O'Reilly: Pepper Spray Is a Food Product

[Schneibster]

Having read Chinese, Soviet, and Iranian media, I'd say the western media are amateurs. You should check out Pakistan. Watching Dawn and Pak Daily Times dance, and comparing it with the India Times, and UK, and US sources is highly instructive.

Bigotry is source indictment which is never boring to the enlightened.

[sandinista]

Having read Chinese, Soviet, and Iranian media, I'd say the western media are amateurs. You should check out Pakistan. Watching Dawn and Pak Daily Times dance, and comparing it with the India Times, and UK, and US sources is highly instructive.

Bigotry is source indictment which is never boring to the enlightened.

You really don't have a clue do you? Blinded by ideology, another example of the triumphs of western propaganda. Thanks for more proof.

[Ian]

People have been telling you that you're bigoted long before Schneibster joined the site, Sandi. He's just another person who reads your stuff and comes to his own conclusions. Maybe you should sit back and ponder that for a bit.

A good analyst is plagued by doubts and second-guessing. One who has no doubts about what he believes, and often seeks to reinforce ideas he's long had inside his head, is weak.

[Schneibster]

Having read Chinese, Soviet, and Iranian media, I'd say the western media are amateurs. You should check out Pakistan. Watching Dawn and Pak Daily Times dance, and comparing it with the India Times, and UK, and US sources is highly instructive.

Bigotry is source indictment which is never boring to the enlightened.

You really don't have a clue do you? Blinded by ideology, another example of the triumphs of western propaganda. Thanks for more proof.

The Pakistani and Indian media are "western?"

OK.

ETA: Not to mention Chinese media. Duh.

[Coito ergo sum]

The police were operating fully within their authority to remove protesters from a public sidewalk after numerous warnings they would be pepper-sprayed. The protesters will lose because they were violating the law by obstructing a public sidewalk and disobeyed lawful orders to disperse.

Which is the point of a protest - to not move when ordered to and force the authorities into taking action that can then be used to promote sympathy for the protesters. Which is exactly how it is playing out. Fox News is a mouthpiece for the powers that be and can be expected to spin it the other way.

Correct, as I've said many times. They knew what was going to happen and they CHOSE to be sprayed as a part of their agenda of civil disobedience. When one engages in civil disobedience, one must be willing to accept the punishment that one incurs if one hopes to provide the message that the punishment was unjust.

In this case, the punishment was NOT unjust, but they had every right to try to convey that message.

This is wrong. Even if they knew what was going to happen, the fact remains that there was no justification for the pepper spraying. The peaceful protesters could have been left to remain where they were, if they had a right to be there. If they were breaking the law, then the officers could have cuffed them and taken them in. The pepper spray was unnecessary brutality. And, the most disturbing part was the air of casual indifference, if not downright enjoyment, that the police officer displayed when he brutally pepper sprayed seated and defenseless humans. He should be ashamed of himself, and it was highly unprofessional conduct deserving of discipline up to and including termination, and he should be sued for assault and battery and violation of the constitutional rights of the individuals sprayed.

[Coito ergo sum]

The police were operating fully within their authority to remove protesters from a public sidewalk after numerous warnings they would be pepper-sprayed. The protesters will lose because they were violating the law by obstructing a public sidewalk and disobeyed lawful orders to disperse.

Which is the point of a protest - to not move when ordered to and force the authorities into taking action that can then be used to promote sympathy for the protesters. Which is exactly how it is playing out. Fox News is a mouthpiece for the powers that be and can be expected to spin it the other way.

Correct, as I've said many times. They knew what was going to happen and they CHOSE to be sprayed as a part of their agenda of civil disobedience. When one engages in civil disobedience, one must be willing to accept the punishment that one incurs if one hopes to provide the message that the punishment was unjust.

In this case, the punishment was NOT unjust, but they had every right to try to convey that message.

Punishment?
Without even a trial?

