Check out some similar questions!

excon · Nov 21, 2011, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

No they weren't . They were on the university property and the University had the right to evict.

Hello again, tom:

Yes they were.. They were on the campus of the University of California. It's an institution owned by the citizens of the state of California.. You can't get more public than that.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 21, 2011, 11:01 AM

Really ? I kind of doubt that anyone has the right to gather on the campus . It is University property regardless if it is a state owned operation.

AND... these students were in violation of the University code of conduct.

Violation 102.16: Failure to Comply
Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his or her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such University or other public officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.

Violation 102.26: Camping or Lodging
Camping or lodging on University property other than in authorized facilities.

http://extension.berkeley.edu/info/studentconduct.pdf

excon · Nov 21, 2011, 11:04 AM

Hello again, tom:

Let me see... You got the Constitution... and you got the University Code of Conduct...

Uhhhh, the Constitution wins...

excon

talaniman · Nov 21, 2011, 11:16 AM

They had every right to evict them, but not spray them, and all the dumb university cop had to do was call a "real" cop, and had them arrested.

The university got carried away, and for that they should pay consequences. The protestors KNEW they were going to jail, so take 'em, but not spray 'em with pepper spray.

What's amazing is that we all agree on that part. :eek:

excon · Nov 21, 2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Whats amazing is that we all agree on that part. :eek:

Hello tal:

Uhh, not all of us..

excon

talaniman · Nov 21, 2011, 12:04 PM

Which part is that?

speechlesstx · Nov 21, 2011, 12:33 PM

Smoothy.

cdad · Nov 21, 2011, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

They had every right to evict them, but not spray them, and all the dumb university cop had to do was call a "real" cop, and had them arrested.

The university got carried away, and for that they should pay consequences. The protestors KNEW they were going to jail, so take 'em, but not spray 'em with pepper spray.

Whats amazing is that we all agree on that part. :eek:

I don't exactly think it was wrong if it actually went down as I had heard. The student were given warning over a bullhorn and were warned 2 times. Do you think they should have been tazzed instead? Those are the levels of police aggression that are employed today. Don't believe me. Go try something with your local cop and see how long it takes before things escalate. To be fair I also haven't seen video of the claimed forcing of mouths being opened and pepper spay being shot directly into the mouth. Is it too far? Maybe or then again maybe not. When breaking laws your taking your chances. When showing resistance those chances and likelyhoods increase exponentionaly. Unless it was ordered otherwise then they had no choice to escalate their responses to the situation. What choices were they given besides allowing it to continue?

talaniman · Nov 21, 2011, 02:00 PM

Cuff 'em, load 'em up, and book 'em. One at a time. Just me though, I would have left them alone, and there would have been no confrontation.

Been in a sit in or two back in the day. "Hell no, we won't go!". I mean geeez, how much suffering can you ignore? Maybe your life is great, but clearly not everyone's life is great, and for many, its down right lousy.

We can do better, and should. Go ahead, blame the messengers.

speechlesstx · Nov 21, 2011, 02:15 PM

Yeah, they all had their little zip tie handcuffs on their belts, wouldn't take a lot to cuff a peaceful protester and load them up.

talaniman · Nov 21, 2011, 02:44 PM

Or the university could have ignored them, unless there was UNpeaceful things going on.

I'm old school, if you have a bug in your A$$ then you have a right to say it. I don't have the right to be mad, and break your windows out.

speechlesstx · Nov 21, 2011, 02:49 PM

Well apparently they weren't too happy with them setting up a tent city, and who can blame them after all the lice outbreaks, lung diseases and other assorted nastiness from these protests?

excon · Nov 21, 2011, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

What choices were they given besides allowing it to continue?

Hello dad:

What to continue?? A Constitutional peaceful protest?? They could have walked away.

excon

talaniman · Nov 21, 2011, 03:00 PM

They will adjust. Go home, come back rested, refreshed, and cleaned up, louder, and more determined.

cdad · Nov 21, 2011, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

What to continue??? A Constitutional peaceful protest??? They could have walked away.

excon

The tents being up and the protesters surrounding the tents. In the article that was posted it did say they were resisting arrest.

What did they think was going to happen ? I saw this in San Fran the other night during their protest and they got up one by one as they were told and went with the arrest. Nobody got hurt and nothing got destroyed.

speechlesstx · Nov 21, 2011, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

What to continue??? A Constitutional peaceful protest??? They could have walked away.

There is no constitutional right to occupy. Free speech is still subject to time, place and manner restrictions. Tents are shelter, not speech.

excon · Nov 21, 2011, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tents are shelter, not speech.

Hello again, Steve:

We're talking about the right to assemble. It's in the same amendment. That takes shelter. You didn't know about the right to assemble?? Well, no wonder you're on their case.. This changes everything.

excon

cdad · Nov 21, 2011, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

We're talking about the right to assemble. It's in the same amendment. That takes shelter. You didn't know about the right to assemble???? Well, no wonder you're on their case.. This changes everything.

excon

A little refresher along with some Supreme Court decisions.

Right To Assemble (Informational Paper)

paraclete · Nov 21, 2011, 04:38 PM

Ex you have the right to assemble, not squat. The problem with protest is that they don't take into account other people's right's. A public park is for all people not just protesters, so there is a point when protesters need to move on and that point is certainly when they become a public health risk and the welfare provision overrides "promote the general Welfare," It is about the context in which you do things that determine your right to do it, this appears to be missed.

These people are not assembling in order to exercise their right of petition they are are assembling in order to conduct some form of bouycott against specific persons or institutions and therefore whether they are assembling peacefully has to be questioned.

tomder55 · Nov 21, 2011, 04:49 PM

There is no right to assemble on private property and even in public it is frequently subject to permits . There is a right to assemble ,protest . There is NO right to to take up residence in public parks or public places or disrupt there .

What they were practicing was civil disobedience ,not freedom of assembly. Civil disobedience may be noble and even at times the moral thing to do as Henry David Thoreau wrote . But those who practice it should be prepared to suffer the consequences.