| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the initial Oakland police responce, I could mostly understand the police actions (even if I didn't agree with them.) This video though I cannot understand at all.
That officer should be arrested.
With the initial Oakland police responce, I could mostly understand the police actions (even if I didn't agree with them.) This video though I cannot understand at all.That officer should be arrested.
Yes. He should.
We're given a lot of trust and power in service to the country, and people like that shame all of us.
|
The Reform party has been in shambles since its inception but the matching funds that they received in the '96 and '00 elections kept them on the map. If they could have grew the party instead of dividing in two and self imploding, we might actually have a viable third option today.
Frogboy, I remember our discussion from an earlier thread, and this speaks directly to my point, then. Basically, in order to get elected, you have to have a position that appeals to the median voter--i.e., the mainstream. The Reform Party came the closest to all third parties to doing just this. They never had a shot at taking the Presidency, but they did manage to place members into lower elected positions, including the governorship of Minnesota. I won't speak about how good a governor Jesse Ventura was, but he was an actual third party candidate, and he did actually win. It was the implosion that did the Reform party in.
Furthermore, I honestly believe that civic involvement is absolutely vital to long-term success of any party, or even any personal position. I have personally worked to help with the election of independent individuals in the town I live in, and they have been elected. Both the Green and Libertarian parties have successfully gotten candidates elected to offices at the local and state level, and these successes have helped the parties to continue to exist as going concerns. In short, to get your views out there where they can be acted upon, act and change what you are large enough to effect.
While I can't say that I have seen a gun fired, I have seen people filming/watching the cops get threatened, grappled, pushed or baton checked and VERY often ticketed/arrested on more occasions then I can remember. People standing several feet away, filming, or asking questions, or decrying the actions of the police. Not acting aggressive, not interfering, not threatening at all. Totally legal behavior. And being a member of the press, a medic, or a 80lbs. girl doesn't matter. Sometimes the police will also smash or confiscate (officially or unofficially) cameras and equipment. The police will seize and even edit video to use against you in court.
The problem is that all of this unnecessary crowd control and "riot squad" stuff gets the cops adrenaline and testosterone flowing. When these situations happen, they aren't "by-the-book" operations. They devolve into primitive aggression quickly. Combine this with an a Good Guys vs. Bad Guys culture, and it is all to common for things get out of hand.
That is why it is SO amazing to see Sgt. Shamar Thomas telling them how it is!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Voting for the off party is like a mexican stand off between members of the far left and the far right. If the constitutionals/greens don't go along with the republicans/democrats NONE of their candidates get into office and then they're stuck with the worse of two evils.
You aren't including the Libertarians. They fill in a nice middle ground that would allow Congress to reach the two-thirds vote (given an even mix). You are also ignoring the fact that our government doesn't consider the people's interests at all. Third party office holders aren't going to be out for themselves. They would actually be trying to do a good job. The Democrats and Republicans feel entitled to our votes. They fully expect it. Even if they just started losing ground to the third parties, it'd probably rattle them enough where we'd see significant improvement from them. Right now, they do nothing but venomously oppose anything the other side does even if it's something that they'd normally agree on. Opposing something just because it'd make the other side look good isn't working for us.
If you steer away from what you don't want you're getting closer to what you do want.
Not when you're driving in the wrong direction.
I don't understand how what wiener did can be considered more obscene than voting against the 9 11 responders bill, or of not covering cancer from that incident.
The article that I linked to was about him spending $130,000 in campaign money AFTER he resigned. The other article was about Jack Ambroff, a lobbyist who just served a few years in jail for corrupting Washington politicians. He claims it's really easy to do and it's still going on.
1) People have short memories, the long game doesn't work in politics.
That's why it's up to us to convince people that voting corrupt politicians into office is not the best strategy for America. It's actually not as hard a sell as you think especially to the nearly 50% of the population that doesn't vote because they've already given up hope.
2) You have to keep lettting the other side into government to make it happen
There is little difference between the two so I highly doubt that it'll make a difference either way. Had Gore won the 2000 election, 911 would have still happened; we still would have declared war on terrorism; and we'd still be broke from it. Nobody (well, maybe Ron Paul) stopped for a second to consider that this was exactly what the terrorists were counting on us to do. They attacked our economy with more than just planes. If taking lives was their top priority, they would have waited another hour when 10x as many people would have arrived for work at the Twin Towers.
