining, falls short of relating in any valid way to the issue at hand.
      -First, the assumption in the video is that the people are reacting to the appearance of the audience members, while they, more likely, were simply reacting to the fact that the movie theatre was completely full except for two seats in the exact center. Save for one woman, no indication is given by any of the other moviegoers that they feel uncomfortable about the “current company.”
      -Second, their assumed discomfort resulting from their “personal prejudice and bias” would be based almost solely on appearance. This stands in stark contrast to police officers (and myself) who were reacting to the ACTUAL behavior of an angry mob who had surrounded a group of police officers (whom they greatly outnumber) and began shouting that they would not allow them to leave unless their conditions were met (kind of like, well, exactly like a textbook hostage situation).

      I apologize for failing to understand the “simple concept(s)” you are attempting to present me with, but are you arguing that they are not angry or that they are not a mob? Their threats to police and obvious group-think would seem to indicate that is an accurate description. Then again, you say To-may-to, I say To-mah-to. As I’ve already stated, you can win any argument if you redefine the terms that I’ve chosen to use.

      So, if we’re done addressing this irrelevant ad hominem attack, despite that fact that my personal biases and prejudices have nothing to do with the accuracy of my statements or the justifiability of the police actions (or that of the students), the invitation stands open to discuss the actual issue.

      BTW…nurturing is for children. A police officer’s job is enforcement of the law. Educating is what teachers and parents do and, for adults, is an individual personal responsiblity. If grown adults decide to go off half-cocked about something of which they lack adequate knowledge, that falls on them. It would be impossible for any individual (or group of individuals) to take on the responsiblity of educating the entire society. That’s why ignorance of the law has never been a valid defense. This blame-blame mentality and lack of personal responsibility is what has lead us to this sad state we are now in as a society.

      Besides, anyone who’s taken even a basic psych class knows that human beings learn through repetition and experience, so the police have given these students the best education that they possibly can…if you break the law, you will be arrested…if you threaten police officers and refuse to let them leave, you will be pepper-sprayed. You may not like or agree with this, but these are realities of life. And to think…they got that education for FREE (unless you count the money that funds the police force)! The only question that remains is how many times they must repeat this before the lesson sinks in.

      Like

  14. What A Hoot

    Pssst. “Absolutely right…” did not take any thinking; it is a much-used and very unoriginal pun. Wondering though what the play-on-words is with ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re?

    Like

    • Amanda

      I almost commented on that, as misuse of “your” and “you’re” is a pet peeve of mine. But now I’m too busy imagining “a bunch of disgusted collage students” and wondering why it’s “imposable” to have a rewarding debate.

      Like

  15. anonymous

    I see nothing in the many references that define “nuturing” limiting it to children. Just as wrong as many of your other points. Just because you believe something does not make it correct or even moral. Took all of 30 seconds to prove just one of your false statements.

    “BTW…nurtuing is for children”

    nur·ture

    verb /ˈnərCHər/ 
    nurtured, past participle; nurtured, past tense; nurtures, 3rd person singular present; nurturing, present participle

    1. Care for and encourage the growth or development of
    * – my father nurtured my love of art

    2. Cherish (a hope, belief, or ambition)
    * – for a long time she had nurtured the dream of buying a shop

    noun /ˈnərCHər/ 

    1. The process of caring for and encouraging the growth or development of someone or something
    * – the nurture of ethics and integrity

    2. Upbringing, education, and environment, contrasted with inborn characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality

    —-

    At least you were not as childish as the rest with pointing out type-o’s. They were however useful to reinforced my point of letter vs intent.

    Again, Have a nice day.

    Like

    • First of all, you haven’t “proven” anything. Just because you’re convinced, in your own mind, that you are correct does not constitute actual, logical proof. By your own definition, nurturing involves growth and development. In other words, something must be not fully grown and underdeveloped in order to be nurtured. Hence my use of the world child. Now, again, we can go in circles redefining words all day until one of us wins the argument by default, ’cause the other just gets too bored to argue any more…OR…we can discuss the actual issue, which is whether or not the police were justified in their use of force. These constant distractions are growing quite tedious and boring. If you’d like to discuss it further, perhaps you should visit here first and return when you can make a valid sound argument for your case.

      Like

      • What A Hoot

        MafiaRose, You know from my posting around the net that articulating in a logical, concise manner is not my strong suit. Yet, even I get the nurture thing in reference to the officers and the protesters in violation of laws. The group-think gatherers were not children to the police. If they had been, they would have been perhaps treated with nurture and education and a call to their parents. Since they were adults, who relinquished their status as students when they decided to break laws in the name of protesting, the police treated it as the threatening, law-breaking situation it was. The police responded as trained and utilized established, accepted protocol to the situation.