Hm, you're right, I used the wrong word. It wasn't punishment, it was just reasonable and appropriate physical force being used to effect an arrest and eject them from their unlawful position on the sidewalk. Thanks for pointing out that locutional error for me.

Assuming there was a reason to arrest the protesters, the force was neither reasonable nor appropriate. The individuals were seated. If they were being arrested, they have no obligation to walk and/or otherwise assist the police in effecting the arrest. They have every right to lay down and let the police do their jobs, or sit down and let the police do their jobs. They need not talk to the police. They need not respond to the police. They cannot resist. But, they did not resist. The police could take one arm, put it behind the person's back, attach handcuff, then the other arm, and attach the other handcuff. Then they could haul the person away.

The cops had absolutely no reason to spray pepper spray in the eyes of non-resisting persons who were simply seated. Even if they were not obeying the officer's commands, that is not a justification for force. They could have been saying "fuck you pig" to the cops, and that STILL wouldn't justify force beyond that necessary to effect the arrest, and it cannot be said to be necessary to spray chemicals in the eyes of a suspect or accused person when the cop hasn't even tried to arrest the person yet.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or heaven forbid that the police would actually hire people that can talk politely instead of high school drop outs that like to beat people up for fun.

[Seth]

Assuming there was a reason to arrest the protesters, the force was neither reasonable nor appropriate. The individuals were seated. If they were being arrested, they have no obligation to walk and/or otherwise assist the police in effecting the arrest. They have every right to lay down and let the police do their jobs, or sit down and let the police do their jobs. They need not talk to the police. They need not respond to the police. They cannot resist. But, they did not resist. The police could take one arm, put it behind the person's back, attach handcuff, then the other arm, and attach the other handcuff. Then they could haul the person away.

Incorrect. First, according to the statements of one Eli Peterson, a participant in the protest who was pepper sprayed, whom I heard a recording of, the protesters deliberately surrounded and obstructed the police officers and their ability to leave the area. She said, and I quote, "We told them they would have to go through us" after they sat down and linked arms. This linking of arms is deliberately intended to prevent officers from "taking one arm" and it requires both close proximity to several persons at once, and a good deal of physical strength to wrestle with people who have linked arms in a determined fashion. The whole reason to link arms is to PREVENT the police from being able to haul them away one by one, which is the very essence of resisting arrest.

That raises the stakes considerably, and changes the entire complexion of the event and justifies the use of pepper spray by the police in self-defense as well as as reasonable and necessary force to effect an arrest.

Second, "passive resistance" by linking arms is absolutely resisting arrest. That's why the technique is used by protesters in the first place. If they were simply intent on being civilly disobedient they would have sat quietly, individually, and been peaceably arrested as a demonstration of the purported injustice of the arrest. They did not do so, they took collective and concerted physical action to resist being peaceably arrested.

Persons being arrested do, in fact, have a obligation to submit peaceably to arrest and may be charged with resisting arrest because, particularly in this case, linking arms is a "use of force" against the arresting officer and it produces a substantial risk of injury to the officer. The statement by Eli Peterson (a female) proves that the protesters were in part "protesting the presence of the riot cops on our campus" and were using force (the obstruction of their bodies) to obstruct the ability of the officers to leave. Note in the statue below "physical force" and "violence" are two different things. One may use "physical force" without "violence," and obstructing a peace officer by sitting down and linking arms is an act of physical force that was, according to a participant, deliberately intended to commit the crime of "obstructing a police officer."

18-8-103. Resisting arrest.
(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or
(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.
(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The cops had absolutely no reason to spray pepper spray in the eyes of non-resisting persons who were simply seated.

Yes, they did. The protesters were in the process of committing at least four criminal offenses: Obstructing a police officer, obstructing a sidewalk, failure to obey a lawful order, and resisting arrest. They were cooperating in using physical force to resist arrest, and the command officer on the scene chose to decline the invitation to wrestle with the protesters, which is both personally risky for the officers, has the potential of triggering a general riot as the use of force escalates while trying to break the arm-lock, and which is itself a criminal act. So he used the best, least harmful, least provocative and most effective deterrent to potential violence he had: pepper spray. And his decision is fully vindicated by the fact that after spraying them, they submitted peaceably to arrest and no riot ensued.

