UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

[Cheech]

Protest...fine....people get arrested and then they block the way for the pd=asking to get arrested. Personally, I would have told them to move and if they didn't I'd have gone hands on and begun arresting them for failure to comply and obstruction. Then move them out of the way and into the middle until there was an exit route is established.

Wouldn't be the first protester I've arrested this year...

I'm a little fuzzy on this, so you'll have to bear with me. First off, I'm in agreement with you that the proper way to open a hole for the police encircled inside would be to physically move the protestors. Not manhandling (see NYPD), but moving them with as little force as possible so that you create an exit with which you leave.

The arresting, I have a problem with. Failure to comply would insinuate that the order to disperse was lawful, which, Constitutionally, it's not. If it was, then I have to ask why charges were dropped against those arrested. Obstruction is the thing I need a little more clarification on.

[Cheech]

Because the school chancellor asked the campus police to remove them from blocking the square. That's all I know. A superior told them to do something, even against citizens, and they did it. My tinfoil hat has some holes in it. I need to make it better.

At this point you'd be better off milling a block of aluminum and wearing it as a helmet. You can use it to block rubber bullets from hitting you in the head.

To your point though, I guess I don't know how to make this system better. Half the police don't know the law outside of the sections involving automobile moving violations, and the other half seem to just accept orders from above. You have ignorance coupled with blind acceptance, with no one asking if I *should* be following/giving these orders. I really have to think that someone in the chancellor's office had a legal consult while constructing these orders, and if it didn't happen there, I sure as hell hope it happened at the police station. Clearly, if it did happen, no one payed attention, because I can't imagine a experienced lawyer telling anyone that this action would pass Constitutional muster.

[SJC1000rr]

The arresting, I have a problem with. Failure to comply would insinuate that the order to disperse was lawful, which, Constitutionally, it's not.

I can't say for UC Davis, but even at most campus's there are steps required to have a formal protest. Its a simple notification to Student Life or Admin that its being planned out before hand. Even if those steps weren't followed, the protest would still probably be allowed. However, if said protest disrupts services at campus then yes, you could be arrested depending on state or local law. For example Columbus Code:

2317.11 - Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

The protest was loud as one would expect, and if that disrupted class rooms or services on campus, #2 applies. Also, by them screaming profanities at the Police, other civilians/passerby's very well could be offended by it. Also, if by means of encircling the area on the block, that hindered or prevented movement of persons to and from, then #4 could possibly apply.

If it was, then I have to ask why charges were dropped against those arrested. Obstruction is the thing I need a little more clarification on.

I would say the charges were dropped due to the bad publicity in the media and the school trying to save face. As for the obstruction... (same scenario) The officers in the middle have arrested several protesters and are trying to exit the area with those arrestee's. The protester's have now encircled the police and are preventing them from leaving with said arrestee's and demanding the released. The officers have told them to move repeatedly and yet the protester's sat down to block the officers from leaving.

Ohio Revised Code:

2921.31 Obstructing official business.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Edited December 11, 2011 by SJC1000rr

[attentiongetter92]

what the hell are you on about?

Calm down honcho, I was explaining that the reason for the protests is the cost of tuition. Then I gave a real world example of how to solve it and included a personal experience.

[Cheech]

I can't say for UC Davis, but even at most campus's there are steps required to have a formal protest. Its a simple notification to Student Life or Admin that its being planned out before hand. Even if those steps weren't followed, the protest would still probably be allowed. However, if said protest disrupts services at campus then yes, you could be arrested depending on state or local law. For example Columbus Code:

2317.11 - Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

The protest was loud as one would expect, and if that disrupted class rooms or services on campus, #2 applies. Also, by them screaming profanities at the Police, other civilians/passerby's very well could be offended by it. Also, if by means of encircling the area on the block, that hindered or prevented movement of persons to and from, then #4 could possibly apply.

In this instance, I can understand #4. A reasonable person could look at that situation and see that the protestors were preventing the police from free movement. #2, I can't. If they are in a public park, what is the determining standard for noise?

Either way, they're still in violation of the law by virtue of #4.

I would say the charges were dropped due to the bad publicity in the media and the school trying to save face. As for the obstruction... (same scenario) The officers in the middle have arrested several protesters and are trying to exit the area with those arrestee's. The protester's have now encircled the police and are preventing them from leaving with said arrestee's and demanding the released. The officers have told them to move repeatedly and yet the protester's sat down to block the officers from leaving.

Of course the charges were dropped due to the bad publicity. My point is, the entire thing was unconstitutional from the start, from the arresting, to the illegal detainment, all of it. On top of that, the arresting body (UC Davis) doesn't want to press charges, so it basically turned into "you are annoying us, so we're going to violate your rights so you'll move, then act like nothing happened afterwards. Oh yeah, qualified immunity, you have no recourse. Suck it."

