Horwood Beer-Master wrote:Seth wrote:...Plenty of places to engage in free speech and to petition your government for redress of grievances that don't obstruct public sidewalks, passageways or streets where you won't be bothered by the police...
Yes, If you've got something important to say why not go practice your right to free speech somewhere out of the way where you can be ignored. - That'll sure show the powers-that-be that you mean business!
I mean I'm sure they'll be kind enough to come listen to what you have to say, and actually remotely give a flying-fuck.
If your message is resonant, you won't be ignored. That you think your message is important does not give you automatic license to break the law while expounding it. The National Mall is available for such political speech and petitions for redress of grievances. So are public parks, within limits. They've had two months and have had their say without much interference at all. Now it's time for them to move on and change their behavior and begin obeying the law again, or else.
Seth wrote:..Their right to protest does not outweigh the right of others to use the public sidewalks or streets free of obstruction I'm afraid...
There's a right to not be obstructed on the streets? Fantastic! Does that mean I get to shove slower moving pedestrians out of my way?
Strawman and red herring all in one concise statement.
Seth wrote:...They are entitled to free speech, they are not entitled to an audience...
They're not entitled to force anyone to be an audience. But no-one was being forced.
Not relevant. They were obstructing a sidewalk. It is against the law to obstruct a sidewalk. It's just that simple.
Even anyone who had to be present in the vicinity didn't have to pay attention if they didn't want to.
Not relevant. One has the right to speak freely, one does not have the right to obstruct others while doing so.
No-one has the right to not have others even
attempt (unforcefully) to get there attention and make them an audience - if they did then..,
A. Free speech would virtually meaningless, and..,
B. Advertising would have to be made illegal.
Actually, on that second point it is almost tempting...
And the line is drawn with physical interference with the free passage of others on public streets, sidewalks and rights-of-way, a line that was crossed by the demonstrators sitting in the middle of the sidewalk refusing to move when lawfully ordered to do so by the police. They were free to stand to the sides, on the lawn, like everyone else, and wave banners and engage in peaceable exercise of free speech, which is their right. They violated the law and were removed using reasonable and appropriate physical force.
Seth wrote:...nor are they entitled to prevent people from going about their lawful occasions in order to force them to listen...
See above - how can you possibly
force someone to listen?
Seth wrote:...LIbertarians have nothing against the use of force in self-defense...
"Defence"?
"Oh, please mister police officer - defend me from this scary person making me walk around them!"
It's the duty of the police to ensure the free passage of the public on public streets, sidewalks and rights-of-way and to remove persons who obstruct that free passage unlawfully.
Seth wrote:...Those protesters were initiating force...
No.
No they weren't.
Yes, yes they were, every bit as much as barricading a bridge so that law-abiding citizens cannot cross is initiating force. They have NO RIGHT to obstruct public passage on a public right-of-way, and doing so is absolutely the initiation of force.
Seth wrote:...and reasonable force to remove them is perfectly within the Libertarian code of ethics...
Unfortunately libertarians have a very different definition of the word "reasonable" from sane people.
When you unlawfully resist the orders of police, you escalate the force you are initiating and thereby justifying an escalation of the counterforce required to remove you as an obstacle to the exercise of the right to freedom of travel by others. Keep escalating that force and eventually you will trigger superior police counterforce.
Same for the word "ethics" while we're about it.
What's ethical about breaking the law by obstructing a public sidewalk?
Seth wrote:...No, the campus is public property, and protesters have no right to obstruct or impede the use of that public sidewalk by police or anyone else. That's an initiation of force...
No - it isn't.
Yes, it is. It's an active and unlawful infringement upon the rights of others to pass freely along public sidewalks. They didn't grow there, they walked to the sidewalk, linked arms, and sat down with the illegal intent of obstructing passage. That's an initiation of force.
Seth wrote:...It's a perfectly reasonable response that protects the police from being injured trying to drag the protesters away...
Aw, poor little diddums police officer having to drag the nasty big heavy protester away...
Having dragged a few protesters away in my time as a cop, I'm all for hosing them with pepper spray and tear gas first, to try to induce them to move along all on their own.
Seth wrote:...and potentially having to fight with them...
What would cause them to even work from the assumption that there would be any violence - unless, of course, they were intending to start it?
Er, people disobeying the law by obstructing a public sidewalk with the stated intention not to move or be moved, that's what. Policemen are not stupid, and they know full well that protesters quite often react violently to being arrested. That's why cops wear armor, helmets, facemasks and other protective gear.
Seth wrote:...The protesters chose to be sprayed....
I'll have to add "chose" to the "Libertarian - English" dictionary...
chose /tʃoʊz/
verb
1. simple past tense of choose.
2. Obsolete . past participle of choose.
choose/tʃoʊz/
transitive verb
1 a : to select freely and after consideration
Now tell me, did they choose to seat themselves illegally on a public sidewalk?
