Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Power Mad DA Charges Berkeley Professor & Students Beaten by UC Police. (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That video doesn't help the professor. (16+ / 0-)

    She is clearly told to move, at least twice by at least two cops.  She doesn't move, even when they grab her by the arm.   Cops are trained to use pain to compel compliance.  

    Passive resistance comes with the attendant risk of being subjected to painful compliance techniques.   Linking arms does not confer immunity from having to comply with the lawful orders of a police officer.   She could have received the old "wooden shampoo".  I know, from experience, that it's better to move along when requested, unless you want to experience pain and confinement.

    The camera man shouting "You effers" didn't help things, either.  Who thinks that's productive, unless you actually want to elicit a show of force?   Then again, that may have been the point, right?

    PS:  Yes, I am an attorney.   I am also an experienced practitioner of civil disobedience.  

    Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

    by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 07:04:55 AM PST

    •  In fact, It's likely that this video (11+ / 0-)

      will be a key part of the prosecutions case.

      Considering that they will claim:

      1.) People were refusing a lawful order

      2.) When they refused, they were arrested - and yes, Cops are allowed to physically wrestle you to the ground and use compliance techniques to complete a legal arrest

      The prosecution probably thinks they have a slam dunk case based on the video in question - will the judge and/or jury agree? I don't know - but I'm hesitant to extrapolate the opinions of our community to the public at large.

    •  PS: She physically resists, twice, when they take (9+ / 0-)

      her by the arm.  Then they grab her hair.  I don't see the cops being charged for that.   That's what they are trained to do.    

      They needed more numbers and a location where they did not block safe access to and egress from a building.   That's the public safety argument that will be made.  I guarantee it.  

      Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

      by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 07:09:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the facts and the law have no place here (8+ / 0-)

      this is a time for outrage! just because they ACTUALLY RESISTED arrest has nothing to do with their charges.

      /snark

      In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

      by rcnewton on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:05:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  SO beating peaceful protesters is OK. (5+ / 0-)

        No matter how many times the "police" tell them to disperse, this kind of violence is not OK. It's sad that so many support this violence against these women.

        "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

        by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:50:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you resist arrest (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, peregrinus, slothlax

          then you risk being beaten. plus, i wouldn't qualify these people as peaceful - they resisted arrest and didn't disperse (which is what a peaceful protest would have done).

          no matter how many times you call them peaceful, if they do not disperse, they are subject to arrest. if they resist, i suspect they may get a beating.

          In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

          by rcnewton on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:22:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Martin Luther King, Jr. never resisted arrest (4+ / 0-)

            and he faced cops who were far, far worse than these.

            •  But he was arrested on trumped up charges (a lot) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar

              "Lunch counter sit-ins began in Greensboro, North Carolina. In Atlanta, King is arrested during a sit-in waiting to be served at a restaurant. He is sentenced to four months in jail, but after intervention by John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, he is released."

              "During the unsuccessful Albany, Georgia movement, King is arrested on July 27 and jailed. "

              "On Good Friday, April 12, King is arrested with Ralph Abernathy by Police Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor for demonstrating without a permit."

              "On February 2, King is arrested in Selma, Alabama during a voting rights demonstration."

              http://www.lib.lsu.edu/...

              “To raise the issue is not necessarily an expression of class warfare, as critics’ bromides would have it; it can be an expression of deep concern about the health of our democracy.” — The editorial board of the Austin American-Statesman

              by Marshall Getto on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:58:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And publicizing the trumped up charges (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rcnewton

                were part of the point!

                Look, this is not Alabama 1960. This is the DA of a county that four years ago voted over 78% for Barack Obama, a DA who was elected with over 98% of the vote. Maybe she is this bad, maybe not. I live 2500 miles away. But if she really is that bad, she can be easily defeated when she runs for re-election in this liberal a county. But she isn't going to be defeated by people resisting arrest -- she'll be defeated by a good anti-crime candidate who registers voters rather than tries to shut down much of the city of Oakland.

        •  Resisting arrest is not "peaceful protest." (8+ / 0-)

          Peaceful protest means that, when the police try to arrest you, you submit to being arrested.    

          •  Peacful means nonviolent. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost Left Coaster, JayRaye, jpmassar

            Which means that the protesters are peaceful, and the "police" are merciless thugs and not "peace" officers.\

            I will not submit. These thugs no longer have my consent to beat people up just because they don't comply with "orders".

