And now the police chief has been suspended as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/us/police-officers-involved-in-pepper-spraying-placed-on-leave.html?_r=2&hp

Though one must suspect this is a CYA move my the Chancellor, who I'm guessing has about a 50-50 chance of choosing to spend more time with her family soon.

I'm sure this will do wonders for Northern California end-of-the-year tourism. "Hey folks! Like your Holiday turkey EXTRA spicy this year? Come on down to Davis, we'll do ya good..." ;-)

In the meantime Amy, apologies for the threadjack but I just had to share this with you:

http://consumerist.com/2011/11/cant-pay-for-that-honeybaked-ham-now-put-it-on-layaway.html

In five years, highrez sensors in cellphone cameras will stabilize the image automatically, and we'll look back and laugh at the olden times we when recorded episodes of government brutality with such primitive technology.

1. I'm glad the police chief has been suspended. I thought it was bogus the two cops were suspended since they weren't rogue in anyway, their actions were clearly coordinated by their supervisors.

2. Chancellor Katehi, in early 2011, forced Edward Feldman, Head of the Veterinary Department at UCD to step down over a mistake he made in his classroom that (I think) was blown up out of all proportion. Interesting that she now doesn't understand the need for anyone to resign. (Although in her favor, she held a star chamber investigation before requiring Feldman to step down.)

3. Crid, google will post-facto stabilize your videos now to varying degrees of success.

I refuse to call the protesters victims. They were made aware of the consequences of their refusal to depart. That was in the first 30 seconds of the video. They had at least four minutes to contemplate the consequences of their actions, or inaction.

If my Lamborghini was stranded on a straight flat railroad track and I saw the train coming four four minutes and I still died because I refused the abandon the vehicle, would you blame the train's engineer for my death?

If I'm driving down the highway and pass numerous signs for "Bridge out" for five miles and am doing 60 MPH -- when I drive into the canyon -- would you blame me or the DOT?

I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away."

This is the same scenario.

I have absolutely negative sympathy for the useful idiots.

And now, premiering here, on this blog, at this time... An entirely new thought about this topic, freshly culled from my own torpid little soul and never before expressed by any person in any setting! Ever!

Ready? Here 'tis!

They call themselves "Occupy Wall Street". And that's really all they've got for rhetoric. They can't agree on anything else... No shared aspirations, no coherent statements of principle, no petitions, nothing. That name is important.

Now, the back half of that name is "Wall Street". It's literally a place, but it's also global shorthand for capitalism.

And the front half of that name is "Occupy". And in their preferred context, they certainly don't intend to invoke industrious productivity... They mean it as a term of war.

And I won't be told that they weren't entirely sincere, that they didn't really want to threaten disruption. (Because for the record, Al Gore meant to be a drippy little snot when he named his book "An Inconvenient Truth"... He knows his [contributing] fan base perfectly well, and he knows they adore those little bitchslaps of mirthless insincerity. Wordings like this are intentional.)

And so, seekers, after thousands and thousands of arrests all over the country (if not the globe), this little shitpile is finally being mopped up. The only deaths, rapes and shootings were those the Occupiers brought to each other. Law enforcement has done indisputably ugly things, but mostly in those settings where we'd expect as much; Where protesters were most obnoxious and where policing is famously edgy. (In the Davis case, we might further presume the cops to be yokels.)

For a phenomenon of this size, it's been remarkably safe and uneventful.

But let's not forget that the people who started it named themselves after an act of war, one so heinous that it's addressed in the Bill of Rights.

A lesser blog commenter would smirk at last Friday's events: Well, boys, shit got real. That's what you wanted, right?

But a tamer keyboard, such as mine, would ask only that everyone think carefully about how they expect to be perceived when they name their own social movement.

Crid,

I actually commented on this in the www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comments

Whether their message is coherent (it's not) IS immaterial to use of unreasonable force. -- Amy Alkon November 20, 2011 8:10 AM

Yes it is material. The TEA party has a coherent message -- less government. They show up, protest, and leave.

The Civil Rights movement had a coherent message -- equal rights. They showed up, protested, and left.

The Vietnam anti-war protests had a coherent message -- get out of Vietnam. They showed up, protested, and left for the most part.

Even the union protesters in Wisconsin had a coherent message. They showed up, protested, and rotated the people in and out. But they were, in general, civil and didn't interfere with the rest of everybody.

The Occupy movement does not have a coherent message. It is everything from we want free college to the bankers and capitalists are evil to we want free money. They show up, protest, stay, and trash the area. If they had a coherent message they could show up, protest, and leave.

Dooood, the term of war thing.

Jim P. You say you don't have sympathy for the useful idiots. I'm assuming from the rest of your post you mean the protesters. My question, useful to whom?

I can see the cops who have maced, peppersprayed, or beaten non-violent individuals being described as useful idiots much easier. Those cops give the protesters something they want. Something they need to keep wind in their sails. Something useful to the protesters, Martyrs.

The protesters aren't useful at all. They are idiots though.

Backstory

Useful idiots.
Fellow travelers.
Weak sisters.
They're communists, plain and simple.

Well, they're THAT, too, but you're missing the point, Andre.