Also, Obama, with an almost filibuster Democratic Senate, didn't even attempt to repeal the Patriot Act or do much of anything else worth while in his first two years. Why do you think that only one side would lose ground and the other would gain even more power anyway?
3) While the other side is in office unopposed they can gerrymander the election districts so that you'll never win an election before we hit mars.
They've both colluded together and done that already. They can't take our right to vote away, though (yes, I realize that we don't actually have defined right to vote in America). This is one of the best arguments to use to convince someone to go third party. Who wants to vote for a cheater? This fact alone is enough for me not to vote for them.
Ross Perot worked because he was privately funded. Without oodles of money the third parties are doomed. Also, once the third parties become worth buying, whats to keep corporations from buying them as well like they did with the tea party?
Green - Doesn't accept corporate donations. Hard to corrupt that.
Libertarians - Limited government means limited power. The cost outweighs the gain.
Constitution - These people actually believe in the righteous morality that the Republicans just fake to get the Christian vote. They'd be held way more accountable if they strayed.
Frogboy, I remember our discussion from an earlier thread, and this speaks directly to my point, then. Basically, in order to get elected, you have to have a position that appeals to the median voter--i.e., the mainstream. The Reform Party came the closest to all third parties to doing just this. They never had a shot at taking the Presidency, but they did manage to place members into lower elected positions, including the governorship of Minnesota. I won't speak about how good a governor Jesse Ventura was, but he was an actual third party candidate, and he did actually win. It was the implosion that did the Reform party in.
You only need the mainstream statewide for Congress, Senate or Governor and only countywide for most everything else. Different states have different ideals. The president is actually the last one we really need to worry about. I agree with you on this and fully encourage a bottom up strategy (actually, it's an even strategy but the bottom is where we'd see the earliest results). I plan to and encourage everyone to cross third party lines in any election where your preferred choice is not represented. If my only choice is Democrat, Republican or Constitution at a lower level, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote Constitution even though it's my least preferred.
Furthermore, I honestly believe that civic involvement is absolutely vital to long-term success of any party, or even any personal position. I have personally worked to help with the election of independent individuals in the town I live in, and they have been elected. Both the Green and Libertarian parties have successfully gotten candidates elected to offices at the local and state level, and these successes have helped the parties to continue to exist as going concerns. In short, to get your views out there where they can be acted upon, act and change what you are large enough to effect.
You actually did convince me to start taking a serious look at this. If I can get some free time when my wife isn't in school, I plan on attending the local trustee meetings to get an idea of what those are all about and if there is anything I can do for my community (and after looking at their pathetic excuse for a website, I have a feeling there is). Thank you for the advice. I did take it to heart.
Voting for the off party is like a mexican stand off between members of the far left and the far right. If the constitutionals/greens don't go along with the republicans/democrats NONE of their candidates get into office and then they're stuck with the worse of two evils.
You aren't including the Libertarians.
Because I completely forgot about them. They're forgettable around here.
They fill in a nice middle ground that would allow Congress to reach the two-thirds vote (given an even mix).
Its not a middle ground so much as different positions held by the left and the right: the lefts civil liberties and the rights economic policies.
You are also ignoring the fact that our government doesn't consider the people's interests at all.
I don';t think thats true. I think both sides are pretty sure they're selling out for the greater good, because its part of the system.
Not when you're driving in the wrong direction.
Its not the wrong direction. If you voted in an all democratic government
The article that I linked to was about him spending $130,000 in campaign money AFTER he resigned. The other article was about Jack Ambroff, a lobbyist who just served a few years in jail for corrupting Washington politicians.
OoooOOooo 130,000 dollars. Well that's certainly worse than letting people digging through the rubble of the twin towers die of cancer. The shame!
He claims it's really easy to do and it's still going on.
In other news, the sun rose in the east.
That's why it's up to us to convince people that voting corrupt politicians into office is not the best strategy for America. It's actually not as hard a...
You're assuming if you vote someone else into office they won't be corrupted.
There is little difference between the two so I highly doubt that it'll make a difference either way. Had Gore won the 2000 election, 911 would have still happened; we still would have declared war on terrorism; and we'd still be broke from it.
See, here's where a "small" difference between the parties is actually pretty huge. Do you think we would have invaded iraq under president gore?
Also, Obama, with an almost filibuster Democratic Senate, didn't even attempt to repeal the Patriot Act or do much of anything else worth while in his first two years. Why do you think that only one side would lose ground and the other would gain even more power anyway?