Ohio Revised Code:

2921.31 Obstructing official business.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

The orders were unlawful for the original protestors, the ones arrested prior to the encircling that I imagine were arrested for failing to vacate the campsite/original assembly area. However, this would be valid for the people who should have been moved from the circle to create a exit path.

[Pokey]

So many of those wannabe protestors were only there to say they were involved, their heart wasn't in it. I watched the video again and it is very obvious that many of these kids were just wanting to be a pain in the ass, and to say they stood up to the police "for what". This whole movement has turned into a SHAM, too many are now just wanting to say they were involved in something that has major news coverage and publicity. Buncha little pricks and they WERE causing trouble and majorly taunting the police, yet easy for us all to give our opinions when we were not there to see all sides. You never know when any kind of protesting can go violent, there are all kinds of crazy people out there and a large crowd of motivated people can get out of hand quickly.

[John]

2317.11 - Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

The protest was loud as one would expect, and if that disrupted class rooms or services on campus, #2 applies. Also, by them screaming profanities at the Police, other civilians/passerby's very well could be offended by it.

so just in general, can you yourself, as an officer, say you were offended and be the complainant for this, or would a citizen have to come up and say that they were offended before you could act? and i would think you'd have to witness the act occur too right?

[John]

You never know when any kind of protesting can go violent, there are all kinds of crazy people out there and a large crowd of motivated people can get out of hand quickly.

id think the majority of protests are peaceful. further, they should be immediately suspect of anyone who is advocating or trying to incite violence. there is a good chance that they are working with the authorities, or are police officers themselves. aka agent provocateurs.

this has happened all over the world, including in the US and Canada, and has been well documented.

for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

or in denver during the DNC, when police officers went undercoveras protesters, incited violence, and ended up getting pepper sprayed by uniformed officers.

[owndjoo]

this cheech guy... is a moron. The whole reason for the UC cops to be called was because of the students "camping" at the protest. Yes it is a public college campus, but there are rules. Just like how you can't go sleep on a park bench or in most places go pass out on a public beach at night. The police were leaving the other protestors alone, only were there to force the students to take down their tents. Upon refusing a LAWFUL order, those tents were taken down and anyone who INTERFERED WITH A LAWFUL ORDER were arrested appropriately. Once the students moved on the police and then encapsulated them with a SHOW OF FORCE "a mob of people surrounding a group is automatically considered threatening". Upon being asked politely by a very well mannered officer many times to move themselves, the mob became even more threatening with their chants admitting to holding police officers captive. To be honest, this was the absolute BEST outcome that could've possibly happened. These students are lucky that they were not physically beaten into submission by the officers, which is COMPLETELY legal in such a situation, btw. The officers remained calm and waited for reinforcements. Every single one of those students could have, and SHOULD have been arrested and charged. I'm not just talking about the ones sitting on the sidewalk, but all students surrounding the officers and presenting a threatening stance. This video brings to light some serious issues that are happening nowadays. Would've been even better if the cops had their gas masks and they just let loose with tear gas, then arrest everyone

[Pokey]

^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^

[John]

I'm not just talking about the ones sitting on the sidewalk, but all students surrounding the officers and presenting a threatening stance.

hahahahahah... oh wait... you're serious. let me laugh even harder.

i honestly do not see how a reasonable person could watch that video and conclude that the police were in any danger whatsoever. maybe if everyone in the crowd had a bat and helmet...

either you are just trolling, or are just a toadie...

[Pokey]

hahahahahah... oh wait... you're serious. let me laugh even harder.

i honestly do not see how a reasonable person could watch that video and conclude that the police were in any danger whatsoever. maybe if everyone in the crowd had a bat and helmet...

either you are just trolling, or are just a toadie...

How about then......the lack of respect, taunting and total disregard for law enforcement?

[Cheech]

How about then......the lack of respect, taunting and total disregard for law enforcement?

Constitutionally protected speech. It's not just a goddamn piece of paper.

I'm serious, why do I have to keep reminding everyone about this? As soon as a gun thread comes up every other post is OMG CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!1 CANT YOU READ!!!!!!!, but the second you try and reference a amendment that isn't the 2nd, everyone has amnesia.

[Pokey]

Constitutionally protected speech. It's not just a goddamn piece of paper.

I'm serious, why do I have to keep reminding everyone about this? As soon as a gun thread comes up every other post is OMG CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!1 CANT YOU READ!!!!!!!, but the second you try and reference a amendment that isn't the 2nd, everyone has amnesia.