Occupiers are not nice people. They do not 'mean well'. Their error isn't a single,forgivable weakness; It's a pattern or small-mindedness and detached timidity spanning a rainbow of interpersonal contexts. Occupiers aren't interested in fairness, clarity, the needs of those less fortunate, or in thoughtful, proportionate relationships with distant parties.

They're deliberately naive, and therefore wickedly naive... Their naïveté allows them to be readily manipulated by others for profit at a cost borne by the rest of us.

I mean, of course they're Commie. But that follows logically, and kinda understates things.

Thanks for stopping by, Andre!

hmmmm, if I was chief of police it would have been more of a Kent State moment I suspect. It was pepper spray for jeebus's sake, get over it.

Nearly every US social movement (civil liberties or civil rights or workers rights) has had socialists or communists involved since around 1900. As well anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, Wobblies, etc., depending on the context. To just wildly label all in the OWS as commies is no different than labeling the Tea Party groups as racists or misogynists. It isn't thoughtful and it's patently wrong, but damn convenient. It's what Sidney Hook called an epithet of abuse, although he directed the phrase at the New Left.

Quick disclaimer to avoid irrational accusations: I do not in anyway side with the OWS movement in goals or beliefs (well, depending since they are all over the board). They are incoherent, their demands are silly and would, if realized, lead to the opposite of what they want. They do seem like a bunch of self-esteem entitlement babies. I am not impressed.

Now, back to it, the commie thing is quite funny as that is exactly what the Freedom Marchers and King were called back in the 50s and early 60s. As well rabble-rousers and trouble makers, after all they were just agitators causing trouble and they weren't following police orders for god's sake. You know what you deserve when you don't follow police orders.

It took a hell of a lot of violence done to them (you really sanitized the history there Jim P.) by the police, the KKK, and southerners in general before the opinion changed. Why? One reason, among many, is that when you see violence done to non-violent protesters it scratches something called a conscience, a pesky thing that has all these principles it nags us with.

That last sentence is the only one pertinent to Pike and pepper spray. It doesn't matter if you don't like those making the circle or what they stand for however incoherent. And most of you have justified Pike because you don't like them.

Finally, I have no problem with them being arrested. That's part-and-parcel with civil disobedience.

ronc,

You might look up the effects of pepper spray. The Wikipedia entry is sufficient. Using it indiscriminately is not a good thing. Anything that causes shortness of breath is potentially lethal, especially for those with asthma and COPD. Pike, by being closer than 3 feet and dousing, isn't following manufacturer's directions.

Before it comes up, this silliness about chemical agents and tasers where "the police have 'em tested on them so their safe" is just that. Police are, especially at academy, in better health and physical condition than the general population. They are also subjected to these agents in controlled conditions.

Tasing is the best example simply because you can see the two or three officers there to catch the subject before they face plant or skull crack. IIRC, the probes are shorter also, avoiding the sometimes necessary surgical removal (rare). The subject is also spared repeated use up to 5 times while being told to "stop resisting", the latter rather sardonic given the movement is involuntary muscle spasms. Maybe they mean the screaming...

As for what would be said if this were done to the Tea Party, i expect that this summer we will find out. Mostly in Chicago and like minded cities where Union Rules prevail.

It was not used indiscriminately. I thought this was obvious.

If a person has breathing problems, of any type, and is warned that if he does not follow a lawful order, civil disobedience notwithstanding, and is warned that he will become a Pepperkid for his noncompliance and gets Pepperkidded, so be it. Time to cull the herd of such Pepperkid.

Oh snap, I thought Mr. Pike was 3 feet away. That makes all the difference in the world.

Could a war of this type succeed? I gonna think on that Crid. Could lead to enough confusion we wouldn't know who to shoot.

I wouldn't compare ows to King's Civil Rights Movement until owsers come to a coherent message. That message would also have to pass the laugh test. To date, owsers have not come close.

Don't Pepperkid me bro. I just don't want to pay the price of my tuition.

It is interesting how some of you bend over backward to justify this. Amy is consistent - no TSA groping, no pepper-spraying nonviolent protestors (no matter how silly).

This was inappropriate use of force because police officers lost their temper. Police officers are tax-payer funded public servants - armed public servants! It is reasonable to demand they maintain good judgement - we pay them to do this.

Sadly Sam, the law is not on your, or Amy's, side.

You don't have a choice about TSA groping, unless you choose not to fly commercial. You could work to change the law.

Pepperkids had a choice not to be Pepperkids. They chose to be Pepperkids. Has nothing to do with me wanting to justify anything.

Some say protesting is violent by its very nature. Do you mean passive. What if protestors block an ambulance, or the police from fulfilling their duties?

Dave B.

You missed the part where I gave my opinion of the OWS. You also missed this part "It doesn't matter if you don't like those making the circle or what they stand for however incoherent. And most of you have justified Pike because you don't like them."

I was comparing the reactions of the commenters here to those that I heard as a child and teenager regarding King and the Freedom Marchers. No difference including "hey so what if some die, they were given orders so they got what they deserved". Same old with no distinction between violent and non-violent protestors, just "them's troublemakers (I don't like them) so..."

You missed the dousing part too, a real misuse of a product meant for the physically resistant. Not for compliance of non-violent protestors, or people who ask why too many times, or keep arguing, or don't move fast enough (as in instantaneous).

Dave B.

What Sam listed are procedures or tactics, not law, though I understand what you meant. Procedures and tactics are sometimes wrong, just as laws are.

