Campus Cops Brutalize Peaceful Students Protesting Tuition Hikes at UC Riverside

[jackoroe]

Let's look at the implications of this reasoning. If this is valid, then police should be able to just walk up and beat up....

people standing close to a shelf in a store, because they're close enough to shoplift
people standing on a street corner, because they're close enough to jaywalk
people carrying solid objects, near any structure, because they're close enough to commit vandalism

or, for that matter, all women, because they're out in society with the equipment to commit prostitution.


The "they might be able to commit a crime" argument isn't just authoritarian, it's despotic, a barely restrained anarchy. With that reasoning, police should just shoot anyone carrying a weapon of any sort who's in range of anyone else, because they're close enough to commit a murder.

So next time I lawfully take one of my guns to a gunsmith for some work, by your logic the police should shower me with rubber bullets.

The problem is, that the way I've described the appropriate use of force is exactly how it happens. Once you get within close enough proximity to an officer to cause harm and you are directed to step away and refuse, they get to move you back by force. The concept is known as the immediacy of the threat and diffusing that threat.

In your somewhat twisted world, you would wait for someone to hit you before you react. You'd wait for somebody to fire the first round before you'd respond. You'd let them stab you just to be sure they really meant you harm. You'd take an ass beating just to be on the safe side. That's not the way the real world works.

How many videos like this have we seen over the last 6 months? Each time we hear the left decry "police brutality". Any of these officers in Jail? Any even been criminally charged? Is it possible that every single town, hamlet and city in this great country of ours are all colluding to breed horribly vicious public servants as you and others wrongly claim? Or are these people simply doing as they were trained and permitted to do as a matter of law?

So far, the evidence seems to support my position due to the absence of mass arrests of these "brutal" cops. There's plenty of video evidence to make a case, yet there are no cases being made in criminal courts are there?

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is, that the way I've described the appropriate use of force is exactly how it happens. Once you get within close enough proximity to an officer to cause harm and you are directed to step away and refuse, they get to move you back by force. The concept is known as the immediacy of the threat and diffusing that threat.

In your somewhat twisted world, you would wait for someone to hit you before you react. You'd wait for somebody to fire the first round before you'd respond. You'd let them stab you just to be sure they really meant you harm. You'd take an ass beating just to be on the safe side. That's not the way the real world works.

How many videos like this have we seen over the last 6 months? Each time we hear the left decry "police brutality". Any of these officers in Jail? Any even been criminally charged? Is it possible that every single town, hamlet and city in this great country of ours are all colluding to breed horribly vicious public servants as you and others wrongly claim? Or are these people simply doing as they were trained and permitted to do as a matter of law?

So far, the evidence seems to support my position due to the absence of mass arrests of these "brutal" cops. There's plenty of video evidence to make a case, yet there are no cases being made in criminal courts are there?

So far, what the evidence shows is that the people in charge of things prefer your authoritarian approach rather than to honor human rights.

Initiating the use of force is immoral. It was immoral when Bush ordered an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation, and it's unjust when police do it. That courts let them do it is why cops all over treat citizens like trash -- they know they can use unjustified force, they know they can lie and deceive, and the PTBs will smile on them for it.

There was no reason for those cops to have been there. The only provocation in that situation was that someone called the cops in the first place. If it's okay to call the cops on people because you think they might possibly be intending to maybe do something that could perhaps constitute a crime, then you've established a nomenklatura, a privileged class who can use the instruments of the state to persecute those with whom they disagree, or at whom they're upset.

In other words, you've restored to the government one of the things for which the original Americans rebelled: the arbitrary use of armed force against the people.

 

[jackoroe]

I watched it again, and saw several instances of unprovoked police violence.

But the mere presence of the police -- to play the flip side of jackoroe's argument -- was violence. Where was the evidence that any police were needed? The students were lawfully where they were, engaged in lawful activity. Had there been any vandalism? any threats? any actual disruptions?

Apparently it's legit to some people to just park hordes of cops somewhere as a provocation and then use the natural anger of people to justify police assaulting people without cause. It sounds like the Bush Doctrine on the civic level: we think they might possibly be maybe intending to do something we wouldn't approve of, so we'll strike first and beat the shit out of them.

One of the functions of policing is crowd control, whether you approve of it or not. If you are driven to violence by the appearance of public servants keeping order, that's fine too. Just be prepared for the consequences of acting on those feelings of anger. And don't whine like a bitch afterwards.