Even if they were not obeying the officer's commands, that is not a justification for force.

Yes, it is. Failure to obey a lawful order is a crime, and police officers are empowered to use all reasonable and appropriate force to effect an arrest, to clear a public sidewalk, and they are allowed to disperse persons from a potential riot situation, and they are permitted to use force in self-defense when the intent of the protesters is to hinder their ability to leave, thus exposing them to potential danger should the situation become a riot, which can happen in a heartbeat.

They could have been saying "fuck you pig" to the cops, and that STILL wouldn't justify force beyond that necessary to effect the arrest, and it cannot be said to be necessary to spray chemicals in the eyes of a suspect or accused person when the cop hasn't even tried to arrest the person yet.

You don't get to say what's "reasonable and appropriate" (not "necessary"). The police don't have to do only that which is "necessary," they may do what is lawful and both reasonable and appropriate under the totality of the particular circumstances. Police officers are given wide latitude to decide what level of force is reasonable and appropriate because of their training and their unique position in society, and the courts have been looking at cases like this since the 1960s and have very rarely found that in potentially explosive protest situations that threaten to turn violent where a small number of police officers are surrounded by a much larger number of protesters who are (admittedly) attempting to prevent the officers from making a tactical move out of a dangerous situation, that the use of chemical riot control weapons is objectively unreasonable and constitutes a violation of the rights of the protesters. They were warned, they were committing a host of crimes, and they got what they asked for. All perfectly legally and appropriately.

As I said, lawsuits in this situation are losers.

[Seth]

Or heaven forbid that the police would actually hire people that can talk politely instead of high school drop outs that like to beat people up for fun.

They were very polite and restrained and made numerous attempts to get the protesters to move off the sidewalk and stop obstructing the police. Their polite attempts were rebuffed, so they were required by the criminal acts of the protesters to escalate the use of force in order to make the protesters comply and maintain control of the situation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Let the punishment fit the crime."

[DaveD]

Second, "passive resistance" by linking arms is absolutely resisting arrest. That's why the technique is used by protesters in the first place. If they were simply intent on being civilly disobedient they would have sat quietly, individually, and been peaceably arrested as a demonstration of the purported injustice of the arrest. They did not do so, they took collective and concerted physical action to resist being peaceably arrested.

Persons being arrested do, in fact, have a obligation to submit peaceably to arrest and may be charged with resisting arrest because, particularly in this case, linking arms is a "use of force" against the arresting officer and it produces a substantial risk of injury to the officer.

In none of the videos I have seen were any of the protesters informed that they were being arrested so, unless you can find one to the contrary, the bollocks you have written here does not apply.

[Coito ergo sum]

Assuming there was a reason to arrest the protesters, the force was neither reasonable nor appropriate. The individuals were seated. If they were being arrested, they have no obligation to walk and/or otherwise assist the police in effecting the arrest. They have every right to lay down and let the police do their jobs, or sit down and let the police do their jobs. They need not talk to the police. They need not respond to the police. They cannot resist. But, they did not resist. The police could take one arm, put it behind the person's back, attach handcuff, then the other arm, and attach the other handcuff. Then they could haul the person away.

Incorrect. First, according to the statements of one Eli Peterson, a participant in the protest who was pepper sprayed, whom I heard a recording of, the protesters deliberately surrounded and obstructed the police officers and their ability to leave the area.

You are wrong. Not in the video I saw, anyway. The police officer pepper sprayed seated protesters who were not possibly to be mistaken as "surrounding" anyone and could not possibly be characterized as "osbtructing." Failing to follow instructions is not "obstruction."

She said, and I quote, "We told them they would have to go through us" after they sat down and linked arms. This linking of arms is deliberately intended to prevent officers from "taking one arm" and it requires both close proximity to several persons at once, and a good deal of physical strength to wrestle with people who have linked arms in a determined fashion. The whole reason to link arms is to PREVENT the police from being able to haul them away one by one, which is the very essence of resisting arrest.