Civil disobedience is one way of changing those laws. Sometimes, sadly, the only way. There's a good chance the courts will not be on Pike's side, and the usual "no fault found" by the PD won't have standing.

Some say anything and believe anything. Protesting is violent when it is violent, and non-violent or passive when such. The violence of the police is theirs to own. As for what ifs, the non-violent or passive would likely clear for an Ambulance or Police performing duties other than breaking their protest line. We can what if all day, the case here has no what if.

Amy,

I will give you that you are as consistent as possible on civil liberties. No foolish consistency there either.

Occupiers are not nice people. They do not 'mean well'...

I hadn't thought to consider the implications of the word "Occupy". Nor has anyone else, so far as I have seen.

Full points to Crid.

I wouldn't compare ows to King's Civil Rights Movement until owsers come to a coherent message.

Oh yes you would, if you were in the business of thoughtless and/or invidious comparisons.

Jim P. You say you don't have sympathy for the useful idiots. I'm assuming from the rest of your post you mean the protesters. My question, useful to whom? -- Abersouth at November 21, 2011 10:55 PM

Useful to the leaders of the OWS movement(s). They can show these videos to the public and claim all the OWS is being abused by the authorities. Meanwhile the leaders aren't the ones being sprayed or tasered. Did you hear during the videos the yells to cover your eyes, and cover your mouths? They fully knew what they were in for.

Unless I knew I didn't have a choice (dead end alley, a bar with a crowd, etc.) if I was being approached by someone with some sort of weapon, I'd probably depart the area. If I was the defender, then I would try to stand and deliver. These idiots were trained to be victims.

I actually think with regard to pepper-spray, the law is on my side:

http://www.porac.org/ldf/cases/headwaters%20forest%20defense%20v%20county%20of%20humboldt.html

But honestly, if you've watched that video and think the officer's action was just peachy, I just don't understand you. How'd you feel about the Riverside cops who beat the mentally ill man to death earlier this year?

But honestly, if you've watched that video and think the officer's action was just peachy, I just don't understand you. How'd you feel about the Riverside cops who beat the mentally ill man to death earlier this year? -- Sam at November 22, 2011 7:39 PM

There is a difference -- did the mentally ill man sit for over four minutes knowing the consequences of his action?

If you can honestly say yes -- then there is a difference. But the supposed victims appeared to be normal, over 18, adults. They had sufficient warning of the consequences.

> To just wildly label all in the OWS as
> commies is no different than....

Well, TOMMY started it, Teacher....

Listen, these torpid lefty tone poems about decency get tiresome very quickly. Most sane people reject them, and the personalities that luxuriate in them, before leaving seventh grade. These OWS people are terribly naive about economics, and we want to say so. What metaphors are permissible to you?

> it scratches something called a conscience

For fuck's sake. If you wanted to BE more of a condescending twerp, what words could you use?

This is precisely the tone of voice mentioned earlier. Maybe someone has convinced you that the path to authentic seniority is by scolding people Mommy-style. Maybe the frustrations of your own lives have overwhelmed you such that you're compelled to unleash these primitive-memory terms of expression. Maybe you seriously believe that you're so advanced in your decency that baby-talk is the only way lesser mortals could comprehend your insights.

But this schoolmarm response is wackazoid. Your feelings aren't that remarkable and your righteousness isn't that exquisite. Wanna climb through the context again?

Here we go: OWS is a freak-of-the-week news story.

In America's late-November nightmare, the denouement of a trivial, inarticulate, violently-named and often-illegal series of public assemblies is being lawfully dispersed, mostly by cops without much experience in this sort of thing... And mostly without need for more training, procedures or review. A couple times, it's gotten out of hand. But on the whole, public gatherings in America are going well, and THIS CRISIS WON'T CAUSE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO SUCH THINGS TO BE IMPROVED, BUT WE ALL LIKE TO CLUCK SOMETIMES.

In America's mid-November nightmare, the sexual abuse of society's least-defended children by some of the most powerful and disproportionately-rewarded figures in higher eduction was declaimed as an inexcusable perversion of educational and civic responsibility. Yet on the whole, these institutions are safe places, and THIS CRISIS WON'T CAUSE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO SUCH THINGS TO BE IMPROVED, BUT WE ALL LIKE TO CLUCK SOMETIMES.

(Personal note— Penn State was the one I'd most enjoyed this year! Jeez, those guys were monsters, and it was fun to say so even though no one was going to argue otherwise.)

In America's early-November nightmare, a doctor was convicted for hastening the decline of a wealthy addict through the misuse, for profit, of his prescriptive authority. Yet on the whole, medical professionals are well-regulated, and THIS CRISIS WON'T CAUSE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO SUCH THINGS TO BE IMPROVED, BUT WE ALL LIKE TO CLUCK SOMETIMES.

In the America's summertime nightmare, a woman killed her kids, but scammed a jury and walked. (Or whatever... I wasn't paying attention: This one's a perennial.) Yet on the whole, people don't murder their children, and THIS CRISIS WON'T CAUSE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO SUCH THINGS TO BE IMPROVED, BUT WE ALL LIKE TO CLUCK SOMETIMES.

...And so on. Octomom was a goofball, she didn't portend some terribly cancer in American childbearing, and all those people who were theatrically angry about her improved things for children not at all. And still, WE ALL LIKE TO CLUCK SOMETIMES.