Did they choose to disregard lawful police commands to move?
Did they choose to ignore warnings that they would be pepper-sprayed and arrested?
Yes, they "chose" to be pepper-sprayed, absolutely.
Seth wrote:...Deadly force is not authorized in such situations...
Clearly pepper-spray is not 'authorised' either - or else why have the officers been suspended? (Oh wait, let me guess, "the campus authorities have caved-in to lefty socialist bullying"?
)
The UC Davis chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi, released a statement Friday. It states, "We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested. We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal."
Placing the officers on administrative leave is merely an expedient to defuse the anger over the incident. It'll come to nothing and the officers are getting paid days off and will be back at work soon with no black marks on their records because they did what they were told to do and what the law required them to do.
Seth wrote:...Fortunately, our police are very reluctant to use deadly force during riots, even when they clearly have full legal authority to do so...
What do you mean "fortunately"? You'd fucking love it if they ever did! You'd be on this forum gloating your sick-little heart out about how the "leftist scum" got what they deserve.
Depends on whether the leftist scum were threatening the use of deadly force during a riot. When people do that, leftist scum or otherwise, then it's reasonable and appropriate to use deadly force to prevent it. I fully expect the Marxist scum to eventually use, or attempt to use deadly force, including bombs, Molotov Cocktails, guns, bricks and other deadly weapons against police and others, as they have always done in the past, such as the Marxist scum who burned a bank employee to death while torching a bank branch. And I will be perfectly comfortable with the police shooting rioters attempting to use deadly force against ANYONE dead on the spot. It's how you stop riots from becoming even more deadly.
I survived the bombings and riots at the University of Colorado in the sixties, and I know just how dangerous rioters can be, and I'm constantly amazed at the degree of restraint that the police today show towards deadly attacks on them by rioters. But eventually, somebody's going to get killed, because that's what the Marxists want to happen, and I can only hope it's the Marxists who get killed, because they will richly deserve it when they do.
Seth wrote:...Pepper spray is a perfectly acceptable way to force people out of an area where they are not permitted to be without requiring other, more harmful and potentially deadly force like nightsticks, rubber bullets and baton rounds...
Unless people are actively fighting back against - as opposed to passively not co-operating with - attempts to move them, then why would the police need any of these means, pepper spray included, to force people out of an area?
Because it's easy and convenient and the police must, in order to maintain order, project superior force in potential riot situations. In additions to making the seated protesters less of a risk to police, it served to put the rest of the demonstrators and bystanders on notice that the police are in charge and will use WHATEVER degree of force is required to prevent a riot. Two objectives for the price of one. Don't like it, don't disobey lawful police orders. Pretty simple really, and something which you refuse to even address, because you know full well that disobeying the law and getting pepper-sprayed and arrested was precisely what the protesters intended to happen. It's what they WANTED to happen, just so people like you can blather on about the injustice of the pigs in enforcing a simple little law like "don't block the sidewalk." It's all part of the Marxist dialectic, and you're being duped by them too.
Seth wrote:...Here's a clue: When the police tell you to get up and move off the sidewalk onto the grass next to the sidewalk, do so. Then they won't have to pepper spray you.
In civilised corners of the world they won't anyway.
Find me one "civilized corner" of the world where the police HAVEN'T used force to clear streets and sidewalks of protesters to maintain order and prevent riots. Then enumerate those places that have used much greater force than American police did in this case and see what you come up with.
Seth wrote:...Note how the cops involved have been put on "administrative leave" as a result of the bad press?..
Right - not as a result of their actions or anything then...
Not really. I predict their complete acquittal.
Seth wrote:...They will be eventually cleared completely...
Police nearly always are when they're being judged by other police.
Particularly when they have only done what they were told to do by the law and their superiors, and especially after the protesters were repeatedly warned what the consequences of disobedience would be.
The UC Davis chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi, released a statement Friday. It states, "We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested. We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal."...Claudia Morain, a UC Davis spokesperson, told The Huffington Post that there were 35 police officers on the scene, 50 occupiers and 200 bystanders. She said that UC Davis officials had warned the occupiers that they could not set up a tent city. They were given notice that they had to clear out their tents by 3 p.m. on Friday. Some complied. Others did not.
Seth wrote:...They knew they'd be sprayed and arrested...
Did they "know"?
Of course they knew. They were told they would be sprayed and arrested before it happened, numerous times.
They're only students -
Oh dear, pity the poor ignorant college students who can't parse a simple sentence like "move off the sidewalk or be pepper sprayed." Bah.
Isn't it at least possible that they are (well, were) actually naïve enough to honestly believe that the police wouldn't act like total shits?
Nope. They knew exactly what they were doing and what was going to happen and they chose their fate and got what they had coming to them.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