        Thank for directing me to the logic course. I look forward to learning more on sticking to the issue, making progressive in discussions, and overcoming my “shooting from the hip” when good, sound argument is needed.

        Like

        • When did “nurturing” become part of the job description for cops, anyway? I have a couple of young friends who are in college studying law enforcement — I’m going to ask them if the school offers courses in “nurturing.”

          In any case, I find it difficult to see how any sane person could watch the video above from start to finish and still sympathize with the embarrassingly infantile protesters. My primary reaction to the whole thing (apart from being repulsed and nauseated by the behavior of the occupiers) was intense admiration for how professional and restrained the cops were. As someone who is notorious for her bad temper and her short fuse, I am always impressed by such displays of courageous self-restraint in the midst of extremely trying circumstances. Those obnoxious children were lucky all they got was pepper spray — if I’d been one of those cops, they might have gotten a lot worse.

          Like

        • What A Hoot

          Ha ha….did you see the frudian slip I made? I do not want to make “progressive” but progress! Whoa, I don’t think I had enough coffee for me to switch up the two words!

          Like

    • What A Hoot

      Forgive me Anon, it was not intended to point out the typo; since there was a play on words already, I assumed (yeah, ass out of u and me) such with “your” and I did not ‘get’ it. (Hint: I miss a lot of innuendos and jokes so just thought it was me, Dear) However, (however is a polite version of “but”) re-reading over everything, with your focus on education and such, spelling “your” for “you’re” was fair game for comment).

      Sometimes misspelling a word is convenient to take focus off the main discussion and I have been know to ‘plant’ a few here and there, but that is the attention-seeking side of me coming through.

      Like

  16. anonymous

    You are correct Hoot, “Your” was a lazy fall back to bad habits.

    I am still amazed at statements of logic and arguments like;
    “You can win any argument if you redefine the terms to your liking as you go.”
    Clearly this does not apply to some people, just because they said it.

    I chose “nurturing” because of how ironic it was considering the reference to it at the top of page on this site. When pressed about the interpretation used. I was accursed of redefining or arguing. I do not agree that nurturing has an expiration date, is limited to sex, color, etc.

    As I stated “promoting incarceration over education “, it’s our choice to build more schools or more prisons. Rose has made her choice pretty clear. She would hang every man, woman and child if the letter if the law dictated it to her. Not stopping for a moment to question if the letter was just, right or even moral, safe in the knowledge that she did it by the book. I’m pretty sure Hitler felt the same way.

    Have a nice day.

    Like

    • What A Hoot

      Huh? How am I correct?

      Thank goodness Rose made her choice not only clear, but concise, direct, and logical.

      “Following the letter of the law” — This phrase generally implies that a law is being followed without any room for loose or lenient interpretation. This can refer to a person who has to abide by the laws or those who administer them. As a result, consider the sentence, “They really stuck to the letter of the law in this case, which is why the punishment is so severe.” (WiseGeek)

      Taking the above into consideration when studying the conversation on this thread it proves out that Rose’s arguments support the opposite of “the letter of the law” in that leniency was granted to the violators in the form of warnings, explanations, and time. Pepper Spray was the least aggressive, not the most stringent, approach of enforcement. Following the “letter of the law” would have been marching in and, without taking into consideration the naivete of the violators, immediately start using batons to contain, cuffing, and loading into paddywagons at gunpoint.

      Even I, an understudy in logic and debate, without knowing all the terms for the different fallacy can see a great deal of confusion in what you write. Let’s break down just one paragraph you write. I would prefer to think it is a lack of cohesive writing skills and not the lacking of reasoning that produces this: (My comments in CAPS)