            "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

            by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 02:10:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  You're asking for a pass for women? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, slothlax, rcnewton
    •  So you're in favor (7+ / 0-)

      of the use of pain to enforce "compliance" mit orders?  I guess that's "centrism" in its finest, purist form.

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

      by ActivistGuy on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:30:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I am. Standard police procedure. (7+ / 0-)

        First, you ask.  Then you gently direct the person with your hand.   Then, you grab them, gently, and repeat your request to move.  Then, if you don't obtain cooperation, you apply enough force to obtain compliance, like when Mom used to grab your ear.  

        It should never have to get worse than a firm request, unless you want to prove a point and provoke a beat down.  

        Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

        by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:54:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spoken like a true "experienced practitioner of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          An Affirming Flame

          civil disobedience"

        •  Use enough force to obtain compliance? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayRaye, roadbear, jpmassar

          Geez are we still in America?

          It's hard for those who work in the legal "system" to see this, so I'll spell it out:

          In poorer neighborhoods we don't trust the cops. We don't trust the legal system. We don't respect them. We don't like them. We don't see them as "heroes" or "protectors". We don't call them in emergencies. We avoid them whenever possible. We tell our children to avoid them.

          This is true for a large segment of the population, for minorities and for poor whites, urban, small town, and rural. We only "comply" because they force us to.

          It's wrong. The cops are supposed to enforce the law with our consent. They don't have it. Don't you see that we are quickly becoming a police state?

          "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

          by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 02:28:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's the way it works. Has for a long time. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, rcnewton
      •  You aren't? You are ok with police (6+ / 0-)

        telling people they have to move or they will be arrested, the people refusing and resisting, and -- then what?  The police can't do anything about it?  

        I don't want a society where people feel free to resist the police and the police aren't allowed to do anything about it. It's not supposed to be "equal" here.  People are supposed to submit to the police (either complying with orders to move or submitting to arrest) -- and they argue about it later in court if they think the police were wrong.

        My biggest experience with peaceful crowds is here in New Orleans during Mardi Gras.  And everybody knows that, in those crowds, if the police tell you to move, you move -- and if you don't, and  if you resist, you'll pretty much be wrestled to the ground exactly like that.  The police can't be negotiating with people over whether they will comply with police orders.  

        •  There you go. (4+ / 0-)
          People are supposed to submit to the police
          Now we understand why you are here. I can well imagine you in 1776.  Or 1984.
          •  Or with Gandhi. Or MLK. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, rcnewton

            It ain't a game, kids.   If you actively resist, you will get a beat down.

            Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

            by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:33:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You don't? You think it's ok to resist police? (6+ / 0-)

            When police tell me to move, you think I have the right to say no? If they then try to physically move me, I have the right to resist?  and if they then try to arrest me, I have the right to resist?  Is that what you are saying?  When do I have the right to refuse a police order and to resist arrest?  Whenever I think I'm right?  Does everybody have that right, or only people you agree with politically?  

            Like I said, you'd better not come down here during Mardi Gras.  If the police tell you to move, you move, or they will physically move you, and if you resist that, they'll use force to arrest you.  The rest of us could not have a peaceful gathering if they didn't.  

            •  Uh (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lady Libertine
              When police tell me to move, you think I have the right to say no?
              If it is an illegal order, then indeed.  If it is an unconstitutional order, even if it is what the police consider a legal order, then yes.

              The police have no right, in my mind, to order someone to move when they are peacefully assembling, regardless of what they may think.

              •  We don't live in your mind (10+ / 0-)
                The police have no right, in my mind, to order someone to move when they are peacefully assembling, regardless of what they may think.
                We live in the real world.   If the college, which owns the property, asked the police to clear the sidewalk, that's all you need to know.

                Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

                by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:00:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  So you get to decide what an illegal order is? (6+ / 0-)

                Hallelujah! Our long national nightmare with that archaic thing called 'the justice system' is finally over!

                Your arrest may be illegal. It may be an illegal order. But guess what? In our country, you don't get to decide that - the court system gets to.

                Are you okwith a tea bagger deciding that a police order is illegal and taking action? I mean, under your criteria, it's totally up to him to decide if it's unconstitutional.

                Screw the courts! What do they know? Bunch of Male, Lawyer Oppressors!

                Do you see where your logic stream goes wrong here? Let the courts decide.

                •  Justice system is corrupt (4+ / 0-)

                  Inevitably, this the next step in the logical argument.

                  Is it true? In some areas, possibly. But for the most part that's not the case and in any regard, if it is corrupt, then we are long past the point where protesting is going to be remotely effective.

