Jump to content
fredzfrog

Stupid students disobay legal police orders

Recommended Posts

But because someone is protesting that doesn't mean their rights increase all of a sudden.

Nor should they be removed completely. Why was these previous students arrested?

 

 

Their rights were not removed completely as you are stating. That's just silly. In the video you can hear the officer saying that they are in violation. and people were arrested for, I assume, interfering with police. I don't know exactly what they were arrested for, do you?

In fact, fuck the notion of an "arrest". If a group of thugs come in and put your bros in handcuffs for no good reason, and put a boot into them at the same time, what are you to do? Not "interfere" with "police work"?

 

Notice how you can make anything sound legal by simply giving it a well established name.

That's a silly analogy. The police explained on a number of occasions that the protesters were in violation and that they would be arrested if they continued to do so. The time and place for an individual to argue with the police is in court, not by resisting arrest.

 

What I find really stupid is that the protesters, start chanting to the police - if you let them go we will let you leave - they are admitting that they are detaining police against their will.

 

That's crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobs make me sick to the stomach. Individuals lose their own identity and become part of the mob consciousness. Normal codes of morality and ethics go out the window. Don't believe me? Google for some of the psych studies regarding mob behaviour - it's scary stuff.

 

That said, I have zero sympathy for the protestors. They weren't just "peacefully protesting". They were prohibiting sworn officers of the law from undertaking their mandate to uphold the law. As a mob, they also implicitly threatened the police with violence. They were provided with plenty of warning, they knew the consequences of their actions, and yet they still chose not to follow the direct orders of a police officer. It's not like he was asking them to jump off a cliff or shoot a friend - all that was ordered was for a path to be cleared for the police vehicle.

Sworn to uphold this? Constitution of the United States of America

Specifically these: Bill of Rights Look at the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you know, they could try walking over the people who are sitting down and linking arms ...

Of a crowd that had been following you and surrounded you? that have openly chanted "fuck the police"? Both actions that could be considered threatening?

 

 

And 3-1 police to protesters? Where do you find that level of resources?

 

The police motto may be "to protect and to serve" but their job is to uphold the law. The students were told to leave, they didnt. multiple times. that makes them trespassers.

 

Stop dramatising the situation (like the comments in the vid did) none of that happened.

 

I stand by my comments, Tantryl and I had some discussion on it, I don't wish to do this all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobs make me sick to the stomach. Individuals lose their own identity and become part of the mob consciousness. Normal codes of morality and ethics go out the window. Don't believe me? Google for some of the psych studies regarding mob behaviour - it's scary stuff.

 

That said, I have zero sympathy for the protestors. They weren't just "peacefully protesting". They were prohibiting sworn officers of the law from undertaking their mandate to uphold the law. As a mob, they also implicitly threatened the police with violence. They were provided with plenty of warning, they knew the consequences of their actions, and yet they still chose not to follow the direct orders of a police officer. It's not like he was asking them to jump off a cliff or shoot a friend - all that was ordered was for a path to be cleared for the police vehicle.

Sworn to uphold this? Constitution of the United States of America

Specifically these: Bill of Rights Look at the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments.

 

Yep those. Admittedly I'm not familiar with either document, but I fail to see the relevance (from the Wikipedia entry you linked) of the 1st, 4th, 5th or 8th Amendments.

 

The police didn't use pepper spray because the protestors were exercising their right to free speech or peaceful assembly; they used it because the protestors were interfering with police activities and refusing to obey police direction. Two very different things. "Oh sorry officer - you can't arrest me for mowing down those two people in my car, because it was a protest against the government." Doesn't quite work like that.

 

The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments appear to be about (4th) warrants with probable cause to be issued before searching people or property; (5th) double jeapordy; and (8th) prohibition of excessive bail and cruel & unusual punishment. The police officers have been issued with pepper spray, so it does not fall within the bounds of "cruel and unusual punishment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware that the police were surroundedwhen the news was first broken. Noone ever hid that fact.

 

It doesn't change the situation. Being surrounded by chanting students might be intimidating for the officers, but since they are all sitting on the ground, its far from dangerous. There is no law against making a police officer feel insecure in his job.

 

That casual spray action the officer used was not an "open a channel so we can get out" action, it was a needlessly frightened man lashing out with violence. I expect a police officer to have better control.

I quite like and approve of this statement.

 

 

What I don't get ... is that a peaceful protest is in place ( in this instance on campus grounds ) it's allowed to happen, but only for as long as the powers that be will put up with it ... then it will likely evovle into something

very uncivilised.

I can't get my head around the fact that a peaceful protest becomes against the law ... that's like saying that the powers that be will let the children have their tantrum for a little bit, pick the children up smack their bottoms, and in these cases,

as well as not being heard, tell the protesters, they must not be seen either... and everything goes back to how it was. This seriously urks me.

 

... end of rant.