Having an almost filibuster proof senate is like almost remembering your lunch in the morning.
|
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/11/09/protestors-vote-to-set-up-occupy-cal -camp-at-uc-berkeley/
You tube video of what looks like unprovoked beat down.
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/11/09/protestors-vote-to-set-up-occupy-cal -camp-at-uc-berkeley/
You tube video of what looks like unprovoked beat down.
Slightly disturbing, that.
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/11/09/protestors-vote-to-set-up-occupy-cal -camp-at-uc-berkeley/
You tube video of what looks like unprovoked beat down.
You know you will have a PR issue when the protest chant becomes "stop beating students"
Just smug, liberal douche bags from academia getting what they deserve. :rolleyes:
Seriously people, this is what a police state looks like. Did you think there would be a formal announcement? :(
They need to put the football team on the line instead of the drama club. See how it goes then.
|
|
They need to put the football team on the line instead of the dama club. See how it goes then.
That was State College.
In other news, maybe they can give OWS some pointers. :/
They need to put the football team on the line instead of the drama club. See how it goes then.
I'd rather they not. Then we would probably have a completely different story, with a few officers/protesters in hospitals. I don't know many football players who can keep their cool why being attacked, and striking back at officers would not look good.
This is precisely the kind of thing that got military members involved in NYC and taking obvious roles. I wonder if we will see similar in the next few days here.
Then we would probably have a completely different story, with a few officers/protesters in hospitals.
As opposed to the current story, which is "You have no right to peacefully assemble, the cops can make you leave any time we want, and nothing bad will ever happen to the police or the government because of it"
As opposed to the current story, which is "You have no right to peacefully assemble, the cops can make you leave any time we want, and nothing bad will ever happen to the police or the government because of it"
Several of the police in that video need to be fired posthaste.
Its not a middle ground so much as different positions held by the left and the right: the lefts civil liberties and the rights economic policies.
The right only pretends to favor small government. If Ron Paul (a libertarian) weren't in the Republican primaries, they wouldn't even be talking about making cuts.
I don';t think thats true. I think both sides are pretty sure they're selling out for the greater good, because its part of the system.
We don't say "lesser of two evils" because they are selling out to the greater good.
OoooOOooo 130,000 dollars. Well that's certainly worse than letting people digging through the rubble of the twin towers die of cancer. The shame!
I wasn't comparing this to anything. I was just providing examples of government corruption. I'll take the 130 Gs if you don't want it.
He claims it's really easy to do and it's still going on.In other news, the sun rose in the east.
Well, if you support government corruption then we really don't need to argue about this any longer.
Do you think we would have invaded iraq under president gore?
I can't say for certain what the real reason is we went over there. If you trust the government and take their reason at face value then chances are, we probably would have been. Maybe we would have pointed the finger at Iran instead. Who knows? Maybe we would have bankrupted ourselves with overspending without even going to war.
There's no way of saying that things would be different. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties have sold out to a singular identity and absolutely nothing would or will ever be different except for the excuses they give us.
We don't say "lesser of two evils" because they are selling out to the greater good.
Sure we do. A pro lifer who thinks abortion is murder takes corporate money so he can get into office and ban abortion: murder < bribery. An environmentalist takes money from the entertainment industry so they can vote in new national parks, and if it empowers holywood copy rights then oh well.
I wasn't comparing this to anything. I was just providing examples of government corruption.
No, you weren't. Its essentially pointless to do so, I know that you know that I'm aware of it.
I'll take the 130 Gs if you don't want it.
Strictly chump change.
See, you're looking for a government thats run by saints. 10,000 years of recorded human history and have we EVER had one of those?Someone does good work but steals the company car needs to be fired. Someone swiping paper clips but does good work you keep around. 130k is politics version of paper clips.
Well, if you support government corruption then we really don't need to argue about this any longer.
This is beyond disingenuous. It is dishonest and despicable aspersion on my character unbacked by anything I've said. You're basically insulting me for not agreeing to vote for your party.
Recognizing that we live in the real world and a certain amount of bad things are inevitable is a part of growing up. Acceptance of this fact is not support of it.
I used to think that the parties were no different. Then I lived through the bush presidency. I would rather my vote DID something, no matter small, than simply served as a protest: i can stay home and do that. Voting for a third party won't do that unless a lot of people do it.. and guess what? They wont.
The third parties only look pure because they're not worth bribing yet. If they become effective they'll become infected too.