"Vile!," said Amy, the other day, and one of her readers mildly teased her for "clutching her pearls". Hypersensitivity to nightmares doesn't convey a steel core of decency that others should emulate. Quite the reverse. When a news story like this –or an especially clear photo like this– is what sets you off, we get the sense that you're ignoring larger evils that you learn about through text or through attentive consideration.

Worse things, uglier abuses of police power, happen almost every day. (Again, if you don't believe me, start watching the young but brilliant career of Radly Balko. He had another one this morning, Tuesday.)

Yeah, sure, Ariel: The Davis cops pepper-spraying those kids was cavalier and unnecessary. Yet considering the size and incoherence of the 'movement' (or 'craze'), things have gone well. Cluck if you must, but don't be too haughty, m'kay?

Radley. Not Radly.

Sorry.

Good Morning, Mr. Balko!

Can anyone spare a "Vile"?

History's judgment solidifies in the next 72 hours, as America celebrates Thanksgiving! Will sincere-ists overpower the whatever-ists? Watch closely!

Crid,

First, here is what Balko wrote on Pike:

"I can’t think of a scenario in which what you see in this video would be justified. Even if the students were ordered to move, there are other ways to move them. And the cop’s nonchalant body language is chilling. It’s egregious brutality, and he looks to be enjoying it." The banality of evil. Other ways would have been fine by me, and, no, Balko wasn't talking about batons and water cannons.

I read Radley Balko everyday day. Thanks for bringing him up. Guess he's just another lefty putting out a torpid tone poem sane people should ignore. Really, thanks again, you may read him but you don't understand him. He realizes that small evils lead to big ones. Again, it's your hatred of the "Movement" that clouds your decency.

Now as for condescension, people usually get really angry when they're reminded that their hatred is clouding their decency. Sorry if you think you're beyond scolding, which of course you scolded me for (irony sweet irony), or if my tone hurt your feelings. As for the rest of your rant, up to a point I will get to, just scroll-over country other than you continued to use what happened elsewhere with this silly movement to justify Pike. Again, it's your hatred of the "Movement" that clouds your decency.

"When a news story like this –or an especially clear photo like this– is what sets you off, we get the sense that you're ignoring larger evils that you learn about through text or through attentive consideration."
One, Amy has written about more egregious, and I've certainly commented on more egregious elsewhere (I read Balko, PINAC, et al), something you wouldn't know but shouldn't have assumed otherwise either. Small evils lead to large evils. The progenitor is the authoritarian mind. It underlies Jim Crow, the Russian Revolution, the Facists, the Nazi's (not a Godwin), the Inquisition, the hijab (the tent version), or protesting about "fags" at a soldier's funeral. If unchecked by nominal decency, that pesky conscience, as well higher principles of, oh, unalienable rights, it leads to those "larger evils". I think you are missing the foundation of these evils, through text and contemplative consideration.

Finally, "Ariel" is a British motor cycle marque. The only square four produced continuously by any manufacturer.

OK, Crid,

My apology. Your scroll-over rant, past the Mommy issues, was all the things we should be looking at rather than more ranting at the OWS. Should have gone past the "OWS freak-of-the-week" without assuming you were expressing more justification on why Pike was right because the OWS is so bad. So my bad there.

In my household we call that "Oh, look at the bunny", an attempt to draw attention away from the matter at hand. So, yeah, the apology is minimal.

The offense was minimal: We quibble because we can. (Apparently a Fox News bunny has described P-spray as a "food product"; Instantly we yearn to see her testing a sample on a camera, in the same spirit of Hitch humbly taking a sip.)

BTW, have you heard about that guy Paterno? What an ASSHOLE..!.

Golly, missed your first one:

> Guess he's just another lefty putting out a
> torpid tone poem sane people should ignore.

When you've got a years-long, multi-venue, practical-results body of work like his, your cluckings will be a lot more forgivable, too. Meanwhile, here we are... This is the crisis you that put mosquitoes in your pantaloons.

> Sorry if you think you're beyond scolding

Right. More than anything else, moral idiots demand the right to be Mommy about things, and "Everybody Poops" is their favorite book to read aloud.

> which of course you scolded me for (irony
> sweet irony)

It's not a paradox or anything. You offend... Clearly, needlessly and baselessly. I just don't credit you with the character to smirk about "decency". You're just not that darling.

Crid,

Unfortunately, Firefox froze on me so my witty response to your largesse, including "you should wait for the comment that is in the spam filter before being so forgiving" and my apology "was a use of the Bush Doctrine" was lost. I'm going to kill some add-ons until I find this too constant problem.

While I appreciate the well done attempt of humor of "the bunny moment" regarding Paterno, I have no humor regarding that, and you in no way fault or blame for it. I had a child molested by a family member and no longer speak to one entire side of my family. Some wanted it kept in University, even though it meant I would be prosecuted if my child mentioned it to anyone in "authority", which includes her Dentist or dental hygienist. My child has forgiven them; I am not, nor shall ever be, so generous.

