O'Reilly: Pepper Spray Is a Food Product

[mistermack]

Seth, your last two posts are ridiculous.
Firstly, the bit you quoted in blue simply doesn't establish what you said, that failure to follow instructions is obstruction.
It's only obstruction, if you are already obstructing. So it's a dumb post. If you aren't already obstructing the police, then failure to follow instructions is not obstructing the police.

All you've proved is that obstructing the police is obstructing the police. Brilliant.

Secondly, it's ridiculous that you keep quoting this protester woman, without providing the link.
I'm happy to make up my own mind, but I'm buggered if I'll take your word for it.

[Seth]

Seth, your last two posts are ridiculous.
Firstly, the bit you quoted in blue simply doesn't establish what you said, that failure to follow instructions is obstruction.

Failure to follow instructions or lawful commands of the police when it "knowingly obstructs, impairs or hinders" the police in the performance of their duty, which in this case was both removing an obstruction of a public way and keeping the peace is the crime of "obstructing."

It's only obstruction, if you are already obstructing. So it's a dumb post. If you aren't already obstructing the police, then failure to follow instructions is not obstructing the police.

It can be, very easily. Take a fire or car accident where a crowd gathers. If the police feel that the crowd is interfering with the rescue effort or are in an unsafe position or are interfering with firefighting efforts (or a SWAT team raid for that matter) they can tell the crowd to move along. If the crowd does not do so, or some individual does not do so, then they are "obstructing police, firefighters or rescue personnel." The mere act of arguing with a police officer over his order to disperse can be, as the citation I presented says, obstruction, particularly if it takes one or more police officers away from what they are actually there to do, like remove protesters from a sidewalk. Thus, any of the bystanders who were NOT blocking the sidewalk who hindered the police in their duties of removing the protesters and keeping the peace, even by arguing with them, shouting at them and refusing to leave when ordered to do so, can be cited for obstructing the police.

All you've proved is that obstructing the police is obstructing the police. Brilliant.

No, I've proven that obstructing the police is a crime. It being a crime to obstruct the police, by, for example, sitting down on a public sidewalk and linking arms and refusing to move when so directed by police, the police are then authorized to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to remove and/or arrest the protesters.

Secondly, it's ridiculous that you keep quoting this protester woman, without providing the link.

Don't have a link, I heard it on the radio last night while driving on AM talk radio. Since I don't listen to talk radio much, I can't remember the name of the host, but it wasn't Beck or Hannity or Limbaugh. I'll try to find the quote for you, or you can look it up yourself.

I'm happy to make up my own mind, but I'm buggered if I'll take your word for it.

I really don't care what you do. I stated facts and quoted accurately. If you dispute it, then you can feel free to disprove my claim.

[Schneibster]

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.

If you bend a big rig, you'll never drive another one.

I think you and I agree this should apply to cops too.

Wonder how much deficit pays insurance premiums? More after something like this.

[amused]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction. The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

[Seth]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction. The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

You mean if the Marxist handlers of the useful idiots of OWS have any organization at all...

[amused]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction. The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

You mean if the Marxist handlers of the useful idiots of OWS have any organization at all...

Um, no, that's not what I mean. Please don't put lies (or anything else)* in my mouth.





* Only on Ratz do I have to make that qualifier.

[mistermack]

Seth, you just wasted a load of words, doing the same again.

If you ARE obstructing, and do not obey and instruction to stop, the you are obviously obstructing.
That's exactly what I said, you just established that obstruction is obstruction.

You claimed that failure to obey an instruction is obstruction. Nothing you said supports that, unless you are ALREADY obstructing. The examples you gave are where people ARE already obstructing.

Even I can work out that if people are obstructing the police, and don't stop when instructed, they are still obstructing the police. That's known as the bleedn obvious in Britain.

And your source for the protester woman sounds even more suspicious than ever. People on radio shows do make stuff up you know.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The right to peaceful protest seems to have been lost somewhere.

[Schneibster]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction.

No, it's not. The point of a protest is to protest.

The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

Now, that's true. The smart ones already stopped, and the dumb ones are getting sued. Think of it as evolution in action.

[maiforpeace]

The right to peaceful protest seems to have been lost somewhere.

There will probably be protesters at the Reason Rally. I'm guessing guns aren't allowed on the National Mall though.

[Schneibster]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction. The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

You mean if the Marxist handlers of the useful idiots of OWS have any organization at all...

Well, according to you they have black helicopters.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The right to peaceful protest seems to have been lost somewhere.

There will probably be protesters at the Reason Rally. I'm guessing guns aren't allowed on the National Mall though.

Do we know where the venue will be, exactly? I'd like to be able to slip off to the Smitty during some of the speeches.