I can't say for certain what the real reason is we went over there.
Oil. Next question?
There's no way of saying that things would be different.
I really can't see president gore stirring the nation to war and trying to
I wouldn't be surprised if both parties have sold out to a singular identity and absolutely nothing would or will ever be different except for the excuses they give us.
There's too many competing interests for any one of them to be the only one that owns government. THat's the problem with conspiracy theories.. they assume that there's a united goal when in fact the rich at a certain point have to get the money out of each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/11/09/protestors-vote-to-set-up-occupy-cal -camp-at-uc-berkeley/
You tube video of what looks like unprovoked beat down.
As disturbing as that is to watch, and as much as I would like to see retribution, the sad truth is that those students failed to disperse, and thus police are allowed to make them disperse. The only ones breaking the law in that video were students.
Makes me wish I lived in a country where the 1st Amendment wasn't just some crusty old paper that isn't to be taken literally.
This is what our "democracy" looks like.
In your opinion, is there any limit on what they can do to make them disperse?
The police can do whatever they want.
If the those at the receiving end of the batons and such think it violates the law, then a criminal lawsuit can be brought against the city/police. 5-10 years later a judge will probably rule against the city/police, and taxpayer dollars will be used to pay the settlement.
EDIT: In a case like this there could also be a civil lawsuit as well.
So there is the chance of a legal ruling against the police (that doesn't really affect them at all) in the distant future, and maybe something like losing vacation days, but yeah, the police can do whatever they want.
If a lawful authority asks you to do something he is within his authority to do, becasue you have refused to abide by the law he is given the task of enforcing, and you won't do it, what other recourse is there, seriously? "Move!" "No!" "Oh, well, we tried. Wanna grab a beer?"
When they left the police no choice but to physicly eject them, they got what they got. They rolled the dice and took the chance the police wouldn't beat their asses with clubs. I don't know why none of the responsibility is on the students, when it was their choice to move from right to assembly to non-civil disobedience.
That having been said, I never support abuse of authority, and I think in this instance they went to far. Maybe it would have been better to tear gas the lot of them, I dunno. It is what it is.
Two things:
Vandalism and throwing bricks through stuff isn't civil, and civil disobedience is still disobedience. I dunno if you're one of them, but alot of people seem to think civil disobedience equals a pass in punitive action. Nope.
If you're the police, and you've got an angry mob, is it reasonable for me to expect you to just wade into the group of them asking them to politely let them be arrested, when they already aren't doing what you've asked? Should a number of the police have been possibly injured before to make someone not there feel better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me the most(aside from a stark misunderstanding about the difference between civil disobedience and non civil disobedience) is that they didn't even try anything else other than issuing a savage beating. Was anyone even arrested? Or were they just don't beaten until they were hospitalized or ran off? This is making the cops look like monsters that one cannot deal with rationally, turning legitimate authority into hired thugs.
Maybe I'm taking this too far, Kryzbyn, but have you ever gotten pulled over for a traffic violation? Did you get a ticket or a clout up side the head? "It is what it is" just doesn't hold water here, unless you are calling it a serious misuse of authority.
If a lawful authority asks you to do something he is within his authority to do, becasue you have refused to abide by the law he is given the task of enforcing, and you won't do it, what other recourse is there, seriously? "Move!" "No!" "Oh, well, we tried. Wanna grab a beer?"
When they left the police no choice but to physicly eject them, they got what they got. They rolled the dice and took the chance the police wouldn't beat their asses with clubs. I don't know why none of the responsibility is on the students, when it was their choice to move from right to assembly to non-civil disobedience.That having been said, I never support abuse of authority, and I think in this instance they went to far. Maybe it would have been better to tear gas the lot of them, I dunno. It is what it is.
Actually, that was precisely civil disobedience. Non-civil would be actually fighting back. Non-violently refusing to comply is civil disobedience. Leaving would have been obedience.
Tear gas would have been one response. Just starting to pull people out of the line, arrest, cuff and take them away would be another.
Wading in with batons is something else entirely.
Two things:
Vandalism and throwing bricks through stuff isn't civil, and civil disobedience is still disobedience. I dunno if you're one of them, but alot of people seem to think civil disobedience equals a pass in punitive action. Nope.If you're the police, and you've got an angry mob, is it reasonable for me to expect you to just wade into the group of them asking them to politely let them be arrested, when they already aren't doing what you've asked? Should a number of the police have been possibly injured before to make someone not there feel better?
where was the first rock throwing in the video? Vandalism. I'll buy, but you still get arrested for such things,not beaten.