One, if the arrest is unlawful, they generally have a right to resist.

Two, not in the video I saw. In the video I saw, the police didn't even try to cuff them. And, as far as "you have to go through us" - the police could easily walk around them in a small circle. There was no obstruction of movement, other than that which normally accompanies occupying space in the universe.

That raises the stakes considerably, and changes the entire complexion of the event and justifies the use of pepper spray by the police in self-defense as well as as reasonable and necessary force to effect an arrest.

That wasn't what happened in any of the videos I saw.

Second, "passive resistance" by linking arms is absolutely resisting arrest. That's why the technique is used by protesters in the first place. If they were simply intent on being civilly disobedient they would have sat quietly, individually, and been peaceably arrested as a demonstration of the purported injustice of the arrest. They did not do so, they took collective and concerted physical action to resist being peaceably arrested.

Not in the video I saw. Can you link to the evidence you have seen?

Persons being arrested do, in fact, have a obligation to submit peaceably to arrest and may be charged with resisting arrest because, particularly in this case, linking arms is a "use of force" against the arresting officer and it produces a substantial risk of injury to the officer.

They have an obligation to "not resist a lawful arrest." They have no other obligation.

The statement by Eli Peterson (a female) proves that the protesters were in part "protesting the presence of the riot cops on our campus" and were using force (the obstruction of their bodies) to obstruct the ability of the officers to leave. Note in the statue below "physical force" and "violence" are two different things. One may use "physical force" without "violence," and obstructing a peace officer by sitting down and linking arms is an act of physical force that was, according to a participant, deliberately intended to commit the crime of "obstructing a police officer."

18-8-103. Resisting arrest.
(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or
(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.
(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The cops had absolutely no reason to spray pepper spray in the eyes of non-resisting persons who were simply seated.

Yes, they did. The protesters were in the process of committing at least four criminal offenses: Obstructing a police officer, obstructing a sidewalk, failure to obey a lawful order, and resisting arrest. They were cooperating in using physical force to resist arrest, and the command officer on the scene chose to decline the invitation to wrestle with the protesters, which is both personally risky for the officers, has the potential of triggering a general riot as the use of force escalates while trying to break the arm-lock, and which is itself a criminal act. So he used the best, least harmful, least provocative and most effective deterrent to potential violence he had: pepper spray. And his decision is fully vindicated by the fact that after spraying them, they submitted peaceably to arrest and no riot ensued.

Even if they were not obeying the officer's commands, that is not a justification for force.

Yes, it is. Failure to obey a lawful order is a crime,

There is no obligation to follow an officer's instruction to "walk" or to "talk." If they tell you to walk, and you fall down on the ground, that is NOT a crime. They can arrest you. As long as you aren't resisting, then you aren't resisting.

and police officers are empowered to use all reasonable and appropriate force to effect an arrest, to clear a public sidewalk, and they are allowed to disperse persons from a potential riot situation, and they are permitted to use force in self-defense when the intent of the protesters is to hinder their ability to leave, thus exposing them to potential danger should the situation become a riot, which can happen in a heartbeat.

That didn't happen in the videos I saw. I'm willing to be persuaded, though.

They could have been saying "fuck you pig" to the cops, and that STILL wouldn't justify force beyond that necessary to effect the arrest, and it cannot be said to be necessary to spray chemicals in the eyes of a suspect or accused person when the cop hasn't even tried to arrest the person yet.

You don't get to say what's "reasonable and appropriate" (not "necessary"). The police don't have to do only that which is "necessary," they may do what is lawful and both reasonable and appropriate under the totality of the particular circumstances.

And, strolling back and forth, spraying the fuck out of their eyes was neither reasonable nor appropriate. IMHO. We'll see what the internal affairs review comes up with, and we'll see what the court has to say in the Section 1983 lawsuit. They get to decide.

