Click here for another analysis virtually identical to my own.
End of update.
Update #1 -- 11/22/11:
Protesters were informed they would be pepper sprayed.
Their leader gave verbal consent to be sprayed.
Others gave tacit consent by staying in place.
Click here & further expose the enormity of this media LIE.
End of update.
Anatomy of a media LIE…
Alternatively, how pathetically incompetent “journalists” fall for professional propaganda…
When I Google [UC Davis pepper spray], I currently get over 63 thousand results (on an event which happened yesterday -- a confrontation with UC Davis Campus Police which was deliberately provoked by an OWS mob).
Click here for the video version promoted by the Associated Press.
Click here for an even more heavily edited version.
Looks bad, eh? Predictably, the terminally gullible have fallen for the brazen propaganda video, causing all sorts of people to make a foolish and ill-informed rush to judgment.
Here, are the facts…
1) The OWS mob had setup an ILLEGAL encampment (the sort of encampment which has led to rapes, murders, riots, suicides, thefts, assaults, vandalism, violence, tuberculosis, Zuccotti Lung Disease, drug overdose fatalities, public sex, public nudity, public defecation, unsanitary living conditions and more -- click here for a short version of the OWS rap sheet).
2) The university authorities ordered the Campus Police to clear out this ILLEGAL encampment.
3) I’ll let video shot by one of the mob tell the rest of the story:
A) Part I of III
I begin at the point where the Campus Police inform the punks they are violating the law and -- if they do not leave peacefully -- they will be arrested. They begin to arrest individuals and the mob gets outta control. The mob chants "stop beating students" (when, clearly, nobody is being beaten). The officers then DEESCALATE the situation, STOP arresting punks and engage in an extended standoff.
B) Part II of III
At 8:55, the badly outnumbered officers are completely surrounded by an angry mob and have circled the proverbial wagons in self-defense. In the innermost circle are those few they managed to peacefully arrest before the mob got out of control. The angry mob then threatens the officers by chanting:
"If you let them go, we will let you leave."
"If you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully."
[Meaning, they will otherwise resort to violence.]
C) Part III of III
i) At 4:08, the cops again try to remove an individual and are met with resistance. THAT is when they FINALLY resort to pepper spray. Judging by the reaction (or lack thereof), this must have been a pretty dilute mixture. Pepper spray produces discomfort, but it is absolutely harmless. It is designed to REDUCE the level of resistance, REDUCE the level of violence and REDUCE the odds of injury as the arrest is made. Ultimately, the pepper spray proves to be inadequate against this angry mob -- the angry mob retains control of the situation.
ii) At 8:07, the angry mob begins the process of intimidating the badly outnumbered Campus Police officers out of the park.
D) Thanks to the shameless propaganda from the Lame Stream Media, the outcome at the moment is:
The ILLEGAL encampment remains, the rule of law has been tossed in the shitter, the nation has yet another ObamaVille encampment sure to produce (by design) the same mayhem we have seen from the others and a lot of innocent people are being persecuted by a mob of fools who fell for the propaganda produced & directed by the UC Davis mob.
10 comments:
You want to protest? fine. But when the cops ask you to leave... Just leave, or move to another spot or get a friggin permit.
How professional were those officers? The urge to crack one of those students with a nightstick must have been overpowering.
The thing about cops is, they have to run TOWARDS all of the shit that we get to run AWAY from. Stop chanting in their faces. Go write your congressman. Or better yet, get to science class and start working on a new orbital delivery system, ya burdens.
AJ,
Seems we agree on that one -- top to bottom.
Encircling and intimidating cops is a common tactic among the Far Left.
In 2006, Steamboat Springs was invaded by The Rainbow People (who descended from the radical socialist SDS). Every year, the Rainbow People engage in illegal assemblies in the National Forest. All they need to be legal is a permit. But, preferring confrontation, they never apply for the permit.
Click here and watch video captured by the Rainbow People in the National Forest just outside Steamboat Springs. The death threats against the officers begin at 3:42. More threats resume at 6:52. More threats are found at 8:03.
Our local propagandists (posing as “journalists”) portrayed the Rainbow People as non-violent, peace loving hippies unnecessarily harassed by the police. Sound familiar?
Hi SBVOR, I am actually interested in learning more about your attitude.
Where do you draw the line? Would it have been OK if the officer had drawn his gun and shot each of them in the head? I’m guessing you would not say so. How about if he had drawn his truncheon and whacked each one in the head? Kicked each one in the face? Stomped on each ones toes?