I haven't yet watched this video you're discussing, but:
The whole point of civil disobedience is to get arrested.
In fact, to take it a step further: I think the whole point of the tactic is to get the state to overreact for propagandistic purposes. This worked very well for Gandhi and MLK, but, in my opinion, it's a tactic with very limited usefulness.
Pictures of blacks getting hosed and set upon with attack dogs, etc., motivated northern liberals to head south and made the United States look bad on the international arena when they were trying to persuade Third World countries to ally with them instead of the Soviet Union.
The same was pretty much true of Gandhi's independence struggle, although I admit that I'm not as up on the details of that history.
While OWSers getting beat up by cops might well win them more supporters, I highly doubt that civil disobedience is going to win any real gains from the plutocratic American system.
As I said it was a serious abuse. I'm also saying, when you're in that position, and you choose to disobey, you're rolling the dice that you're dealing with rational, good cops. These guys weren't. It was what it was.
Yeah I've been pulled over, and no I haven't done anything other than cooperate. I've let them search my car for, as far as I knew, no reason.
I don't hassle them, I follow instructions, and I don't get my ass beat by the police.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said it was a serious abuse. I'm also saying, when you're in that position, and you choose to disobey, you're rolling the dice that you're dealing with rational, good cops. These guys weren't. It was what it was.
Yeah I've been pulled over, and no I haven't done anything other than cooperate. I've let them search my car for, as far as I knew, no reason.
I don't hassle them, I follow instructions, and I don't get my ass beat by the police.
Co-operate or get beat down? Are you insane? When cops are NOT rational, and evil (presumably the opposite of "good"), then your answer is: It was what it was?
B#!~!%&+.
In this country we have the right to peaceably assemble. It appears that is a public university campus. Even if it isn't, and you buy the argument that property rights trump the right of assembly (meaning the cops had a legitimate reason to eject these people), they still used very excessive force. Several of the cops in that video should be arrested and charged with battery. At the very least, clubbing an unarmed, passive protestor should be an immediate career-ender.
I'm sorry, but I have little patience for authoritarian apologists.
|
|
In fact, to take it a step further: I think the whole point of the tactic is to get the state to overreact for propagandistic purposes. This worked very well for Gandhi and MLK, but, in my opinion, it's a tactic with very limited usefulness.
Civil disobedience was also an integral part of the ending of Soviet power in Eastern Europe. However, overreaction to garner sympathy wouldn't work on that stage, either. What did work was simple sheer numbers. Police are there to protect society from its criminal elements. However, when society says, "Stand down, this isn't criminal," then the police are in a quandary in which their instincts and training don't match their stated goal. That's when you get things to suddenly flip, like they did in Eastern Europe, or where the Arab Spring is working. You don't have Protesters vs. Police, and the Protesters win; you have Police realizing that the Protesters are the very people they're protecting.
As I said it was a serious abuse. I'm also saying, when you're in that position, and you choose to disobey, you're rolling the dice that you're dealing with rational, good cops. These guys weren't. It was what it was.
Yeah I've been pulled over, and no I haven't done anything other than cooperate. I've let them search my car for, as far as I knew, no reason.
I don't hassle them, I follow instructions, and I don't get my ass beat by the police.
Co-operate or get beat down? Are you insane? When cops are NOT rational, and evil (presumably the opposite of "good"), then your answer is: It was what it was?
B!$%~++#. Several of the cops in that video should be arrested and charged with battery. At the very least, clubbing an unarmed, passive protestor should be an immediate career-ender.
In this country we have the right to peaceably assemble. It appears that is a public university campus. Even if it isn't, and you buy the argument that property rights trump the right of assembly (meaning the cops had a legitimate reason to eject these people), they still used very excessive force.
I'm sorry, but I have little patience for authoritarian apologists.
Maybe read my post then. I said it was a serious abuse, and in no way have I said they shouldn't be punished for it, in fact I assumed it would be a given that they would be. They got caught on tape using excessive force.
The protestors refused to leave. The police overreacted and used excessive force. Would that have happened had they complied?
I don't say this to justify what happened in any way, but:
It is what it is. It happened, hopefully it won't in the future.
Maybe the problem here is that there is too much assuming going on, myself included. Still, I find your condemnation of the actions caught on tape to be milquetoast, at best.