Police officers are given wide latitude to decide what level of force is reasonable and appropriate because of their training and their unique position in society, and the courts have been looking at cases like this since the 1960s and have very rarely found that in potentially explosive protest situations that threaten to turn violent where a small number of police officers are surrounded by a much larger number of protesters who are (admittedly) attempting to prevent the officers from making a tactical move out of a dangerous situation, that the use of chemical riot control weapons is objectively unreasonable and constitutes a violation of the rights of the protesters. They were warned, they were committing a host of crimes, and they got what they asked for. All perfectly legally and appropriately.

As I said, lawsuits in this situation are losers.

There are many lawsuits in this area, and whether they are losers or not depend on the facts. You've stated facts that, if true, would certainly effect the viability of a lawsuit. However, from my viewing of the videos I've been privy to, your facts appear to not fairly represent what actually happened. However, again, I am willing to be persuaded. Much of what you have said is argumentative about the issue -- if you have it, I would like to see the video you watched to get to the conclusions you reached.

[JimC]

The police were operating fully within their authority to remove protesters from a public sidewalk after numerous warnings they would be pepper-sprayed. The protesters will lose because they were violating the law by obstructing a public sidewalk and disobeyed lawful orders to disperse.

Which is the point of a protest - to not move when ordered to and force the authorities into taking action that can then be used to promote sympathy for the protesters. Which is exactly how it is playing out. Fox News is a mouthpiece for the powers that be and can be expected to spin it the other way.

Correct, as I've said many times. They knew what was going to happen and they CHOSE to be sprayed as a part of their agenda of civil disobedience. When one engages in civil disobedience, one must be willing to accept the punishment that one incurs if one hopes to provide the message that the punishment was unjust.

In this case, the punishment was NOT unjust, but they had every right to try to convey that message.

This is wrong. Even if they knew what was going to happen, the fact remains that there was no justification for the pepper spraying. The peaceful protesters could have been left to remain where they were, if they had a right to be there. If they were breaking the law, then the officers could have cuffed them and taken them in. The pepper spray was unnecessary brutality. And, the most disturbing part was the air of casual indifference, if not downright enjoyment, that the police officer displayed when he brutally pepper sprayed seated and defenseless humans. He should be ashamed of himself, and it was highly unprofessional conduct deserving of discipline up to and including termination, and he should be sued for assault and battery and violation of the constitutional rights of the individuals sprayed.

Very well said.

Pepper spray has its place, and that is as a non-lethal method of subduing violent or disturbed people.

[Seth]

Assuming there was a reason to arrest the protesters, the force was neither reasonable nor appropriate. The individuals were seated. If they were being arrested, they have no obligation to walk and/or otherwise assist the police in effecting the arrest. They have every right to lay down and let the police do their jobs, or sit down and let the police do their jobs. They need not talk to the police. They need not respond to the police. They cannot resist. But, they did not resist. The police could take one arm, put it behind the person's back, attach handcuff, then the other arm, and attach the other handcuff. Then they could haul the person away.

Incorrect. First, according to the statements of one Eli Peterson, a participant in the protest who was pepper sprayed, whom I heard a recording of, the protesters deliberately surrounded and obstructed the police officers and their ability to leave the area.

You are wrong. Not in the video I saw, anyway. The police officer pepper sprayed seated protesters who were not possibly to be mistaken as "surrounding" anyone and could not possibly be characterized as "osbtructing." Failing to follow instructions is not "obstruction."

Yes, actually, it is:

18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.
(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.
(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).
(3) Repealed.
(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Annotations
While mere verbal opposition alone may not suffice to merit a conclusion of interference or obstruction, a combination of statements and acts, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, can form the crime of obstruction. Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005).
(Emphasis added)

So, as we see, the "right to protest" does not include acts that in ANY WAY "obstructs, impairs, or hinders" the police officer's performance of his duties.