      “Furthermore; the views promoted and accepted by the vox populi here seems to be the letter of the law shall always over ride the intent of law. YOU DEDUCE THAT BECAUSE IN THIS INSTANCE, THE TOPIC AT HAND, PEOPLE ACCEPT THE POLICE ACTION AS WITHING THE INTENT OF THE LAW, THEY BELIEVE THE LETTER OF THE LAW SHALL OVER RIDE THE INTENT OF THE LAW. THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO SAYING SOMEONE WHO LIKES BROCCOLI OVER CORN LIKES ALL GREEN FOOD. THE COMMENT HAS NO PLACE IN THE DISCUSSION AND IT IS JUST AS ROSE TAUGHT — A DISTRACTION AND ATTEMPT TO RESHAPE THE ARGUMENT. You appear to prefer expending your efforts promoting incarceration over education as a method of teaching. NO, PEPPER SPRAY AND BOOKING IS NOT INCARCERATION. METHODS OF TEACHING IS NOT A PART OF THE DEBATE. WHETHER THE POLICE’S ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS THE DEBATE. Not very nurturing, but that’s my opinion. NURTURING IN THE COURSE OF ARRESTS WOULD BE FOR AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE DISSECTION. Then again, perhaps the self-serving logic LOGIC IS APPLIED TO SUPPORT ONE’S POSITION, WHICH MAKES EVERYONE’S LOGIC INCLUDING YOURS SELF-SERVING is that nurturing should only be administered once the beating into submission has concluded. BEATING INTO SUBMISSION IS NOT A PART OF THE DIALOGUE AS IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THE END GOAL OF THE OFFICERS WAS NOT SUBMISSION. IN FACT ONE COULD REASON, THE GOAL OF THE OFFENDERS WAS TO MAKE THE OFFICERS SUBMIT TO THEM. AFTER ALL THEY COLLECTIVELY SURROUNDED THE POLICE AND SAID SUBMIT TO US AND DON’T DO YOUR JOB.

      The-Funniest-Teenage-Thing-Said Award in this discussion goes to, “These police work for the Chancellor she gave “explicit instructions”, “no force” THE CHANCELLOR IS IN CHARGE OF THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE? THEY WORK FOR HER? SHE GETS TO DIRECT AND MANAGE THEM? MY APOLOGIES FOR LAUGHING SO HEARTILY IF THESE WERE NOT LOCAL POLICE BUT CAMPUS SECURITY POLICE. INCEDENTLY, THE PEOPLE SHE HAD AUTHORITY TO SAY NO FORCE TO, DID NOT LISTEN –THE STUDENTS.

      Your passion is to be admired, I suppose.

      Like

    • Godwin’s Law achieved!!!!!

      Like

      • What A Hoot

        Whew! Just googled “Godwin’s Law” — am so glad I wasn’t the “first”!
        One of the youngster’s (11years) pulled a look-alike to Godwin’s Law the other day with me. When the discussion got to where he was not making any headway with Mom, he said, “That’s just Communist. You are a Communist.” I turned quickly so he would not see me laugh. It was his last attempt for the day to be excluded from cleaning the house with siblings, needless to say.

        Like

        • I can’t wait for those days! As a side note, I always find it humorous that fascists were anti-communist. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t gree with communism either, but fascism is like communism on steroids, because they want to make all people think exactly alike, too. Indoctrination, thought control and group think were their primary weapons.

          Like

      • Amanda

        Oh, man. It was inevitable. I was waiting for that!

        Like

    • My statement about redefining terms was intended to be cautionary…as in “Don’t go down that road, ’cause two can play at that game.” That being said, I haven’t redefined anything. If nothing, I’ve been more than generous in accepting your altered definitions, while still defending my side of the case.

      You’ve chosen to apply alternative definitions to terms that I’ve used in order to alter the “intent” of what I’ve said and gain the upper hand. Fortunately for me, you have a difficult time staying on topic and tend to wander about grasping at straws. The downside to this (which I’m sure was intended, either consciously or subconsciously) is that it creates so many flaws and fallacies in your line of thinking that it’s virtually impossible to address them all without devoting an entire textbook to pointing out the flaws.

      This technique is used quite frequently in debates to wear down an opponent so that they eventually grow tired and say, “I don’t want to discuss this anymore,” at which point you can declare yourself the victor by default.

      As to the choice of the term nurture, this has been taken out of context and applied in a completely different way (much like the video you posted previously). Our tagline says that we are “nurturing a nation,” not people…a nation that is very much still in its infancy. We are supporting its growth into a nation of laws by reinforcing that our laws will be upheld and are not subject to whimsy or the might of the many. (BTW…I’m not “accusing” anyone of arguing. This is a term used in debate when someone presents their side of a case. They are making an argument. It’s also used in the courtroom.)

      As to the “letter of the law,” I do believe in fully upholding the laws that we have in place. As a matter of point, I question laws every day. When I’m unhappy or disagree with them, I work to get them changed. What I don’t do, is break the law and intentionally provoke police in order to get myself arrested (or pepper-sprayed) and “prove” the point that those upholding a valid, legitimate law put in place by our elected representatives are brutal and power-hungry.

      Ironically, this “letter of the law” concept is typically seen in “zero tolerance” policies (something often touted by the very types of people occupying all across this country), who base it on the justification of public safety and equal treatment for all. It’s funny how when the equal treatment is directed at them, they suddenly want leniency, nurturing and subjective justice sympathetic to their cause. Let me spell it out in simple sentences, so that there’s no confusion about my intent.