They should, at the very least lose their jobs, if not be held criminally liable, up to and including jail time.
The police department should have to pay or recompense medical expenses of those that were assaulted.
None of this takes away the fact that, had they left when asked, it would not have happened. That's all I'm saying.
I guess a better way of saying it would be:
I'm angry and disappoitned the police reacted they way they did, and should be punished like any other person who assaults people.
I do not however feel alot of sympathy for the protestors that did not leave when asked.
I believe Pantera put it best when they asked: "What makes a person want to be a cop?"
I do not however feel alot of sympathy for the protestors that did not leave when asked.
But why?
The protestors had no duty to leave -- they were simply exercising their right of assembly. In fact I'd say they had a duty to *not* leave when asked. How is it even OK that the cops were asking?
As for your sympathy with the protestors, what were your feelings for the protestors in Tehrir Square (or any of the other Arab Spring protests)? Should they have simply dispersed when ordered to by police?
Are you hoping to equate the two? That the history leading up to and the reasons behind each, or what the people were fighting at each were even remotely the same thing?
I do not however feel alot of sympathy for the protestors that did not leave when asked.
But why?
The protestors had no duty to leave -- they were simply exercising their right of assembly. In fact I'd say they had a duty to *not* leave when asked. How is it even OK that the cops were asking?
From what I understand, it was private property, and the owners did not want them there. At that point they are trespassing, correct?
State school, taxpayer property, I think. I don't claim to know for certain, though.
To make matters worse, presuming the students were from the university, they paid in taxes AND tuition. Far too much tuition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this country we have the right to peaceably assemble. ...more...
I think that is the heart of the problem. We DON'T have a right to peaceably assemble. Loitering is a crime, as is blocking the sidewalk/traffic (usually a type of disorderly conduct), parading without a permit, curfews and numerous other offenses leave it up to the police. If they feel it is "unsafe", they can clear an area or use numerous other crowd control techniques to make what you are doing illegal. You might win in court years later, but the reality on the ground is that you have to ask for permission to protest, and if they say no, your 1st Amendment rights don't exist.
The end result is that you get "free speech zones" a fenced in area where you are surrounded by riot cops who film you as you "protest" against a brick wall, while the thing you are actually there to protest is a mile away.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Occupiers should comply with the police requests to leave, thus ending the Occupation and their protests.
Not ending protests, ending unlawful protests. I thought we were talking about Penn State?
The thing with the arab spring stuff is, almost the entire nation decided they were no longer going to recognize their leaders as such or the authority they derived from it. At that point, what's lawful anymore? Not the regime. They no longer have the right to enforce anything, and trying to remove the folks and stop their protests becomes tyranny instead of lawful enforcement.
Yeah, so, I watched this video.
I think O'Shea Jackson said it best: F*&& the police.
Well, not entirely.
We need a police force, and I've known some cool cops in my day.
The problem is, each of the above videos shows a person who became a cop to experience power, and the protesters bother them precisely because they are snot-nosed kids who have the power in this situation.
Nobody likes to feel powerless.
As long as those kids don't fight back, every baton-swing and pepper spray is a step toward victory.
From what I understand, it was private property, and the owners did not want them there. At that point they are trespassing, correct?
UC Berkeley is a public university, putting the police request to disperse in direct opposition to the First Amendment.
So it's an open campus? Anyone and their dog can just walk on, and have a reasonable expectation to not be asked to leave?
I'm pretty sure you have to have authorization to be there lawfuly, public school or no, and if those who grant that authorization, revoke it, you're trespassing.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Occupiers should comply with the police requests to leave, thus ending the Occupation and their protests.Not ending protests, ending unlawful protests. I thought we were talking about Penn State?
The thing with the arab spring stuff is, almost the entire nation decided they were no longer going to recognize their leaders as such or the authority they derived from it. At that point, what's lawful anymore? Not the regime. They no longer have the right to enforce anything, and trying to remove the folks and stop their protests becomes tyranny instead of lawful enforcement.
I was talking about the video first linked here
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/11/09/protestors-vote-to-set-up-occupy-cal -camp-at-uc-berkeley/
You tube video of what looks like unprovoked beat down.
Which is a peaceful Occupy protest being attacked.
The Penn State thing was a riot as much as a protest. Violence definitely started on the students side.
I think this clarifies why I couldn't understand your response to me.
Yeah, the Penn State thing is totally different. Once you start destroying things you're a vandal, and should be arrested.