Yes, indeed. If I were a university chancellor facing a sit-in, I’d spring for adequate Porta-Johns and clean water and let the protest run its course — minor expenditure, no consequences. (Of course, in the U of California system the budget meltdown makes that much easier said than done.)
It’s partly a question of whether or not the authorities in this situation choose to make themselves culpable for bad outcomes. Authorizing a protest with the express intent of later turning around and calling out the riot police is not only cynical politics – clearly designed to give the appearance of support for popular expression – but frankly disgusting. But that’s what all this argument is about, isn’t it? Whether or not the message in this case should trump public convenience.
…Jesus Christ…it’s like the awful person hat trick. You’re just the worst aren’t you?
Is this why you come on the Internet? So that you can pretend moral superiority to people with different perspectives on policing and a critical eye toward pregnant woman who show up at protests where violence has been reported in more than a dozen cases?
How dare anybody but white, young, fit males protest.
Right. Because that was exactly my position. Grow up. Unless you’re going to argue that pregnant women should be encouraged to ride roller coasters, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, and eat raw meat, you’re a hypocrite. The first thing I want to know is whether this woman was actually part of the protest, or just got caught in the scrum. Depending on the answer, the next thing I want to know is why I should be expected to blame the police for these kinds of outcomes. People who put themselves in awful situations court danger. Nobody causes rape by wearing provocative clothing, but an intelligent person realizes that predators take advantage of single women walking alone at night in bad neighborhoods. An intelligent person realizes also that a protest is no place for somebody who isn’t prepared for strenuous physical activity and lack of sanitary facilities.
Look, point blank, the kids in the UC Davis video wanted to elicit a police response. You can criticize the police force for agreeing to discharge the chancellor’s orders. You can criticize the police force for the tactics employed. Certainly for using the pepper spray at too close a distance. Possibly (although not credibly, from my point of view) for preferring compliance tools to bringing in more police officers. You can criticize the chancellor at UC Davis for deciding to act against the protestors in the first place. I’m not certain what impact they were having on university life or safety. I presume they were having minimal or no impact on safety. However, I think it’s clear that the students intended to defy the police, and were intentionally courting arrest. It’s a question of ethics and procedure whether or not police in any situation are entitled to use compliance techniques (pressure points, tactical holds, etc.), although at some point, my power to safely and easily compel you is quite limited if you choose to resist and I haven’t got a much greater advantage in size and strength, weapons and special training aside. The students may have been surprised by the use of the pepper spray, but having seen the video, I’m not so sure.