 

/ using military grade weapons on civilians during a peaceful protest is not civilised, and demeans us all.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intimidating the police is not being peaceful. It became a pointless mob when they tried to force the police to their will. I would never respect the police if they stood down the law to suit what ever random group of people think intimidation is the right way to do things.

 

Neither party acted perfectly, but the number of people here attacking the police is disgusting. We should have respect for the law and the process surrounding it. If we don't like it we work within those laws to change it, not just form a mob and hold people until they see it our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against protests at all, but protests are essentially a way of provoking an action.

 

A protest march is completely different to a protests where people are being hindered and usually when people are being hindered someones gets a face full of pepper spray. I'm not a lover of the police and i'm as critical as fuck to be honest when it comes to authority, but sometimes people blow this shit out of proportion.

 

This seems more like a police witch hunt rather than anything constructive at all. The protesters hindered police, got told off, got a face full of spray /the end.

Edited by smakme7757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intimidating the police is not being peaceful. It became a pointless mob when they tried to force the police to their will. I would never respect the police if they stood down the law to suit what ever random group of people think intimidation is the right way to do things.

We have not yet established if the police were within the law in their arrests. If the crowd thinks they just did something flagrantly illegal, they have every right to try and put a stop to it then and there. Once you get officially arrested back at the cop-shop, recent history shows that no matter the status of the situation, you are probably boned.

 

Once they've arrested you, the police will use every dirty underhanded trick in the book to try and make a charge stick, no matter how clean you are, because if they have to let you go, it makes them look like fools, and as has already been said by orcone, the police are a very prideful organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the crowd thinks they just did something flagrantly illegal, they have every right to try and put a stop to it then and there.

Care to put forward some substantive evidence evidence of that claim, Sir Substance?

 

I'd say that it is not for the protestors (or us) to determine whether the police were "within the law" in their arrests. It is for the chain of command and review, as implemented by the democratically elected government, to determine. You disagree with the command and rewiew system, and want change? Do it through government. That's how the system works. Not by the public taking the law into their own hands and refusing reasonable requests by police officers.

Edited by Moph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they weren't doing something flagrantly illegal if we can't establish if they were within the law. It would be obvious if they were doing something flagrantly illegal. It's what flagrant means.

 

The rest of your post is rambling, so yeah, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sworn to uphold this? Constitution of the United States of America

Specifically these: Bill of Rights Look at the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments.

Yep those. Admittedly I'm not familiar with either document, but I fail to see the relevance (from the Wikipedia entry you linked) of the 1st, 4th, 5th or 8th Amendments.

 

The police didn't use pepper spray because the protestors were exercising their right to free speech or peaceful assembly; they used it because the protestors were interfering with police activities and refusing to obey police direction. Two very different things. "Oh sorry officer - you can't arrest me for mowing down those two people in my car, because it was a protest against the government." Doesn't quite work like that.

 

The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments appear to be about (4th) warrants with probable cause to be issued before searching people or property; (5th) double jeapordy; and (8th) prohibition of excessive bail and cruel & unusual punishment. The police officers have been issued with pepper spray, so it does not fall within the bounds of "cruel and unusual punishment".

 

the example you give is flawed because it is a criminal act, not a civil disobedience

 

though I'm definitely not a constitutional scholar, the constitution trumps statutes - just because a cop is acting under law DOES NOT give them the ability to take away rights - that's what makes them rights.

The first covers the right to 'peaceably assemble' and free speech - basically if you are not planning to bring down the government you can assemble in a public place however you want.

The 4th would protect the protesters from being arrested without a warrant provided by a judge or have probable cause (it would be for a jury to determine if the cops had probable cause in this case). Due process is covered by the 5th (basically preventing the cops from being judge, jury and pepper spray dispenser) and the 8th covers cruel and unusual punishment and I think that pepper spraying people in your way is at least cruel and I haven't heard of it happening too many times (or judges using it as a punishment).

 

It was a shit situation - both groups had something to loose by backing down, as other posters have more eloquently described. I dont think that it should have ever gotten to that point and the police ARE lucky the mob didn't respond in kind.

 

@ Sir_Substance i remember an article not too long ago written in the US about their District Attorney's role changing to prosecute the 'suspect' at all costs regardless of guilt - to the extent that they can hide or not disclose evidence (i cant find the link :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that it is not for the protestors to determine whether the police were "within the law" in their arrests. It is for the chain of command and review, as implemented by the democratically elected government, to determine.

You'd fucking love Mussolini, he'd agree with every word you say.

 

It's most definitely for the protestors to determine whether the police are within the law. Within the law does not require quotes, the law is a concrete and immutable thing. Its not made by the cops, either. The law and the police are separate, too. The law is the domain of the judicial system, and the police are as bound by it as you and I. The police are to the law what the door to door salesman is to Origin's finance department.

 

If the protesters determine it wrong, there are penlites for that. But that's for the courts to decide. It is not, not under any circumstances, the job of the police to decide of the protesters are right about them being in the wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that it is not for the protestors to determine whether the police were "within the law" in their arrests. It is for the chain of command and review, as implemented by the democratically elected government, to determine.