[Seth]

Seth, you just wasted a load of words, doing the same again.

No, you just utterly failed to understand what I wrote.

If you ARE obstructing, and do not obey and instruction to stop, the you are obviously obstructing.
That's exactly what I said, you just established that obstruction is obstruction.

No, I established that obstructing is a crime. You don't have to disobey an instruction to stop, you can be arrested simply for obstructing:

A person commits obstructing a peace officer, ...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

You claimed that failure to obey an instruction is obstruction. Nothing you said supports that, unless you are ALREADY obstructing. The examples you gave are where people ARE already obstructing.

Not true. One may not be obstructing, hindering or impairing a police officer merely by standing there and then violate the law by failing to obey a lawful order to move along that is intended as a warning that your conduct is ABOUT to be obstructive. A crowd gathering at a crimescene is a perfect example. One or two persons standing proximate to a crimescene but not in the direct way of any police activity and doing nothing but passively observing may not "hinder or obstruct" the investigation, but a hundred people showing up might, so the police can go forth and say "you can't stand around our crimescene, please move on" and if you refuse that lawful order, you will THEN be hindering, obstructing or impairing their performance of their duties.

Even I can work out that if people are obstructing the police, and don't stop when instructed, they are still obstructing the police. That's known as the bleedn obvious in Britain.

This is also true, but one can begin obstructing the police by refusing to obey a lawful order as well. One reason for this is that the refusal to obey a lawful order then takes an officer away from his duties and requires him to deal with the person who is refusing the order, which hinders him in his other duties, which is the definition of obstruction. Police may determine with wide latitude when a person is hindering their duties and may determine when one's presence or activities threaten to obstruct the police and give due warning to cease and desist and/or leave the area in order to PREVENT an obstruction. In such a case, only a refusal to obey that command would turn one's activity from one which threatens to obstruct to one which actually does obstruct, which justifies an arrest.

And your source for the protester woman sounds even more suspicious than ever. People on radio shows do make stuff up you know.

Found the link! It's a "Nation of Change" website with a transcript of an interview with the girl, Elli Pearson, by Ellen Goodman of Democracy Now:

ELLI PEAR­SON: Well, we were protest­ing to­gether, and the riot cops came at us, and we linked arms and sat down peace­fully to protest their pres­ence on our cam­pus. And at one point, they were—we had en­cir­cled them, and they were try­ing to leave, and they were try­ing to clear a path. And so, we sat down, linked arms, and said that if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down. And all I could see was peo­ple telling me to cover my head, pro­tect my­self, and put my head down. And the next thing I know, I was pep­per-sprayed.
...
AMY GOOD­MAN: Did the po­lice say, "We’re about to pep­per-spray you"?

ELLI PEAR­SON: I be­lieve they told maybe one stu­dent, or like had some di­a­logue, but cer­tainly not every­one could hear. It wasn’t like an an­nounce­ment that was made. And we weren’t aware that we were going to be—I wasn’t aware I was going to be pep­per-sprayed until peo­ple told me to pro­tect my­self. And then I have friends who were pep­per-sprayed who said they did not know that that was hap­pen­ing and that that was com­ing. And we were ac­tu­ally ex­pected—we were ex­pect­ing to be shot in the back with some­thing, be­cause they were be­hind us. And we re­ally had no idea what was going to hap­pen.

I say she's lying, because she says "we were expecting to be shot in the back with something." Well, what "something" did she expect to be shot in the back with, I wonder? Could it be...OC spray?

It's pretty clear that she and the others knew what was coming and now they are covering their own asses. But the real smoking gun is her admission that they had deliberately trapped the police, who were trying to leave. That escalation alone was sufficient justification for the vastly-outnumbered police to take decisive action and use OC spray to maintain control of the situation.

[Seth]

The protesters wanted to get sprayed, that's the entire point of a protest - to provoke a reaction. The police can't win this anymore when every action they take results in an internet meme. It's about time for the next one, and if OWS has any organization at all, they will keep coming.

You mean if the Marxist handlers of the useful idiots of OWS have any organization at all...

Well, according to you they have black helicopters.

Liar.

[Seth]

The right to peaceful protest seems to have been lost somewhere.

There will probably be protesters at the Reason Rally. I'm guessing guns aren't allowed on the National Mall though.

Not hardly, unfortunately. Guns are still outlawed in public in DC, though we're working hard to change that.

Edit: Of course this does NOT mean that nobody in the crowd will be carrying a gun. In fact, it's 100 percent certainty that someone (other than law enforcement) WILL be carrying a gun, illegally, since DC's gun ban laws demonstrably do not prevent criminals from carrying guns, which is why it's known as the murder capitol of the US.

All the law does is prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for lawful self defense.