Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_girls
the government holds a lot more power than they let on!
the last people you want to f*ck with!
any high level government operative can make you just disappear.
you're guilty as hell in prison... no one can hear you scream behind closed doors!
if you think you can chant in Times Square still, those days are long gone!
It's the status quo... time to wake up... hippy communes breed terrorists! whether true or not that's how you get treated.
|
Oh Jesus who gave this idiot internet access?
You watch too much television, cam_girls. Your stupidity is showing in vivid Technicolor. Maybe when you become an adult you will realize just how unbelievably retarded you sounded here.
To all of you ranting about what the tangent of the students was or you think it was, and making comments about what they eat, their bathing habits ect... get a clue and try not to go off topic. The issue of this thread was whether or not the police acted with excessive force.
Its a quad they are sitting on and there is a lawn that needs watering. The wisest use of forced compliance would have been for the police to just leave and turn on the sprinklers. Pepper spray was not warranted.
The federal courts have ruled on such cases. At the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers courts in nine western states, the cases have centered on whether or not the protesters were involved in what is called "active resistance."
The court used the term in considering a case about another highly circulated video of a group of passive demonstrators being swabbed with pepper spray in 1997. The protesters had linked arms on the floor of a California congressman's office to protest the logging of old-growth redwood trees on California's North Coast.
Because demonstrators were using a metal sleeve to prevent the county sheriff's office from separating them, attorneys argued the protestors'"active resistance" left officers no other way to disperse them than dabbing their eyelids with Q-tips soaked in pepper spray, said Jim Wheaton, an attorney who assisted in the prosecution of the civil case.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the protesters weren't in "active resistance," and because they were sitting peacefully, the use of pepper spray was excessive.
"Pepper spray is designed to protect people from a violent attack, to stop somebody from doing something," said Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project.
UC Davis police used "it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that's exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive."
Squealer, you're a putz and I am glad you are not my neighbor. You come off as just the type of hysterical prissy little pussy who calls the cops over every little issue.
cam_girls, have you ever considered a career in police work? I think you would fit right in considering you are fully qualified as a bona fide retarded dip shit.