You'd fucking love Mussolini, he'd agree with every word you say.

 

It's most definitely for the protestors to determine whether the police are within the law. Within the law does not require quotes, the law is a concrete and immutable thing. Its not made by the cops, either. The law and the police are separate, too. The law is the domain of the judicial system, and the police are as bound by it as you and I. The police are to the law what the door to door salesman is to Origin's finance department.

 

If the protesters determine it wrong, there are penlites for that. But that's for the courts to decide. It is not, not under any circumstances, the job of the police to decide of the protesters are right about them being in the wrong.

 

Mussolini was a fascist. He promoted that a nation be led by a supreme leader who has dictatorial control over all government and state institutions.

 

A bit of a far cry from a democratically elected system whereby the consensus of the people (not you, not me, not an individual protestor, but the country as a whole) decides who will represent them in government. Those representatives are then entrusted to formulate the laws within which our society operates. It has many flaws, but that's the way the system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that it is not for the protestors to determine whether the police were "within the law" in their arrests. It is for the chain of command and review, as implemented by the democratically elected government, to determine.

You'd fucking love Mussolini, he'd agree with every word you say.

 

It's most definitely for the protestors to determine whether the police are within the law.

Absolutely not. Sure, like us they will have an opinion, but that's about it.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Arcane, Mac, Moph. All of you are in consensus: Expression of opinion has no legitimate place in a democracy.

 

Seems kind of odd to me, but there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expression of opinion is legitimate and encouraged within a democratic system.

 

Wilfully refusing to obey the direction of a police officer is not.

 

Simple as that in my opinion ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Arcane, Mac, Moph. All of you are in consensus: Expression of opinion has no legitimate place in a democracy.

 

Seems kind of odd to me, but there you go.

Dude, nobody said that at all.

 

What you were advocating was the protestors taking the roll of the courts. None of the people you mentioned said Expression of opinion has no legitimate place in a democracy, and I'm sure you know it.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about implied threats man. If they were threatening they sure as shit weren't showing it at any point.

- They were allowed to continue protesting, the cops were leaving

- They followed the cops who were leaving

- They surrounded the cops to prevent them leaving

- They ignored requests to allow the cops to leave

- They demanded/requested a trade - the cops freedom for their friends freedom

 

Following people, trapping them and saying you won't let them go without you giving them something is threatening.

 

If they weren't allowing the police to leave, how was the guy with the pepper spray able to step over the line to spray them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Arcane, Mac, Moph. All of you are in consensus: Expression of opinion has no legitimate place in a democracy.

 

Seems kind of odd to me, but there you go.

Dude, nobody said that at all.

 

What you were advocating was the protestors taking the roll of the courts. None of the people you mentioned said Expression of opinion has no legitimate place in a democracy, and I'm sure you know it.

 

Nonsense, what I said was that if the protestors think the police have done something wrong, they have every right, then and there, to make a fuss about it. The police do not have the authority, then and there, to determine that the protestors are wrong and dispense justice-in-a-spraycan. Instead, the police must hold themselves accountable to the course, and so must the protestors.

 

I.e. if the protestors are wrong, that is for the courts to decide and hand out punishment. Only the courts can determine that the protestors really were guilty of obstructing justice. The courts are also responsible for determining that the police are guilty of abusing their power, but that doesn't mean the protestors aren't allowed to make as much a fuss over the polices indiscretions as the police do over theirs.

Edited by Sir_Substance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was inside the circle of protesters. All the police were.

So he was still inside the circle of protesters when he was spraying them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was put to me - and I have no idea how accurate it is - that there are OHS reasons that the police can't willingly carry and drag them out of the way. In which case, the pepper spray is (probably) the next step up : \

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill correct myself.

 

Police were on both sides of the ring of students, but the pepper spray was applied from inside as far as the video shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was inside the circle of protesters. All the police were.

So he was still inside the circle of protesters when he was spraying them?

 

The larger group of protestors had surrounded them... the inner group of police..

 

 

 

The police tread a fine line, on one hand they have to respect the people protesting on the other they are charged with maintaining public order and the safety and operation of a city.

 

I think they reacted very well, considering how antagonistic the crowd was.

 

They don't make the law, they enforce it, laws which "the people" made, if you watch they whole thing I fail to see how the police acted wrongly, they were giving the protesters ample warnings and reacted cooly and calmly to the protestor's threats of violence.

 

In London the police were blamed for not taking enough force, and that would have been in the back of the officer's mind, crowds are unpredictable beasts the hive mind is dangerous, you heard some of the ridiculous chants, everyone is Rambo in a crowd, the herd mentality, even though nothing very probably was not going to happen, the chance is still there and at the end of it all public safety and the operation of an area/city is their main aim.

 

T

Edited by Chuck Norris(good actor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×