 

[jackoroe]

So far, what the evidence shows is that the people in charge of things prefer your authoritarian approach rather than to honor human rights.

Initiating the use of force is immoral. It was immoral when Bush ordered an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation, and it's unjust when police do it. That courts let them do it is why cops all over treat citizens like trash -- they know they can use unjustified force, they know they can lie and deceive, and the PTBs will smile on them for it.

There was no reason for those cops to have been there. The only provocation in that situation was that someone called the cops in the first place. If it's okay to call the cops on people because you think they might possibly be intending to maybe do something that could perhaps constitute a crime, then you've established a nomenklatura, a privileged class who can use the instruments of the state to persecute those with whom they disagree, or at whom they're upset.

In other words, you've restored to the government one of the things for which the original Americans rebelled: the arbitrary use of armed force against the people.

I think they are called Police Forces are they not? So, the initiation of the use of force is somehow immoral? Let me show you how mistaken that is. Let's say I see you and know you to have an active warrant for your arrest.

Now I approach and say "Kuli, you have a warrant for your arrest. Come along peacefully!" You choose to simply ignore me and run off. Now, shall I honor your human rights to run through our fair city at will? Or shall I initiate the use of force and prevent your escape from justice?

Obviously, it is my lawful and my moral obligation to initiate the use of force that will prevent your escape. Police are, by the very nature of their jobs, empowered to use force and to use it first. Not everyone is, police are different. The statutes empowering police are written that way in every state. It can be no other way.

 

[Kulindahr]

One of the functions of policing is crowd control, whether you approve of it or not. If you are driven to violence by the appearance of public servants keeping order, that's fine too. Just be prepared for the consequences of acting on those feelings of anger. And don't whine like a bitch afterwards.

So with crowd control as an excuse, it's okay for the cops to brutalize peaceful people?

And when they try to protect themselves, use even more violence on the pretense that defense is assault?

Your authoritarian justifications are thin.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think they are called Police Forces are they not? So, the initiation of the use of force is somehow immoral? Let me show you how mistaken that is. Let's say I see you and know you to have an active warrant for your arrest.

Now I approach and say "Kuli, you have a warrant for your arrest. Come along peacefully!" You choose to simply ignore me and run off. Now, shall I honor your human rights to run through our fair city at will? Or shall I initiate the use of force and prevent your escape from justice?

Obviously, it is my lawful and my moral obligation to initiate the use of force that will prevent your escape. Police are, by the very nature of their jobs, empowered to use force and to use it first. Not everyone is, police are different. The statutes empowering police are written that way in every state. It can be no other way.

So you equate peaceful protesters with people with warrants. Nice attitude.

But in your scenario, the cops aren't initiating violence: the criminal, by committing a (real) crime, has already done so; the police are merely countering it.

Though if it was only a crime by virtue of being in the law, not on moral grounds, they are in fact initiating force, and the criminal would be morally justified in responding with such force as he deemed justified.

 

[jackoroe]

So with crowd control as an excuse, it's okay for the cops to brutalize peaceful people?

And when they try to protect themselves, use even more violence on the pretense that defense is assault?

Your authoritarian justifications are thin.

I agree, peaceful people shouldn't be brutalized. These people weren't peaceful, despite shouting "peaceful protest." They breeched the police line and picked up a large metal barricade. They got poked with sticks and shot with rubber bullets for their troubles.

I don't need to justify anything. The law allows it, just as it did the other 50 times we saw nearly identical videos with pretty much identical outcomes. Just no pepper spray or tear gas this go round.

 

[jackoroe]

So you equate peaceful protesters with people with warrants. Nice attitude.

But in your scenario, the cops aren't initiating violence: the criminal, by committing a (real) crime, has already done so; the police are merely countering it.

Though if it was only a crime by virtue of being in the law, not on moral grounds, they are in fact initiating force, and the criminal would be morally justified in responding with such force as he deemed justified.

You do understand that arguments as they relate to what you consider to be moral carry no weight in court? Allowing that kind of ridiculous reasoning would permit people to make all sorts of moral judgments about what laws they may and may not be held to obey. This is a nation of laws. As much as we dislike many laws, we're still responsible to obey them.