It seems that you are arguing is that pepper spray isn’t so bad, so police should be able to use it when people ignore them. The argument is ridiculous on its face.
The fact that the officer was unable to remove someone from the line at the 4:08 mark in the video is irrelevant. He should have gotten help and added resisting arrest to the charges. There not being enough officers available to do the arresting does not justify the police using pepper spray.
Anonymous (Nov 21, 2011 4:25:00 PM),
Pepper spray is an effective and utterly harmless way to deal with lawless mobs such as this.
What would you propose? Should the lawless simply be allowed to defy the law and trample the rights of others?
The university officials who are now throwing the Campus Police under the bus are the VERY SAME utterly spineless slaves to political correctness who asked the Campus Police to enforce the ban on overnight camping.
The Campus Police — who have limited resources — were given a job to do. Even DESPITE using pepper spray, the angry mob (who CLEARLY threatened violence) overpowered them, forced them out of the park and prevented them from enforcing the law.
One could, therefore, (incorrectly) argue that the Campus Police did not use ENOUGH force. But, no, the Campus Police — by retreating — made the right choice. It was the university administration which then made the WRONG choice.
The proper response from the university would have been to call in the city, county and — if necessary — state police to ensure enough resources were made available to enforce the law without doing unnecessary harm to the lawless mob.
But, instead, the UC Davis administration proved themselves to be a pack of spineless slaves to the (objectively verifiable) Marxist doctrine of political correctness.
P.S.) Since pepper spray did NOT prove to be effective in removing the illegal encampment, maybe tear gas would:
Deploy the tear gas.
Confiscate the tents and sleeping bags.
Repeat as needed.
SBVOR, I note that you did not answer any of the four questions I asked. Would it be OK if the officer shot them with his sidearm? Would it be OK if he clubbed them with his truncheon. Would it be OK if he kicked them in their faces. Would it be OK if he stomped on their toes?
I have watched your three videos, and read your descriptions of them. They do not support your case. Furthermore, you claim pepper spray is an effective (and harmless…Ha!) way to deal with lawless mobs. How exactly did the pepper spray “deal with” this mob?
You say that one could incorrectly argue that the police did not use enough force; and that they actually made the right choice by retreating. By what line of reasoning do you conclude that pepper-spraying about 10 of the seated protesters is the right amount of force?
You are correct about one thing: if the university wanted the park cleared, they should have made enough police officers available for the job. But they did not. How does this justify the police who were there pepper-spraying the seated protesters?
Anonymous (Nov 22, 2011 7:13:00 AM),
You don't deserve a response, but I'll offer one anyway.
1) You either did not watch the videos offered in this post or you are hideously dishonest in your assessment.
2) Obviously, none of your theoretical levels of violence would have been justifiable in this case. It is absurd of you even to ask -- but, that's the game you play.
3) Pepper spray was imminently justifiable in this case. By sitting and linking arms, the punks were resisting arrest. Pepper spray is designed to REDUCE the level of resistance in effecting the arrests, to REDUCE the odds of more violence and to REDUCE the odds of injuries.
4) In the end, pepper spray proved to be insufficient. The next level of escalation should have been tear gas. I'm pretty sure the Campus Police had none. Therefore, retreat was their best option.
5) The university administration should be roundly condemned for then throwing the Campus Police under the bus (for doing only what the administration ORDERED them to do). Again, the proper response from these spineless cowards would have been to THEN call in more officers from more agencies and see to it that the rule of law was not tossed in the toilet.
If those additional officers met resistance, my advice would have been:
Deploy the tear gas.
Confiscate the tents and sleeping bags.
Repeat as needed.
Anonymoustheclown likes strawmen.......he asks if police should be allowed to shoot them in the head, concludes no, and then goes on to assume that pepperspray is the same as a gun.......the rest of his posts follows on with the same idiocy. This was not an issue of dispersing protesters, as the media strawman was built on, but of the police being UNLAWFULLY DETAINED and held hostage by the protesters using the least destructive tool available to them to clear a safe path for them to leave the area.......the 'protesters' at that point had become hostage takers, and police response was extraordinarily restrained, despite the COLOSSAL media lie! So anonychump....
Anonymous (Dec 4, 2011 1:15:00 PM),
You are 100% correct. Thanks for that analysis. This is -- across the board -- one of the most egregious media lies in quite some time.
Post a Comment