As for scolding, I like scolding. I had this Branch Manager who scolded me all the time; I was his top salesman and he hired me with such confidence that he broke company rules as I wasn't reviewed by the Pres and VP but hired on the spot. Drove him nuts that every time he scolded me, and he did it often, that I just smiled back. Why? because I knew he loved me and his scolding just a testament. OK, maybe not so applicable here but I thought it was a nice story with a moral. Scolding doesn't mean "I don't love you"...my great-grandmother and grandmother (I wasn't raised by my parents) taught me that well. YMMV.

I look at the world through an obscure lens, in all senses of obscure. Scolding may just be a tongue welded to a cheek, a gentle chiding if I were actually gentle, or "how could you be so stupid". Take it how you must.

Me, I'm still looking for the English culinary work on how to prepare and serve Irish babies. I read this essay that made them seem so tasty. My mouth waters.

Oh, look, a bunny.

Crid,
See, I knew you wrote too soon. Told you.

I'd like to say nice spin though on Balko and me, but way too amateur because so transparent. His post is where I drew my stance from, though I would have stood no differently, having read it before coming here. So mine is a torpid tone poem and his a learned response that I have so little right to, yet had I stolen his words exactly before you looked...

You lit the petard. Don't act you didn't get hoisted.

Crid,

Damn, I hate it when I blow a punch line. Yeah, "like" between "act" and "you". Still, I'm proud of it.

Admit it, you missed that Balko post, referenced him by "oh, look at the bunny", and had an "oh, shit" moment when I pointed out it was his stance too. Really, it's okay. Really.

However, I did pivoting and spin for a living while maintaining my integrity, and it was wearing. Your attempt was just insulting...

If those comments were fun, we'd know.

Updates for sports, music, Woody Allen, Christendom.

Cluck, hens, cluck!

"If those comments were fun, we'd know."

You're speaking for the squirrel in your pocket too? Have you spoken to the squirrel to get its permission?

Nice "oh look at the bunny" though. Can't admit that you blew it referencing Balko, can you? Just. Can't. Do. It. Must. Dig. In. Deeper.

Remember, those hens include Balko too. Wait a minute, let me check, nope no comment by Crid over at The Agitator saying "Hey, Balko, you're clucking!!!".

Let us all know when you do. Please, because I want to read the response there. Should be informative, as well entertaining.

And, again, your attempts are just insulting. Now, though, you've begun to insult yourself. Hope your self doesn't get angry at you, but I'd worry more about the squirrel. They have teeth.

> you blew it referencing Balko

Nope, I meant every word... Go back and look. I didn't say he agrees with me, I said I'm more impressed his scope of attention than with yours. He walks the beat. He doesn't get a pissing shiver of self-righteousness whenever a particularly photogenic offense hits the front page: He covers 'em all. He doesn't pretend all the righteousness in the world stares out at us from his own magnificent heart. He doesn't clutch his pearls.

Crid, Ariel, yawn

Crid,

If you want to be a top, please allow me to pull the string. You pull poorly.

You didn't have to say he agrees with you, he doesn't, I already knew he agrees with me, even though he says it so as to not hurt your feelings (makes me want to break out into song). All your "no, no, I was talking about this not that" is just misdirection. You do that poorly too.

I won't go back over all your comments so I can quote you well into oblivion. You referenced Balko late, your opinion on Pike and those who disagreed with you was well established. But you just had to reference Balko for what was "more important" (bunny) not realizing it would bite you (that's the petard thing, the hoisting is the bite of the explosion). You're now hanging your hat on the "I don't like how you said it so it's not the same". Similar to "I don't like them" so Pike's okay.

Really, let it go. One thing about getting older is knowing when to quit digging a hole.

I do realize you haven't read my comment before this one. Light those petards.

ronc,

Yeah, kind of boring watching us go at it isn't it? Nothing new: "you hurt my feelings cuz you're not nice" and "admit you were wrong cuz Balko said so and you didn't know it" and all variants thereof.

Would you like me to stop?

Bunny! READ EVERY WORD AGAIN, and then know this: Even if Balko agrees with you, you're still wrong. You want to believe there's all this decency glowing in your heart that doesn't appear in the hearts of other people. I don't think that's likely.

That OctoMom was like, a total bitch, right? And that Pike... He's terribly mean! And you think it's kind of a sad commentary, and I think you're too proud of yourself. If freak-of-the-week clucking could lead this planet to a better day, we'd be there by now.

Crid,

Nope. Not a word right and all overwrought.

I believe nearly all people are decent but that at any one moment they can be indecent, whether by job, belief, hatred or fear. I know that of me and of everyone I've known. You are still hanging your hat on the same peg.

You're working so damn hard to be right you're getting, well, foolish. Take a breather.

I'm going to if only to please ronc.

It's something called a conscience! You need to sell your beliefs! While you rest, the comedians are gaining ground!

When's Mr. Pikes trial, or has he already been convicted? If so, of what?

I think what he did was ok. Not something I think I would have done - it would depend on how bad I needed the job - then again, if ordered and I liked my job I probably would have done it. I am a physical sort of guy so I would have enjoyed moving them physically, especially the girls.

This dude Ariel is sure hung up on "like." I don't care about the owser's, I don't dislike them. Don't run in their circles so I don't know any. They appear to be stupid (wanting to be Pepperkids and all). Plus I like my bed, running water and inside toilets.

I don't have the experience and expertise about the legalities of protesting and pepperspraying that Ariel does. The dude Ariel may be an expert but I'll defer to the police departments since they are the ones that will be held responsible for the actions.