Laws are certainly predicated on morality. These laws are by design precise even to your state of mind when you do something. Moral arguments are irrelevant to day to day policing. Is it lawful or not? That's the only question to be answered.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree, peaceful people shouldn't be brutalized. These people weren't peaceful, despite shouting "peaceful protest." They breeched the police line and picked up a large metal barricade. They got poked with sticks and shot with rubber bullets for their troubles.

I don't need to justify anything. The law allows it, just as it did the other 50 times we saw nearly identical videos with pretty much identical outcomes. Just no pepper spray or tear gas this go round.

Nowhere in those videos is there any evidence they "breached the police line". OTOH, nowhere is there evidence the police were doing anything justified -- I saw no "No Trespassing" signs, and no "No Free Speech" signs.

So once again your position is that people engaging in free speech and defending themselves may be brutalized, and you'll spin like crazy to justify it.

 

[Kulindahr]

You do understand that arguments as they relate to what you consider to be moral carry no weight in court?

And insofar as they are not allowed, the courts are immoral and their authority is invalid.

BTW, I was in court today in case a friend's attorney wanted me to speak up, and it was a moral argument that carried the day.

Allowing that kind of ridiculous reasoning would permit people to make all sorts of moral judgments about what laws they may and may not be held to obey. This is a nation of laws. As much as we dislike many laws, we're still responsible to obey them.

No, this is a nation of liberty. That was the whole point. "A nation of laws" is a nice pious phrase used by authoritarians who understand that there is never a rule of law, only a rule of men, and are trying to fool the people they want to rule.

Ask Dietrich Bonhoeffer about being responsible to obey the laws.

Laws are certainly predicated on morality. These laws are by design precise even to your state of mind when you do something. Moral arguments are irrelevant to day to day policing. Is it lawful or not? That's the only question to be answered.

Any cop doing that has abandoned his moral responsibility both as a human being and an American. The first concern of a cop should be to protect and respect people's rights. That means not striking first.

Your view of this country is why we have the Second Amendment: you would justify tyranny right up to the point they started executing gays.

 

[jackoroe]

Nowhere in those videos is there any evidence they "breached the police line". OTOH, nowhere is there evidence the police were doing anything justified -- I saw no "No Trespassing" signs, and no "No Free Speech" signs.

So once again your position is that people engaging in free speech and defending themselves may be brutalized, and you'll spin like crazy to justify it.

Did you not see them remove the barricade? That would be a police line. Who the fuck do you think puts those things there? Little green fairies?

Again, any officers been charged? Arrested? Indicted? Relieved of duty? Seeing none, we are to assume their actions were lawful reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Unless of course you wish to make the argument that everybody in the whole country is involved in a massive conspiracy against peaceful protestors.

 

[White Eagle]

I agree, peaceful people shouldn't be brutalized. These people weren't peaceful, despite shouting "peaceful protest." They breeched the police line and picked up a large metal barricade. They got poked with sticks and shot with rubber bullets for their troubles.

I don't need to justify anything. The law allows it, just as it did the other 50 times we saw nearly identical videos with pretty much identical outcomes. Just no pepper spray or tear gas this go round.

Once again you prove your ignorance of the situation. The fence was put in front of a girl who the police had injured. The police were out of hand in this situation. You need to look at the 40 or so videos at youtube and learn something.

 

[jackoroe]

Once again you prove your ignorance of the situation. The fence was put in front of a girl who the police had injured. The police were out of hand in this situation. You need to look at the 40 or so videos at youtube and learn something.

Yes, we know well the excuse made by the protestors. Now think rationally for a moment. If you come upon someone who is injured is your immediate reaction to help them up and out of the way towards help, or to move a large heavy metal barricade to place in front of them? Even standing in front of them would make a better degree of sense wouldn't it?

The protestors are full of shit.

 

[White Eagle]

You remember the kid in Oakland, I believe. The protesters were trying to help him, Scott is his name, and ome police officer shot one of those stun bombs, or whatever the fuck it was. Helping someone would probably take a steel fence or two, considering the force the police was showing.
Jack, here is an interesting article at wikipedia that you should find important. You should read through it all as it covers a lot about the police and the Blue Code of silence.
I refer you to this as my brother is a deputy sheriff and I know all about the Blue Code of silence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

Blue Code of Silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Blue Code of Silence (also known as the "Blue Shield") is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. Other names associated with the Blue Code of Silence are the blue wall, curtain, veil, or cocoon. If questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the Blue Code of Silence, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing.