                  It would seem then, by the standard of some of the arguments here, that you should be out in the streets with guns and torches making your own constitutional decisions because the alternative seems so bleak.

                  I however, believe that the system isn't too broken not to be fixed and that a civil society does depend on having some actual rules in place - in this case, that police authority serves a role.

              •  Absurd. Just absurd. (6+ / 0-)

                Here's the deal -- if every citizen had the right to decide, on the spot, that they thought it was an "illegal or unconstitutional order" and that gave them the right to resist police, then no one would ever submit to arrest.  Everyone would say, "I don't think I should be arrested" and resist arrest.  For anything.  What possible incentive could they have for submitting to arrest?  

                That's tantamount to telling people they can decide when they want to obey a police order and they can decide when they want to be arrested or not.  And how much resistance can they put up?  If the police pull a gun on me, tell me I'm under arrest, under your view, I guess I can shoot back at them, since they pulled the gun first, right?  If police grab me, and tell me I'm under arrest, under your view, I guess I can punch and kick them to get them to let me go.  After all, if I think it's "illegal," I don't have to submit to arrest, and I can resist, in your view.

                No sane person who believes in a civilized society, governed by law, can seriously believe this.  

                If you think the police are brutal NOW, wait until you have a system where every single person the police encounter is free to resist police orders or resist arrest if, in their minds, they think the police order or arrest is "illegal."  I can see the thinking now.  "I have a right to stand in the street, I won't move."  "That was an illegal traffic stop.  I won't obey the order to get out of my car."  "That was an illegal search.  He has no right to arrest me.  I'll fight back."  If you think the police are brutal NOW, just imagine how it would be under a system where the police had to expect people to physically resist them any time those people wanted to.  The police would have a physical confrontation like that virtually every time they tried to move people or arrest people.  Either that, or the police force would be completely ineffective -- they could never move crowds (nobody would listen to them) and they could never make arrests (people would simply refuse to be arrested).  

                Not to mention that your view would essentially invalidate laws against resisting arrest.  After all, in your view, I have a right to resist arrest if, in my mind, I think the arrest is illegal, don't I?  So, how could I ever be charged with resisting arrest?

                This is just so ridiculous, I can't believe that you really adhere to something like that.  It also means that you don't believe in our justice system, which is where you are supposed to get justice if you think the police "illegally" told you to move or "illegally" arrested you.  I guess being relegated to using the justice system is one more symbol of oppression to you.  

                •  You don't get it. Some people just (5+ / 0-)

                  know that they are right, and that everyone else is just too stupid or craven to admit that.

                  When you are convinced that you are imbued with the infallible moral authority to determine what is "right"and what is "wrong", in the deepest metaphysical sense of those words, you actually do get to decide whether you obey an order, and whether it's "lawful" or not.

                  That the majority of society might actually defer to those laws promulgated on behalf of society by our courts and governments is of little moment to one as blessed as that.  

                  Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

                  by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:43:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then we become no better than our opponent (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SpamNunn, rcnewton

                    When you are convinced that you are imbued with the infallible moral authority to determine what is "right"and what is "wrong", in the deepest metaphysical sense of those words, you actually do get to decide whether you obey an order, and whether it's "lawful" or not.

                    This is not, and should not, be the ideological convictions of someone who is truly progressive. In fact, the concept displayed above is a terrifyingly correct definition of the fundamentalist right wing.

                    Power-Worshipping Fascist

                    by campionrules on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 01:03:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  What is the difference between what (4+ / 0-)

      is happening here and what happened in so many civil rights protests we've grown up watching on TV?  Serious question, what is the difference?  The use of water pistols?

      And more to my point, is this "resisting arrest" charge something new?  B/c it seems to me you could charge any protestor who refuses to move from a public building or walkway as resisting arrest.  So why isn't it used more often, or is it being used more often?

      I'm an attorney too, and I know that anytime anyone has a confrontation with the police they will be charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest or assaulting an officer.  It happens almost every time.   I'm wondering, where the line is?

      •  I used to work in a prosecutor's office. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, jpmassar, VClib, rcnewton

        Generally, the line is drawn when the police have to do more than place their hands on you and ask you, firmly, to move.  It ain't a suggestion, it's an order.  

        Chanting "Eff the pigs" can move that line.

        Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

        by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:56:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In no way is that an answer to my question (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, JayRaye, An Affirming Flame

          And I'm sorry but this is fucked up logic.  

          bq. Chanting "Eff the pigs" can move that line.

