Police Brutality at Occupy Rallies

I don't think opening mouths by force and spraying pepper spray straight down someones throat happens very often, but if it does someone should do something about it--that much I agree with. It's just that people tend to thing that all kinds of violence from the police automatically becomes police brutality. Tear gas isn't lethal, the violence riot police use are almost never in anyway harmful (when it is it's a more or less isolated incident) and force is only used when it's needed. Everytime someone say their actions are "unprovoked" they lie. The police only attack either because they feel threatened or because the protesters aren't allowed to stay and won't leave despite warnings (and there's almost always a warning, listen carefully at the beginning of every video (unless that part has been left out, of course)).

And remember: There's a difference between painful and harmful.

Depends on the incident. Blocking people's way or throwing gas bombs vs. people out of th way on the park or somewhere no one is blocked from moving. In fresno where a law saying you can't be on government protety from 12am to 5am.. they just leave one or two who volunteer to get busted.. but were only a million in pop.

I haven't done a whole lot of research into the matter but I have heard a lot about it on the radio (ya I listen to political radio, so sue me). From what I have heard the Davis incident went like this. A group of what was primarily college students blocked a typically busy sidewalk. This sidewalk did not belong to them and they were told that they were breaking the law and told politely to leave. They refused and were again told to leave and that if they refused the police would have to do something to remove them. They still refused.

At this point the police had a choice to make. Let them continue to break the law and infringe upon the rights of the owner of the sidewalk or remove them. They chose to remove them and they only really had 2 ways of doing so. Either they could physically drag them off or pepper spray. Dragging them has the potential to cause further and potentially severe physical harm. Pepper spray was the more humane and intelligent choice.

The fact that they were occupy protesters is completely irrelevant, yet they try and use that as an excuse to break the law whenever they want. The 1st amendment allows them the right to peacefully protest, not do whatever the hell they want and claim it to be a protest. Makes me wonder how far some of these people would be willing to go.

When the police make decisions like this, I am all for it.

I'm not familiar with the UC Davis quad, but if it's anything like the ones at other UCs, there is a LOT of space to move around the protesters. In fact, you can see this in the video as well. The police made the choice to spray the protesters and use unnecessary force. How is pepper-spraying them at point blank range humane and intelligent?

They weren't allowed to be there. The police are obligated to do their job and remove them. Pepper spray is a lot better than dragging them away. It really is just that simple. How easy it is to move around them is irrelevant.

Read my previous comment about how California courts have ruled that using pepper spray against non-violent protesters is illegal. The police were wrong in the Davis case.

Here's where we differ (as if it wasn't obvious already)

You believe the use of pepper spray vs non-violent protestors should not be used, whether it be 1, 10 or 100.

I believe that, if someone is being arrested and resists, the use of pepper spray should be used to bring compliance. The amount should be tied to the level of resistance.

The officer at U.C Davis was excessive with the pepper spray but, I will not fault the man for suing pepper spray by following the orders of the University's Chancellor and his Department Chief.

Use of pepper spray was okay. The level of pepper spray was excessive.



If the same court disagreed with you, then you'd believe they were corrupt. Courts are full of activist judges from both sides of the aisle. I don't put much merit behind court decisions anymore. I'll wait to hear the supreme court's decision if it ever gets that far.

At this point, I don't think the Occupy movement is accomplishing anything. Rather, we should be protesting the individual politicians so deaf and blind, they STILL refuse to acknowledge our woes!

It reminds me of those in favor of e-parasite even though 44,000 people are against it and major corporations like Yahoo and Google have spoken out against it as well.

How could we let such people in-denial handle our nation? They're either seriously arrogant, in-denial fools who fail consider anyone but themselves, or they are brain-dead, senile idiots!

Honestly!? How could we elect such messed up people into our congress?! We should protesting them instead! Expose them, and force their resignation!

I been at the quad at Davis.. there other ways to get from point a to b without problems.. it just rude to stand or sit in people way... i hit people with shopping carts at wally world for that. you asked by a cop to move.. then you have to move or get arrested or spray. Now if you have a permit then they can't unless it strictly invased like blocking a whole lane or intersection of traffic or walking space. Protest in the shade of mother earth's ass trees or burn the fucker down.

I was referring to this when I made my comment. You say that we should be out there arguing against these policies. My point was that the people have tried to do so countless time, and have been denied for the most part. The rule of law should not be maintained when it works against the freedom of the people. I am not advocating anarchy, only reform. And what those students did seems to be the only way to make it happen.

Still misusing the quote. You should spend a few minutes to either look for a more suitable quote or research what Ben Franklin was saying with the original quote. Either way, it is not the right quote for what you are trying to say. Again, that quote is more suitable to T.S.A. screenings/pat downs, the Patriot Act, Cyber security act of 2009, etc. Not a policeman using pepper spray vs someone breaking multiple laws (specifically violating the property rights of U.C Davis, Zucotti park, Woodruff "Troy Davis" park, and other locations). Not to mention the damage to banks and other store by groups like Occupy Oakland.