She said, and I quote, "We told them they would have to go through us" after they sat down and linked arms. This linking of arms is deliberately intended to prevent officers from "taking one arm" and it requires both close proximity to several persons at once, and a good deal of physical strength to wrestle with people who have linked arms in a determined fashion. The whole reason to link arms is to PREVENT the police from being able to haul them away one by one, which is the very essence of resisting arrest.

One, if the arrest is unlawful, they generally have a right to resist.

The arrest was not unlawful. It was entirely lawful. The protesters were illegally obstructing a public sidewalk, failing to obey a lawful order, and were obstructing the police.

Two, not in the video I saw. In the video I saw, the police didn't even try to cuff them. And, as far as "you have to go through us" - the police could easily walk around them in a small circle. There was no obstruction of movement, other than that which normally accompanies occupying space in the universe.

They were sitting on a public sidewalk, arms linked together, obstructing the ability of the police (and others) to walk down the sidewalk during a potential riot situation. That's a crime:

18-9-107. Obstructing highway or other passageway.
(1) An individual or corporation commits an offense if without legal privilege such individual or corporation intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(a) Obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway, or hallway to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or
(b) Disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the individual or corporation knows to be a peace officer, a firefighter, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises, to prevent obstruction of a highway or passageway or to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
(2) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.

That raises the stakes considerably, and changes the entire complexion of the event and justifies the use of pepper spray by the police in self-defense as well as as reasonable and necessary force to effect an arrest.

That wasn't what happened in any of the videos I saw.

I'll take the word of the protester who was there, thanks.

Second, "passive resistance" by linking arms is absolutely resisting arrest. That's why the technique is used by protesters in the first place. If they were simply intent on being civilly disobedient they would have sat quietly, individually, and been peaceably arrested as a demonstration of the purported injustice of the arrest. They did not do so, they took collective and concerted physical action to resist being peaceably arrested.

Not in the video I saw. Can you link to the evidence you have seen?

I'll take the word of the protester who was there, thanks.

Persons being arrested do, in fact, have a obligation to submit peaceably to arrest and may be charged with resisting arrest because, particularly in this case, linking arms is a "use of force" against the arresting officer and it produces a substantial risk of injury to the officer.

They have an obligation to "not resist a lawful arrest." They have no other obligation.

And sitting down and linking arms to prevent, hinder or obstruct their arrest is resisting. Ask any Vietnam War protester who was arrested for doing the same thing if they got their cases dismissed. You won't find many who did.

The statement by Eli Peterson (a female) proves that the protesters were in part "protesting the presence of the riot cops on our campus" and were using force (the obstruction of their bodies) to obstruct the ability of the officers to leave. Note in the statue below "physical force" and "violence" are two different things. One may use "physical force" without "violence," and obstructing a peace officer by sitting down and linking arms is an act of physical force that was, according to a participant, deliberately intended to commit the crime of "obstructing a police officer."

18-8-103. Resisting arrest.
(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or
(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.
(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The cops had absolutely no reason to spray pepper spray in the eyes of non-resisting persons who were simply seated.

Yes, they did. The protesters were in the process of committing at least four criminal offenses: Obstructing a police officer, obstructing a sidewalk, failure to obey a lawful order, and resisting arrest. They were cooperating in using physical force to resist arrest, and the command officer on the scene chose to decline the invitation to wrestle with the protesters, which is both personally risky for the officers, has the potential of triggering a general riot as the use of force escalates while trying to break the arm-lock, and which is itself a criminal act. So he used the best, least harmful, least provocative and most effective deterrent to potential violence he had: pepper spray. And his decision is fully vindicated by the fact that after spraying them, they submitted peaceably to arrest and no riot ensued.

Even if they were not obeying the officer's commands, that is not a justification for force.

Yes, it is. Failure to obey a lawful order is a crime,

There is no obligation to follow an officer's instruction to "walk" or to "talk."

Yes, there is.

If they tell you to walk, and you fall down on the ground, that is NOT a crime.

Yes, it is. It's either resisting arrest, or obstruction, or both.

They can arrest you. As long as you aren't resisting, then you aren't resisting.