      Scenario A:
      • A child brings a plastic knife to school in order to cut the birthday cake that they brought in to share with their class.
      • It is against school policy to bring a knife to school.
      • The knife is confiscated, and the parents are called, who quickly take the blame, apologize for the misunderstanding and stop by to pick up the contraband weapon as quickly as possibly.
      • Upon arrival, the parents are informed that, despite the innocence of the mistake and the misunderstanding of the school rules, there is a “zero tolerance” policy and the child will be suspended.
      Analysis: The child, who was most likely not even complicit in the alleged violation, has been given no leniency, even though the parents took the blame, apologized and rectified the situation to the best of their ability as quickly as possible. In this scenario, nurture would have been an appropriate approach, given the specifics of the case stated above.

      Scenario B:
      Honestly, I don’t even really have time to go through this again. I’ve already stated everything I would say here above. We all know what happened. The students involved were hardly innocent. They knew they were in violation of direct orders from the police. If they were not aware that surrounding police and refusing to let them leave is against the law…well, that is just beyond plausible (What are they doing in college!?!?!?) and also their own responsibility. They were informed of what the consequences would be if they didn’t follow instructions. They verbally announced they were willing to stand their ground and began preparing themselves for what was to come. The police gave no indication at any time that there would have been negative consequences had the students decided to stand down and let them pass. (I call that leniency. I’m sure you’ll interpret it differently)

      If this doesn’t make it clear that we’re comparing apples to oranges here, I doubt anything will and further carrying on this discussion will get nowhere. Yes…I have my own prejudices (often used in a derogatory way, but not by definition) and biases, based on my personal morals and values, as well as experience and education. Clearly, you think that expressing them and having opinions based on them is somehow wrong, but I would argue, “what else are we to base our viewpoints on?” It’s certainly a lot healthier than pretending that I have no biases and using other peoples’ morals and values as weapons against them. I don’t feel a need to do that, because I’ve spent enough time developing a strong sense of who I am and what I believe in that I can defend my ideas all on their own.

      I won’t even get into your Hitler reference, because it’s so obviously far out there that it’s not worth it.

      P.S. Thanks for not making up a lame excuse for coming back. It was pretty transparent the first time. Nice try, though.

      Like

  17. anonymous

    You’re damned close to a profound insight there.
    I wish I still saw the world like that.

    Have a nice day….

    Like

  18. anonymous

    Perhaps you can better use that profound insight to address this; after all he was obviously charging at the officer.

    Have a nice day.

    Like

  19. anonymous

    How do you like your crow? Please read the Kroll and Reynoso Reports.

    “The command and leadership structure of the UCDPD is very dysfunctional”

    Like

    • chrissythehyphenated

      Beside the point. I watched the video which clearly shows the police did everything to follow orders without hurting anyone. It was the Occupiers who were at fault.

      Like

      • anonymous

        A bit dogmatic, now aren’t we…
        I suppose you fully support police bringing their own weapons brass buckles, switch blades, Guy Fawkes masks…

        “The Pepper Spray Used, the MK-9, First Aerosol Projector, Was Not an Authorized Weapon for Use by the UCDPD”

        Like

        • anonymous

          “The command and leadership structure of the UCDPD is very dysfunctional. Lieutenants refused to follow directives of the Chief. This breakdown is illustrated by the heated exchanges between the Chief and her Lieutenants as to the scope and conduct of the operation and the Chief’s apparent concession that her officers will do things their own way and there is nothing she can do about it.”

          “The kind where Mommy and Daddy caved in and gave them whatever they wanted if they yelled loudly enough?”

          Like

          • What A Hoot

            Oh, my, it looks like this old discussion “occupied your brain rent free”, as the saying goes, for three months. . . .I respectfully ask, “What is the point you are trying to make with the report. So, your point with this report is? I do not ask this in snark. It appears you think the report is vindication and/or proof you have won the debate, however in reference to this debate, they are not related, connected, or even on the same page. Careful reading through the entire thread will give you every response, from all kinds of angles as to why the report is a moot point.

            Like

            • anonymous

              You must mean the delays directly caused by the police union occupying the courts.

              Careful reading would seem to show a predetermined bias that is willing to completely ignore timing, environment, sequence of events and even legal authority to act in the first place.

              Latest example; “Beside the point. I watched the video which clearly shows the police did everything to follow orders without hurting anyone.”

              How can anyone know if they followed orders or not from watching the video? Seems clear now they did not do everything to follow orders and as for not hurting anyone… go figure.

              Like