Though, I wonder if property rights have any meaning to you. Allow me to ask you some questions, I am allowed to just take up residence in your home as a form of "protest"? Can I just pitch a tent in the middle of your living room or yard if I'm "protesting"? Can I help myself to whatever is in your pantry or fridge as long as I am "protesting"? Can I obstruct you or your family from going to work or school as a form of "protest"? Am I allowed to physically or verbally harass you as a form of "protest"?

I agree that the rule of law should not be maintained when it works against the freedom of the people. However, the OWS demographic would use the very rule of law to strip me of my liberties and property because of their ideology demands it. So forgive me if I view this as poetic justice for the injustices they have caused me over the years.

I do not care about how the quote was used, whether it be in reference to cyber crime or to the state of the current rule of law in your country, or to this particular situation. If I did, I would have commented about it in my first reply. But thank you anyways for pointing out my error.




I understand your point FPOD. Of course, if all the above were happening, my answer would be no. Your questions though, are a bit unfair; these protestors are not pitching their tents in the homes or yards of citizens, they are not raiding pantries or fridges, completely blocking families from working and they are most certainly not physically harassing the police or the owner(s) of the property. Yes there has been property damage, but considering the size of the protest in America, it has been minimal.

Given how the protestors are handling themselves now, in a somewhat respectful, non-violent and organized manner, yes, I would let them camp out on my property. Even if I did not want them to, I would not want the police to handle the situation the way they did.

Now let me ask you some questions:

If people was camped out in your privately owned park, if they weren't raiding your fridge, obstructing you from going to work along verbally and physically harassing you. If they were protesting in a completely non-violent manner, would you still have them removed from your property? Would you phone the police and tell them to unload full cans of pepper spray into their faces?



Their ideology does not demand you are stripped of your property and liberties; if anything, they are protesting to protect their property and liberties. That is just a difference of opinion though, and I think it would be silly to argue about such. Wouldn't you agree?

Like I said, I understand your point, these people do have property rights and they can ask protestors to be removed, I am not denying that nor do I think property ownership rights shouldn't exist. It is, however; up to the police to decide the manner in which they are to be removed, and in this scenario, that manner was chosen poorly and was harmful to both the public image of the property owner and the state.

This is what I think of the occupy movement. Perhaps, there were intelligent people who honestly wanted to draw attention to the problems within the system. Now, this and this is the face of the movement in my eyes.



Depends on what they are protesting, if I support the cause, I will allow them if not, I will have them forcibly removed from my property as per my legal right. If you would allow them, then that is your right and I say more power to you.



Are they resisting? If not, then no. Are they are resisting non-violently (i.e going dead weight, linking arms to physically prevent a law enforcement officer from peacefully removing the suspect? Then yes. Are they resisting arrest and appear aggressive? load up the rubber bullets. Are they throwing objects at the police? load up, load up, load up, the rubber bullets.



The demographics within the occupy movements are very liberal/progressive. I've been to a occupy movement, even marched in one of their protests. I've seen the kind of people at these things and I know the demographics. Progressives in government have a history of curbing first amendment right by the use of "hate speech laws", attempting to outright revoke the second amendment for civilians to carry weapons for their personal defense, among other things. If you want to discuss this further then PM me and I will be more than willing to discuss it with you.



If you watch the videos, the police try to peacefully remove the protestors by picking them up but, due to their arms being locked, it would require far more time and energy to forcibly break the links. I think the use of pepper spray was justified as per department regulation but, I disagree with the amount of pepper spray used.

Apparently in the state of California, police procedures say that pepperspray can only be administered at a minimum of 15 feet from the target.

Provide proof please. If that is indeed the case, then the officer violated department procedures and should be punished accordingly.

Depends on which department. When i was in California POST( Police officers standards and training) their was no distance requirements on how close to be.. just 15 feet.. it too far to be useful, but again we never needed to use the riot canisters. Same principle apply though. Army guide lines nor californian training guide lines state nothing to 'you can't be this close while using' ... mostly because pepper spray is banned in combat and use via mp outside of the U.S. I never had it on me... but the spray isn't that bad.. the fucking taser and the bean bag are more deadly.. i should know.. we are required to get sprayed, tased and shot with anything we carry on duty.. except a .45 round and baton.

I should ask my cousin the Chp officer or my brother the cop.

Military grade pepper spray has a long effective range. 15 ft's not that far and the spray itself is very potent.

Except pepper spray is banned in combat and overseas. Tear gas is different.

Still waiting on that proof.

Heresay, I have no proof.