By not cooperating, you are resisting.

and police officers are empowered to use all reasonable and appropriate force to effect an arrest, to clear a public sidewalk, and they are allowed to disperse persons from a potential riot situation, and they are permitted to use force in self-defense when the intent of the protesters is to hinder their ability to leave, thus exposing them to potential danger should the situation become a riot, which can happen in a heartbeat.

That didn't happen in the videos I saw. I'm willing to be persuaded, though.

I accept the word of the protester who was there, and having been in such situations, I give wide latitude to the police to deal with such situations in ways that reduce the potential for violence and minimize physical harm to all involved, which this particular tactic did.

They could have been saying "fuck you pig" to the cops, and that STILL wouldn't justify force beyond that necessary to effect the arrest, and it cannot be said to be necessary to spray chemicals in the eyes of a suspect or accused person when the cop hasn't even tried to arrest the person yet.

You don't get to say what's "reasonable and appropriate" (not "necessary"). The police don't have to do only that which is "necessary," they may do what is lawful and both reasonable and appropriate under the totality of the particular circumstances.

And, strolling back and forth, spraying the fuck out of their eyes was neither reasonable nor appropriate. IMHO.

That's the key, "IMHO."

We'll see what the internal affairs review comes up with, and we'll see what the court has to say in the Section 1983 lawsuit. They get to decide.

Indeed, but I suspect it'll never come to trial to begin with, and if it does, the court will rule in favor of the police because the protesters were in the process of committing several criminal offenses, which authorizes the police to use reasonable and appropriate physical force. In my day, we didn't have pepper spray or individual cannisters of Mace, the police had tear-gas grenades, shotguns (with birdshot loads, not bean-bags or rubber bullets) gas masks, helmets, shields and batons and they started cracking heads, arms, elbows, knees and other sensitive body parts until "pain compliance" caused the protesters to stop their unlawful behavior because their authority and mandate to keep the peace and prevent lawbreaking was superior to the protester's supposed right to violate the law during a protest. OC spray is far more humane and less harmful that the Democratic National Convention model of "pain compliance" law enforcement, so these kids were lucky indeed.

Police officers are given wide latitude to decide what level of force is reasonable and appropriate because of their training and their unique position in society, and the courts have been looking at cases like this since the 1960s and have very rarely found that in potentially explosive protest situations that threaten to turn violent where a small number of police officers are surrounded by a much larger number of protesters who are (admittedly) attempting to prevent the officers from making a tactical move out of a dangerous situation, that the use of chemical riot control weapons is objectively unreasonable and constitutes a violation of the rights of the protesters. They were warned, they were committing a host of crimes, and they got what they asked for. All perfectly legally and appropriately.

As I said, lawsuits in this situation are losers.

There are many lawsuits in this area, and whether they are losers or not depend on the facts. You've stated facts that, if true, would certainly effect the viability of a lawsuit. However, from my viewing of the videos I've been privy to, your facts appear to not fairly represent what actually happened. However, again, I am willing to be persuaded. Much of what you have said is argumentative about the issue -- if you have it, I would like to see the video you watched to get to the conclusions you reached.

I watched the video posted, and I've read various accounts of the incident. The most compelling information came from Ms. Peterson herself, and I heard that last night on talk radio. Sorry I don't have a loop of it, I was driving at the time.

I'm satisfied to let the courts rule, but I'm not going to stand by and let the police be excoriated without providing some reality-based experiential rebuttal in their defense. Could they have handled things differently? Perhaps, but none of us was there so we can't really say that they were entirely unjustified in their actions because we cannot gauge the tenor of the surrounding crowd and the details of the situation that lead a command-level police officer to use pepper spray. I'm at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because unlike the protesters, they were just doing their duty as assigned to them by the cowardly Chancellor and their own Chief of Police. Given my experience with riots in the past, those kids were extremely fortunate their "injuries" were not more severe.

And perhaps they learned a lesson: when the police tell you to move, you'd better move.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

O'Reilly is wrong, Pepper spray is a condiment.