          It makes me question your civil disobedience chops.  Who cares what they say?  The fact that you used to work in a prosecutors office does explain a lot though.  

          •  Yep, I must be a "pig", too. (5+ / 0-)

            News flash.  Not everyone who has ever worked in the prosecutor's office is a junior brown shirt.

            Question what you want to.  Anyone who thinks that provoking the cops with epithets is OK is just dumb.   Of course the line moves.   They're human, just like everyone else, and they can have their chains yanked effectively, just like everyone else.    It's called reality.

            Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

            by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:10:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar, JayRaye, An Affirming Flame

              but chanting "Fuck the Police" or "Fuck the pigs" does not move the line in that situation.  It is ridiculous that you think it does.  The law doesn't take into account the police's feelings in that situation.

              The appropriate questions are: Did the officer feel threatened? Was the use of force reasonable in light of the threat?  Did the officer follow proper procedure?  

              Not - was the officers feeling hurt by the rhytmic chanting of college kids?

              And the fact that you are a prosecutor doesn't mean you are a brown shirt, but it means you are coming at it from a law and order perspective and not a civil rights perspective.  I look at that video and I see a D.A. who is trumping up charges.  And I also see people being charged for things that they would never have been charged for 30 years ago.  

              Instead of just looking at the law and denouncing a verdict, I tried to get you to look at how the law has changed and what that means for public protests and civiil obedience.  I tried to move the conversation forward - sue me. I would think as a person who is an "experienced practicioner of civil disobedience" you would be concerned that the tactic is being policed out of existence.  But I guess not.  

              •  No, it's not. It's people's expectation regarding (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slothlax, rcnewton

                the potential consequences of practicing civil disobedience that are changing. In the 1960's, you would expect to be set upon by dogs, sprayed with a fire hose and beaten with truncheons - or even shot.  

                Today it's "Oooh, they're pulling my hair" or "Ouch, tear gas!".

                Give me a break.   I am 54 years old.   I remember the "good old days".   They weren't so good.  

                What was good then was the will of the people.  It was much stronger then, and people were willing to face the consequences of taking a stand, unlike today.  

                Surprise!

                Photobucket

                Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

                by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:45:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You make it sound like it's okay (3+ / 0-)
                  In the 1960's, you would expect to be set upon by dogs, sprayed with a fire hose and beaten with truncheons - or even shot.  
                  People knew that they would face that abuse, but that doesn't make the abuse right.

                  I really don't understand where you're coming from here. You're suggesting that it is okay for non-violent protestors to be met with violence. I don't get it. Just because that is what often happens does not make it right.

                  Sometimes the police have to take a deep breath and use patience as a tactic. The fact is, nothing was on fire at UC Berkeley. They could have kept their cool.

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 03:14:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Police do not have to "feel threatened" to use (6+ / 0-)

                force.  If they attempt to make an arrest, and the person does not comply, they are legitimately entitled to use force  -- like wrestling them to the ground -- to make the arrest, whether or not they feel "threatened."  

                When police tell you to move, you comply, or they will use force to move you.  When police try to arrest you, you comply, or they will use force to arrest you.  

                This is not a meeting of "2 equals" -- as in, "the police told me to move, but I don't think I should have to, so I'm entitled to refuse." That's not how it works.  You have to obey the order of the police -- if you think it was wrong, you later go to the courts and make your case that it was wrong.  But you can't have a policy where somebody who disagrees with what the police are doing are allowed to refuse to comply with police orders to move or are allowed to refuse to submit to arrest -- and if they do, the police can't do anything about it.  

                •  I didn't say police had to feel threatened (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jpmassar

                  I said the use of force has to be appropriate.  I was mostly responding to the trumped up charges by the D.A.   The confrontation with the police is one moment of contention. The next moment of contention becomes what you will charge the protestors with.  

              •  Four things: First, just consider that insulting (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, rcnewton

                a police officer heightens the officer's attention to offenses which might otherwise have been overlooked.  Second, I look at that video and I don't see the prosecutor.  Third, the law is the embodiment of your civil rights.  Fourth, those people would not have been charged 30 years ago because they hadn't been born yet.

              •  burlydee - officers don't have to feel threatened (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rcnewton

                to use force. If you are ordered to leave, and refuse to move, you will be placed under arrest. At that point the officer can use all necessary force to move you from your present location to a vehicle to transfer you to jail. How much force is used, and how comfortable the trip is to the police van, is entirely up to you.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 02:19:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, it's up to the cop. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JayRaye, jpmassar

                  He has a choice to use violence of not. They choose to use violence. They make a choice. They make a decision. I just don't get why cops get a free pass to blame others for their decisions to use violence.