I was told that protesting is violent when the dudes sit down and lock arms, or put their arms in tubes or handcuff themselves. I'll defer to Ariel who will surely have an opinion.

"And some people still think it's 'inappropriate'".

________________________________

Meanwhile, a commission has been formed, and I'm so sorry I didn't include this question in the earlier comments, because swear to God, it came to mind as I was contemplating the name of the protest: Do you think Pike and other Davis cops might have had military backgrounds, such that they'd have taken particular offense and at the name "Occupy"?

We still don't know if any of these guys served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or Grenada or Bosnia or Haiti). I can imagine all sorts of resentment at punks who think "occupation" consists of sitting around downtown in the United States, flirting comfortably and safely with girl idiots and pretending their problem is Wall Street.

I thought Ariel was a girl, a girl's name. I thought he was this lesbian from on here years ago who used to send emails sometimes.

Hi, Dave B.,

If your daughter went limp when you were trying to pick her up from the floor because she was disobeying you, would you say "violence" and go whoop ass on her? Passive or non-violent resistance with the Police isn't any different, you don't go whoop ass on someone who isn't violently opposing you. If they go violent, go violent back, and I agree when Police do it against violent resisters. Don't do this with your daughter as I won't visit you in prison to comfort you.

BTW, say you tapped a cop on the shoulder to get his attention, you just committed a felony. Remember that when you tap a stranger on the shoulder...

Pepper spray or mace is going whoop ass. I would have no problem with some pressure point bruises to break the circle and some arm pulling by 2,3,4-5 officers leading to handcuffs and paddy wagon time. (Took that last from a cop who realized Pike just gave a photo-op.)

"I'll defer to the police departments since they are the ones that will be held responsible for the actions."

No, their insurance providers are usually responsible. You are wildly naive if you think PDs or LEOs are held responsible for their actions to any significant degree, except when it becomes too politically apparent that they screwed up. In most of the cases where cops have gone to prison for excessive force, or worse, by Federal prosecution, the local PD said "no fault found, just following procedure".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? From Juvenal regarding the issue of the watchers watching themselves. They don't unless it's too hard to hide, or so offensive they can't stomach it (Police as a group commit sexual offenses against children and teenagers at about twice the rate of the general population, go to Injustice Everywhere and read his stats. Their alcoholism is twice the general population, but they admit to that. Search and ye shall find.)

If you think the Teamsters Union is corrupt, you need to look at the Police unions. They protect officers who falsify time cards, who lie on reports (you know, the reports that put you before a judge) and perjure in court (you know, where you go to prison).

Crid,

"I thought Ariel was a girl, a girl's name. I thought he was this lesbian from on here years ago who used to send emails sometimes."

Which only shows the lack of breadth of your knowledge, and a narrowness in your assumptions and vision. Ariel was a boy's name, Arielle a girl's, until the Little Mermaid made those who didn't know better think they did. To be kind to your ignorance, it was still rather unisex. But then again you probably think Marion R. Morrison is a girl too.

And still you dwell on the movement, rather than the act Amy found barbaric.

And people with a conscience don't "sell" their beliefs because they aren't ever for sale. Not to themselves, not to others, not to a religion, not to an ideology, not to a fear, and certainly not to a hatred. On the other hand, nobody's perfect.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

Hi, Dave B.,

My first comment is in the spam filter. Really, though, think of what your swallowing: "I was told that protesting is violent when the dudes sit down and lock arms, or put their arms in tubes or handcuff themselves."

Really? "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." See some similarity? Orwell anyone? as my chin hits my chest in utter desolation at the state of my fellow man.

Dear, dear Ariel,

Dude - you really don't get it do you? Once they sit down it becomes violent - they have to be moved. Just like the song - let's get physical. You act like you have never seen a protest where it has been done. I hope you are wearing a bib as you drool on your chest. More importantly your fellow man will do quite well without you.

> a narrowness in your assumptions and vision

My assumptions are narrow?

> And still you dwell on the movement

Right! That's kinda true!

It's something called a conscience!

So passivity is violence? Got it.

Kinda missed the Rosa Parks thing did you?

When you leave one with no alternative but to use force you are initiating violence.

Please dipshit. Rosa Parks did not resist arrest. She did not sit on the floor of the bus and hang on to the seat. She was non violent. It's really irritating to keep bringing up the civil rights movement in talking about the owsers.

Pray tell, when are police trained in using pressure points to move a crowd? You watch too much tv.

You sure like to look for things the police do wrong. Do they serve a purpose or should we just get rid of them?

I bet you believe that the government is passive and non violent in collecting taxes. After all paying income taxes is voluntary.

Dave B.,

"you really don't get it do you? Once they sit down it becomes violent - they have to be moved."

Ok, I apologize. I get it. Resistance to authority through passive or non-violent acts of civil disobedience is violent because the authorities will become violent. Thus the passive or non-violent acts of civil disobedience are violent. Got it.

You don't quite have it but you are getting closer.

As usual you throw in a word that is inapplicable to me. I would not call the Pepperkids actions as passive. Obviously you do. That difference of opinion has no place in our discussion. We can simply agree to disagree, or I can just say you are correct - no matter.