 

[jackoroe]

And insofar as they are not allowed, the courts are immoral and their authority is invalid.

Courts don't need moral authority to operate, statutory authority works sufficiently well.

You know, this whole line of reasoning seemed vaguely familiar to me. It's the same kind of argument made by groups who argue we have a "right" to operate motor vehicles on public highways without having to have insurance or registration or driver's licenses.

http://driving.justincredible.me/

While it seems like a well reasoned website, it's nothing more than a collection of insane rantings. Courts have held time and again, that driving is a privelidge. Yet these people persist and challenge the legitimacy of courts in making these rulings. It's their right to do so, but they lose pretty consistently.

Some even fashion their own license plates and declare themselves as "free persons" possessing diplomatic immunity. That's a crime in most places. Of course they argue it isn't. They usually lose that argument, too.

People who think this way are not so much free persons, as they are few bricks shy of a full load.

 

[evanrick]

I think they are called Police Forces are they not? So, the initiation of the use of force is somehow immoral? Let me show you how mistaken that is. Let's say I see you and know you to have an active warrant for your arrest.

Now I approach and say "Kuli, you have a warrant for your arrest. Come along peacefully!" You choose to simply ignore me and run off. Now, shall I honor your human rights to run through our fair city at will? Or shall I initiate the use of force and prevent your escape from justice?

Obviously, it is my lawful and my moral obligation to initiate the use of force that will prevent your escape. Police are, by the very nature of their jobs, empowered to use force and to use it first. Not everyone is, police are different. The statutes empowering police are written that way in every state. It can be no other way.

^establishment^

whose justice are you talking about? and laws can be changed.

the police is not the problem, democracy is being strangled.

so you are OK with protestors getting beaten and lowly criminals escaping as if they were in the same category?

if that puts them in the same category, what does that make YOU?

 

[evanrick]

Courts don't need moral authority to operate, statutory authority works sufficiently well.

You know, this whole line of reasoning seemed vaguely familiar to me. It's the same kind of argument made by groups who argue we have a "right" to operate motor vehicles on public highways without having to have insurance or registration or driver's licenses.

http://driving.justincredible.me/

While it seems like a well reasoned website, it's nothing more than a collection of insane rantings. Courts have held time and again, that driving is a privelidge. Yet these people persist and challenge the legitimacy of courts in making these rulings. It's their right to do so, but they lose pretty consistently.

Some even fashion their own license plates and declare themselves as "free persons" possessing diplomatic immunity. That's a crime in most places. Of course they argue it isn't. They usually lose that argument, too.

People who think this way are not so much free persons, as they are few bricks shy of a full load.

when people attack your establishment propoganda you respond with name calling and if you thought the police are just doing their jobs, how did 20 million illegals end up in this country? they dont seem to care about those lawbreakers.

 

[evanrick]

Did you not see them remove the barricade? That would be a police line. Who the fuck do you think puts those things there? Little green fairies?

Again, any officers been charged? Arrested? Indicted? Relieved of duty? Seeing none, we are to assume their actions were lawful reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Unless of course you wish to make the argument that everybody in the whole country is involved in a massive conspiracy against peaceful protestors.

slow down..the police think they own their badges, they do not. they are the most unlawful group of people next to politicians.

insider trading is to congress as drug use is to police.

 

[jackoroe]

when people attack your establishment propoganda you respond with name calling and if you thought the police are just doing their jobs, how did 20 million illegals end up in this country? they dont seem to care about those lawbreakers.

I'd love nothing better than to round them up and send them home. Problem is when you do it, Obama gets his panties all up in a twist and sues you, doesn't he?

 

[jackoroe]

You remember the kid in Oakland, I believe. The protesters were trying to help him, Scott is his name, and ome police officer shot one of those stun bombs, or whatever the fuck it was. Helping someone would probably take a steel fence or two, considering the force the police was showing.
Jack, here is an interesting article at wikipedia that you should find important. You should read through it all as it covers a lot about the police and the Blue Code of silence.
I refer you to this as my brother is a deputy sheriff and I know all about the Blue Code of silence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

If there's an unwritten code of silence among the police, isn't telling you about it a violation?

From The Tao.

Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know.