                  "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

                  by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 02:58:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  BAU - you have seen this before (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slothlax, rcnewton

                    and somehow don't seem to understand. Once you have been arrested you are required to calmly and deliberately walk to the police van. That is the responsibility of the protester. If you do not resist, and calmly walk to the van, and the police us violence, they are not following the proper procedure and can be disciplined or sued. However, if you don't calmly and deliberately walk to the van the police can us whatever force is necessary to transport you from the place where you are arrested to the van. How hard is this to understand?

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 03:43:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're right, I don't get it at all. (0+ / 0-)

                      If their "procedure" is to use violence than it needs to be changed. I don't think following the rules of human decency is that hard. Don't attack people who aren't a threat. No "procedure" trumps that. I'm not "required" to walk to any van if I'm not hurting anyone, not in a free country. I don't get why the cops have to beat up women and men who aren't a threat.

                      It really doesn't seem likely that cops would be sued for not using violence. If they were, the public would support them. I'd actually be proud of the cops for taking that kind of stand, and  it's been a long time since I could say I'm proud of the cops. Maybe then they could start to rebuild their relationship to the community.

                      "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

                      by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 04:54:08 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  BAU - you are required to walk to the van (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rcnewton

                        if you are arrested. The place to protest the legality of that arrest is in court. If you are arrested, and won't move, how would you suggest the police transport you to the van?

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 05:02:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  How about they just don't. (0+ / 0-)

                          Not that hard. Give me a summons or whatever to court and I'll show. Or better still how about the cops go and do their job of fighting crime instead of arresting protesters who pose no threat.

                          "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

                          by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 05:50:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  This is not OK. (5+ / 0-)

      "Centrists" who think the cops have the right to beat up women and college students because they don't "comply" are missing the point. This violence is wrong no matter what stupid "rules" say it is. The rules of human decency trump the corrupt legal system.

      I know people who work in the legal system think that if people don't comply with "police" or "laws" that the world would devolve into chaos. What I see in that video looks a lot like chaos, caused by baton-wielding thugs that call themselves "police".

      "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

      by Broke And Unemployed on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:48:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the police give an order to move, and the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, VClib, rcnewton

        protesters refuse, and they take step 2 and try to physically move them, and they refuse and resist, what is the next step police are supposed to take?  

      •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

        I totally agree that the point here is not some legalistic interpretation of what our societal leaders deem police to have the right to do if they feel like it.  The point here is that the protesters WERE HURTING NOBODY.  They were not endangering anyone else, and were not endangering themselves.  In a good society, there wouldn't even be police coming to stop the protesters.

        I think it's totally OK for the legal eagles to try to explain what they believe or understand about how this is viewed from a legal perspective, but can you guys (or gals) also inject some progressive viewpoint into your analysis?  We are on a liberal website here that is supposed to be fighting for a better world.  It would be very helpful for you to point out that regardless of present law, authoritarian police and legal structures do not need to be as they are, and to try to help us all envision a legal world that is different and better, and maybe even how we might get there.  Thank you in advance.

        •  Thank You, zongo, well said. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, Broke And Unemployed

          The police could simply have left the protesters alone. The police always have other options rather than attack.

          If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Women

          by JayRaye on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:33:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What legal regime would allow this? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus

          I see no reason why a progressive society would be any more tolerant of people exercising a heckler's veto over using a sidewalk than any other.

          Unless the sole basis of your legal regime would be "it's ok so long as people with the correct political views do it."

          •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JayRaye

            I'm OK with hecklers as long as they don't threaten someone in a real way.  I'm totally fine with Tea Party people protesting; in fact, I tend to go talk with them when I've seen them protesting because I find it interesting and enlivening.  I really don't recall feeling threatened by any political rallies I've ever been at.  I might feel different if I had been at a gun rally or something, which I haven't.  But no, I dispute your interpretation that I think "it's OK so long as people with the correct political views do it".  I'm OK with everyone doing it.  Also, in terms of the "blocking the sidewalk" charge, I can just walk around that area of the sidewalk if I needed to get somewhere, and I'm guessing that most protesters both of the liberal and the conservative variety would make a path if someone in a wheelchair needed to get through.