Maybe I am too old to be in this discussion. My definition of civil disobedience justifies acts to protest immoral laws. denial of rights or changing a policy that is dangerously wrong. Maybe the Pepperkids are following other justifications for civil disobedience because I do not see how not wanting to pay you tuition falls under my definition. Just because someone resists authority does not mean it is civil diobedience - you seem to believe that. Please tell me, why are the protestors resisting authority and why do you call it civil disobedience?

"When you leave one with no alternative but to use force you are initiating violence."

In other words, she made me do it.

There are always alternatives to passive, non-violent demonstrators. As I said, there are other techniques that could be used and were during the sit-ins of the 1960s and very early 70s.

"Please dipshit. Rosa Parks did not resist arrest. She did not sit on the floor of the bus and hang on to the seat. She was non violent."

The first thing her mother asked her was "did they beat you?". Parks fully expected to be manhandled and/or beaten, because others before her had been and neither you know or I know how they acted. As it were, a small, well-dressed and well educated black woman met two cops who treated her relatively well. Her act of civil disobedience was sitting in that seat, the floor would have been silly. BTW, the Freedom Marchers used sit-ins, and counter-ins, before the Vietnam crowd. So that violence against them was initiated by them?

You might look up all these terms: nonviolent resistance; civil resistance; and civil disobedience. I'd give you more but I think your plate has already spilled over. Face it, your syllogism sucks, see my post at 11-27 11:59 AM.

Why do I use the Civil Rights movement? Because it was reviled by a majority of Americans early on as a group of commie-inspired, rabble-rousing, troublemakers who were breaking the law. They weren't lionized like they are now by the soc-cons who initially resisted the decency to realize the Freedom Marchers were right. It took picture after picture, reel after reel, of seeing people attack non-violent protestors, or kids just trying to get an education, for the country to see the truth. Roughly 12 frigging years.

You're reacting the same now as the country did then, though I grant the message of the OWS is stupid and incoherent. I take the actions of the protestors and the response of the authorities on a case by case, primarily because I see individuals not amorphous groups. If they are passive and non-violent, the police should handle them one way; violent another way. No different than the Freedom Marchers. You sit back some 50 years later and sanitize what really happened.

"Pray tell, when are police trained in using pressure points to move a crowd? You watch too much tv."

Words are important. This wasn't a crowd on their feet challenging the police. This was a circle of people with arms locked sitting on the concrete. Epitome of passive resistance (I know, I know, passive resistance is violence). The police walked around and through them. No violence. BTW, I got the pressure-points from two cops commenting on other blogs, one PINAC. I could bet you'll find the same on PoliceOne. Police vary on their opinions on how to properly handle a situation. But I did see it on TV in the 1960s, mostly Vietnam. They weren't so nice to the Freedom Marchers.

"You sure like to look for things the police do wrong. Do they serve a purpose or should we just get rid of them?"

So we should ignore what police do wrong? Aren't the Police representatives of the State? The State we granted powers to, not a State that granted us rights? Carry that thought further, why would you complain about the actions of any government employee? Do you only look for the wrongs of government employees not wearing uniforms? You're last sentence is just a variation of the "hippie" or "crack-whore" argument. Of course they serve a purpose.

"I bet you believe that the government is passive and non violent in collecting taxes. After all paying income taxes is voluntary."

If I'm passive and non-violent, but the government reacts violently, again I'm the violent one? Generally, the IRS just takes over all your bank accounts, IRAs, etc. Granted they can and do use the power of the gun, so they should shoot tax evaders? Just using a variation of your syllogism. After all, if the tax evaders just sit there...

You confuse who initiates the violence.

Wow. Was it you or Crid who said hey look over there at the bunny?

My question was "Please tell me, why are the protestors resisting authority and why do you call it civil disobedience?" Why the long discourse. You didn't see it necessary to respond before.

It's an insult to the civil rights movement to compare the UC Davis incident with it. It's an insult to the concept of civil disobedience to claim any relationship to it and the UC Davis incident.

You state it was wrong for the police to pepperspray the protestors at UC Davis. You have no basis in law to say that. It may appear harsh to you, but it is what it is. The protestors did not obey a lawful order to disperse. The police could have used more than one method to move them. They chose pepperspray. Your desire for it to be otherwise is just an emotional appeal.

Dave B.

Ignore my comment that is again in the spam filter. Or read it, but don't let yourself react, though your syllogism still sucks. :>) (I hate emoticons, much to my disadvantage.)

"My definition of civil disobedience justifies acts to protest immoral laws. denial of rights or changing a policy that is dangerously wrong.

But you must understand, we as a nation, even as individuals, so often do this in hindsight that the word "always" may be justified. The message of the Freedom Marchers wasn't seen immediately, it took 12 friggin' years of violence against people at counters, or in bus seats, or sitting on sidewalks or in buildings, or marching in the streets, or just trying to get a good education, before people's hearts changed. We don't immediately recognize their message because we are a socially conservative nation that first reacts to stop, even fight, change, then embraces it when we see that it is right and our conscience can't be ignored (my pesky conscience). In that time the people trying to show us how wrong we are suffer for us. They pay the price for our slowness to recognize in them our ideals.

We see laws as immoral in hindsight. Our history is replete with examples of how what we take as immoral now required people to suffer or die to show us. It is a weakness when we we ignore the values that made this country the "Great Experiment", a strength when it keeps us from making changes against those values. But time judges that. We are lost in the moment.