So free speech trumps actions? Break the laws/rules, taunt police, and you deserve to get pepper sprayed or shot with rubber bullets. Had my son been one of the dumbass kids involved in that, I would've kicked his ass first chance I got.

[Cheech]

So free speech trumps actions? Break the laws/rules, taunt police, and you deserve to get pepper sprayed or shot with rubber bullets. Had my son been one of the dumbass kids involved in that, I would've kicked his ass first chance I got.

And you are welcome to discipline your child any way you see fit. In your question you mentioned "the lack of respect, taunting and total disregard for law enforcement". Nothing about actions, which have already been discussed here.

Something tells me you would change your tune if your son came home like this: http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/iraq-vet-unconscious-from-occupy-oakland-police-attacks

Unless, of course, he was being a dumbass kid, then he deserved to be in a coma.

[Disclaimer]

Of course you post the ONE incident of police being over the top, what about all the articles of the police who've been hospitalized because of all those violent, lazy hippies?

So many people think this country is going to 'hell in a hand basket', yet when these Occupiers actually exercise their Constitutional rights to DO SOMETHING about it, they're looked down upon by those same armchair quarterbackers who say the country is going in the crapper. Who're the lazy ones again?

[John]

How about then......the lack of respect, taunting and total disregard for law enforcement?

YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAYYY

im not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. are you saying that simple disrespect is grounds for pepper spraying someone?

[John]

Constitutionally protected speech. It's not just a goddamn piece of paper.

I'm serious, why do I have to keep reminding everyone about this? As soon as a gun thread comes up every other post is OMG CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!1 CANT YOU READ!!!!!!!, but the second you try and reference a amendment that isn't the 2nd, everyone has amnesia.

duh, its because it only applies to people who have the same viewpoints as me, and who i agree with.

[Pokey]

YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAYYY

im not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. are you saying that simple disrespect is grounds for pepper spraying someone?

They were breaking the campus rules, being disorderly, taunting and blocking police.....so yes they got what they deserved, maybe should have tazed them too.

[Pokey]

And you are welcome to discipline your child any way you see fit. In your question you mentioned "the lack of respect, taunting and total disregard for law enforcement". Nothing about actions, which have already been discussed here.

Something tells me you would change your tune if your son came home like this: http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/iraq-vet-unconscious-from-occupy-oakland-police-attacks

Unless, of course, he was being a dumbass kid, then he deserved to be in a coma.

There is just no use trying to argue with you, obviously you see things in a different perspective than many. And you live in Westerville too!!!!!

[Cheech]

There is just no use trying to argue with you, obviously you see things in a different perspective than many. And you live in Westerville too!!!!!

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because I'm right. And yes, I live near Easton, and as Casper will attest I'd be more than willing to have a beer and discuss in person.

[Pokey]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because I'm right. And yes, I live near Easton, and as Casper will attest I'd be more than willing to have a beer and discuss in person.

I would for sure be up for that!!!!!

[chevysoldier]

hahahahahah... oh wait... you're serious. let me laugh even harder.

i honestly do not see how a reasonable person could watch that video and conclude that the police were in any danger whatsoever. maybe if everyone in the crowd had a bat and helmet...

either you are just trolling, or are just a toadie...

That's why they aren't judged by a reasonable person standard but from the perspective of a reasonable officer. GRAHAM V. CONNOR, 490 U. S. 386 (1989)

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

My emphasis above.

Not to mention the protesters out numbered the officers, just because they didn't have bats doesn't mean they aren't or can't become very dangerous very quickly.

Edited December 15, 2011 by chevysoldier

[John]

good point about on the reasonable officer vs person...

still its already been ruled as excessive to use pepper spray on non violent protesters.

the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances.

we conclude that Philip and Lewis are not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

[chevysoldier]

good point about on the reasonable officer vs person...

still its already been ruled as excessive to use pepper spray on non violent protesters.

the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances.

we conclude that Philip and Lewis are not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

What is the definition of "peaceful" though? What's the "line"?

I'm not familiar with what happened at that protest but am aware of the case you cited.

Does the crowd saying "Fuck the police", "we'll let you leave if...", "don't shoot students (your children)", etc when the police are surrounded and are out numbered make it justifiable? It would only take one person to throw a punch and it would turn into a very dangerous riot. Not to mention they all got numerous warnings and the police were armed with riot batons and spray. Would you rather be sprayed or see the business end of a baton? The totality of the circumstances makes me believe the option of using OC spray was a better option than going hands on with force and escalating it all.

Had the protest not surrounded the LEOs and not used threatening words, I would agree with you they should have left without using OC spray. If of course what I have seen on video matches the testimony from the LE and their chain of command, the protesters and the school. I'm not privy to that information.

Edited December 15, 2011 by chevysoldier