Outrage as protesters pepper-sprayed at University of California

**billynomates** · 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM

'Chilling' footage of protesters at the University of California being pepper sprayed prompts outrage - Telegraph

Well it moved them. Perhaps the Arab Spring Movement will fund them.

**barbie4** · 11-20-2011, 04:52 AM

wow ! Just curious how long the eyes will burn after !

**DDT** · 11-20-2011, 07:18 AM

hummm, didn't really see anything CHILLING....must be me

**skyguy2007** · 11-20-2011, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by DDT

hummm, didn't really see anything CHILLING....must be me

I didn't either DDT, but when you find out they were blocking a public street/walkway refusing to move, the story takes on a different light.

**Moab** · 11-20-2011, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by skyguy2007

I didn't either DDT, but when you find out they were blocking a public street/walkway refusing to move, the story takes on a different light.

Key word here public .. also known as the commons. The commons are paid for maintained buy the citizens of America, State, County or City. People have a right to assemble on the commons.

**billynomates** · 11-20-2011, 01:48 PM

So the Tuesday protest was one of the biggest rallies on the campus since tuition hikes in 2009. That protest ended with a march around the campus, which led us to the administrative building. Sort of spontaneously, we all decided to occupy an area on the grounds and we stayed the night

interview with student. Even though the road was on the campus it was a public highway? I also read pple shouldn't be sprayed at close range.

**skyguy2007** · 11-20-2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Moab

Key word here public .. also known as the commons. The commons are paid for maintained buy the citizens of America, State, County or City. People have a right to assemble on the commons.

But they don't have the right to block uninvolved foot and auto traffic creating a saftey hazard.

**curtinsea** · 11-20-2011, 04:48 PM

disruptive crowds daring police and then forcing them to take action to get compliance, it leaves very little options. At least we've learned from Kent State and it's pepper spray instead of .223 fire.

Frankly I feel whatever non-lethal means they need to use to disperse a rowdy crowd is fine. They (the crowd) can't claim innocence and play the victim if they have been ordered to comply with the law and refuse. Crowd control is very dangerous, but it needs to be done.

disperse when ordered, comply with the law, no problem, no pepper spray, nobody gets hurt.

seems simple enough to me

**voodoo1215** · 11-21-2011, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by curtinsea

disruptive crowds daring police and then forcing them to take action to get compliance, it leaves very little options. At least we've learned from Kent State and it's pepper spray instead of .223 fire.

Frankly I feel whatever non-lethal means they need to use to disperse a rowdy crowd is fine. They (the crowd) can't claim innocence and play the victim if they have been ordered to comply with the law and refuse. Crowd control is very dangerous, but it needs to be done.

disperse when ordered, comply with the law, no problem, no pepper spray, nobody gets hurt.

seems simple enough to me

At a rowdy crowd.. If you call a bunch of people sitting down with their arms interlocked rowdy, I'd hate to see what would happen if they actually stood up or something.

**billynomates** · 11-21-2011, 01:37 AM

At a rowdy crowd.. If you call a bunch of people sitting down with their arms interlocked rowdy, I'd hate to see what would happen if they actually stood up or something.

They'd have got off lightly if they were only tasered.