    •  With friends like you who needs enemies? (5+ / 0-)

      They have her cornered. She has no place to move. Presuming you can hear the order given by the police on that video, there is no possibility of compliance. I'm sure if I'd received your legal training I could get 2 objects to occupy the same space at the same time. Or maybe with sufficient legal training the professor could teleport herself out of harms way.

      Your comment does point up something important. The reservoir of support for official crimes is infinite. There will never be a shortage of mouthpieces ready to offer obsequious service to power.

    •  There is such a thing as excessive force (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burlydee, jpmassar, JayRaye, zongo

      If a bunch of people aren't moving and are being arrested for the same by a number of officers, then the officers could easily carry off the demonstrators one-by-one.

      Cops are trained to use pain to compel compliance.
      Each cop needs to be trained to use their brain instead of pain.
      •  They use pain after the brain proves ineffective. (5+ / 0-)

        What would you have them do, beg?  Authority, to be effective, needs to be respected.  I never had to ask my kids to do anything more than twice.   It's no different with civil disobedience.

        If you are not willing to suffer the consequences, stay home.   Linking arms and singing "We Will Overcome" makes for good street theater, but it does not convey immunity from prosecution.  

        Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

        by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:04:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You grab your kids by the hair (3+ / 0-)

          if they delay your order more than twice?  Most revealing.  

          I never had to ask my kids to do anything more than twice.   It's no different with civil disobedience.
        •  I'm sorry... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SpamNunn, JayRaye

          ...but this:

          Authority, to be effective, needs to be respected.  I never had to ask my kids to do anything more than twice.
          ...sounds scary.  Not where I am coming from at all in terms of how I raise kids or how I think society should be organized.  As always, the personal IS political.

          Love and peace,

          •  Hey, you do what works for your own. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zongo, rcnewton

            I come from a family of willful Type A Irish people.   Gentle admonitions and "time outs" are useless with us.  

            Whether you like it or not, society is presently organized to favor the assertive.  

            If it makes you feel any better, my boy was only in two fights in his life, and both times it was because he was defending someone who was being bullied.  
            He was taught that the first rule of fighting was to avoid it whenever possible. The second rule was that when a non-violent solution was no longer possible, and only if your personal safety was threatened, then you could fight, and fight to make the result so punishing and so swift that no one would ever mess with you again.  

            Love and Peace to you, as well.

            Living proof that hard work can raise your apparent skill level.

            by SpamNunn on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:08:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, but... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpamNunn, jpmassar, JayRaye

              ...I am thinking perhaps we are trying to work to change this:

              Whether you like it or not, society is presently organized to favor the assertive.  
              And, regarding this:
              He was taught that the first rule of fighting was to avoid it whenever possible. The second rule was that when a non-violent solution was no longer possible, and only if your personal safety was threatened, then you could fight, and fight to make the result so punishing and so swift that no one would ever mess with you again.  
              I like the first rule.  I'm not so sure the second rule is what Jesus or Buddha or Martin Luther King Jr would recommend. (I'm not really religious, but I think they had some good things to say on this subject.)

              As before, love and peace and to you

    •  Mother Jones on compliance. (3+ / 0-)

      Then the judge told me that if I would go out of the state and stay out, and be a good girl generally, he would leave me alone. I asked my lawyer to tell him for me that I said all the devils in hell would not get me out of West Virginia while I had my duty there to perform. I said I was there to stay, and if I died in West Virginia in jail it made no difference with my decision. There would be no going out of the stat, however; that thing was settled. I was there and I intended to fight whether in jail or out until we won. We all felt the same about that.

      July 19, 1902
      Indianapolis, IN
      Speech at Convention
      of UMWA

      If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Women

      by JayRaye on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 12:17:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here comes SpamNunn to explain (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayRaye

        why Mother Jones deserved all of the beatings that she received.

        "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

        by Lost Left Coaster on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 03:19:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Never beaten but she was threatened many times. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost Left Coaster

          She enjoyed telling stories about the gun thugs:

               In front of the hotel [in WV] were two fellows and one said. "I would like to have a rope and hang that old woman to a tree." Another one said: "And I would like to pull the rope." After the meeting the boys pointed those men out. I stood with my back to a tree and said: "You said you would like to hang the old woman. Here is the old woman and the tree, where is your rope?" They ran away because there were more than a thousand men at the place.

          Mother Jones
          Sept 26, 1921
          Indianapolis, IN
          Convention Speech
          UMWA

          Weaving cloth with bayonets is hard to do. -Joe Hill

          by JayRaye on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 03:54:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site