We should never sanitize history by acting that we as a nation saw it all along. We didn't. I use Jim Crow because it, above all else, is the greatest stain on our nation (we can argue about slavery or the Indians. The latter our treaty breaking violated our own laws but that is for another time, then again it's really just another form of Jim Crow). We acknowledged their "god-given", unalienable rights, then took them away. There is nothing in the Constitution that justifies "separate but equal" because it wasn't and it isn't. It was an attempt to maintain an execrable social order that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments undid, until a sick SCOTUS said otherwise in Plessy. Which is why I'm protestant rather than catholic on SCOTUS.

I judge by incident now because as I child I watched, or later read of, horrible acts done to people who were excoriated at the time but then justified later, even lionized now. The Bonus Marchers, the Union Movement, the Free Speech Movement (think 1920s and banned books), the Civil Rights Movement, likely more.

It isn't the message, it is only the act at a specific time and place; the State and how it reacts to the people in their right to "petition for redress of grievance". A right that is not always expressed by words on paper, because that is so often ignored by dint of jurist sophistry or legislator deafness. If violent, violence ensues, if not then what by the State? And you and I disagree to when violence first starts. I can't ascribe it to passive acts because authority cries "it's havoc now let loose the dogs of war". The British Empire gave up India when they saw the dogs were let loose wrongly.

History will judge the message in the petition. As we have done so many times, so late, before. (The OWS IMHO don't have a chance unless pigs fly, but I'll let history judge the final answer.)

Resisting authority is civil disobedience. You can't commit civil disobedience without resisting authority. You just can't. Please read Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience".

I'll leave you with an OT question but a start for a different journey: did the Founders mean to create a government with "sovereign immunity"?

Ariel,
On topic, and repeated,"You state it was wrong for the police to pepperspray the protestors at UC Davis. You have no basis in law to say that. It may appear harsh to you, but it is what it is. The protestors did not obey a lawful order to disperse. The police could have used more than one method to move them. They chose pepperspray. Your desire for it to be otherwise is just an emotional appeal."

"Wow. Was it you or Crid who said hey look over there at the bunny?"

It's a term used by parents that have ADD or ADHD children. They can go wildly off-topic in the blink of an eye, or just use it to misdirect the parent. They aren't stupid, but then neither is the parent.

"You didn't see it necessary to respond before." Life interruptus. I've responded now.

"You state it was wrong for the police to pepperspray the protestors at UC Davis. You have no basis in law to say that."

I have a precautionary ruling by the Ninth Circuit. Also, police procedures are not law. The law lags but jurists rule when the procedures are finally seen as violation of the rights of citizens (our rights precede the law). Do a search on "the third-degree", an oft used police procedure of the 20s and 30s. I doubt you'll like it. It was okay though because no one said "hey that's against the law"...

"It's an insult to the civil rights movement."

We as a nation insulted the civil rights movement for near 12 years. Called them commies, rabble-rousers, and troublemakers. Now we lionize them. Hindsight is 20/20, but not morally satisfying or righteous. But I do agree the OWS are nimrods.

"The police could have used more than one method to move them. They chose pepperspray."

And like Frost wrote "that has made all the difference". They chose poorly. Whitman didn't seem appropriate here, something about "grass".

"Your desire for it to be otherwise is just an emotional appeal."

No it's an appeal on principle leading to an appropriate response by the Police. That we differ on when violence starts is the stumbling block. It may always be such, because your syllogism really sucks. :>) (See, I used another one. Disgusting little symbolic faces.)

Caught your post at 11/27 4:49 PM. yeah, it is OT and as honest, good people who love this Republic, recognizing in our own way that it could be better, we simply disagree. Still, your syllogism sucks. Couldn't resist, so you can't pepper spray me.

I meant to use "On T" but went OT. Outside of intended, confusion deserves apology, inside of intended, it's too dark to know.

Oh yeah, I forgot, your opinion is better than mine.

As to the legalities - we'll see.

"Oh yeah, I forgot, your opinion is better than mine."

Don't descend into that. My opinion is different than yours, and I'm trying to put up as good an argument as I can to defend mine, do so also. And I may, likely will, get snarky. So say "piss on him" and argue back.

If you had given me something so far that would make me think twice, I would. My opinion today is different than just a few years ago, and why I've dropped conservative to describe myself. I was a Goldwater conservative, still am in ways, but Goldwater wasn't considered a conservative by the time he died. His principles were the same, he just reapplied them and went "oops, I missed that". He was against gays in the military before he was for them. Backwards Kerry.

(As an aside, my wife's church is a land grant by Goldwater, his home is above the church, and she has been in his home and I've met him in her church. However my only claim to fame is elbowing Sandra Day O'Connor in the tit; a fleeting moment of red-faced greatness that I have yet to live down with my wife and daughters. My wife is now working with the committee on O'Connor's house. I have pictures of my wife and daughter with O'Connor. Whoopee, our moment is secure.)

Right now I'm trying to understand you and your 4:29 PM comment was a good one. For one thing, it goes to the concept of civil disobedience. I've tried to show you how you are wrong definitionally, but show me you're right. Logically, historically, or philosophically. I don't want sources, I find the "show me the cite" as laziness, reasoned argument suffices.