Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement (Score 1) 566

It doesn't matter if they were warned about pepper spray two weeks, a month or a year in advance - it's still illegal

No, it's not. And you would have realized that if you'd bothered to read the non-bolded section as well as the bolded one.

The bolded section is a purposeful misrepresentation of the actual content of the policy as given directly below. The policy says "They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.” The (obviously impartial) 'student activism' website falsely summarizes that as "University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others." So they decided to define what is 'justified and necessary'. However the quoted text (and the actual document, which I actually read) simply state that the use of spray must appear justified and necessary to the policeman.

It's not surprising that you blindly accept several other bald-faced lies about the text of the document, including the falsehood that the police did 'nothing' to attempt to remove the protesters (they were given several eviction notices and granted many chances to voluntarily leave, then granted several opportunities to comply with the verbal instructions of the police, by definition leaving only involuntary removal and requiring physical action) and the blatant misrepresentation contained in noting that UC Police are not allowed to use physical force "except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping", when the actual statement is "to subdue violence or ensure detention". In this situation the cops reasoned that, to ensure detention, using pepper spray was a better option than wrestling with the non-compliant criminals (and if they had wrestled with them and used the batons, you'd be complaining about that).

It doesn't really matter what the people in the video did a day or a week before

Nobody said anything about a day or a week before. And you still refuse to address the obvious imbalance of the situation, where a small team of campus police were entirely surrounded by a menacing group of people. You focus on the ones who stage-managed their sit-in, exactly as they expected you to. The cops were massively outnumbered by agitated people with a history of violent acts.

just look at the guy parading around with the pepper can, holding it up for everyone to see, for a good half a minute before he actually proceeds to shove it right in people's faces

That is clearly a warning. He is showing the pepper spray to the surrounding people to hopefully get them to tell the others to comply. He takes quite a bit of time warning everyone what will happen, so he won't have to use the spray. And you try to make that an indictment of him.

Now, once he uses the spray, he definitely makes sure it is sufficiently applied. Which any cop should do. Cops don't shoot to wound, either. You deploy the solution in the best manner for it to be effective. And for all your whining, notice that none of the kids move after the first blast of spray. Most don't move after the second blast. The whole point is getting them to a state of compliance, and they are being defiant. This is what they wanted to happen, so they provoked it.

In a civilized society, the offenders would be removed without being pepper sprayed.

I wholeheartedly agree! In a civilized society, these kids would have obeyed the eviction orders. In a civilized society that respected itself, that expected grown-up behavior from people who are technically adults, these kids might not have been out doing this stupid nonsense. Heck, they might have even cared enough in 2008 to want a qualified candidate for President rather than an unqualified con-man that made them feel good about themselves for voting for him. They might care about politics and economics enough to learn more than what Jon Stewart jokes about every night. They might learn too look past their own shallow selves and their own first-world problems. They might actually believe that they are inheriting a country that has worked out pretty well with some established systems and rules and ideas, rather than thinking it all needs to 'change'; or at the very least they might come up with better ideas than ones that failed and murdered millions of people last century. Society would expect them to do so and properly dismiss their activities as the self-involved stupidity of youth, rather than pretending rich kids with iPhones are the next Civil Rights movement.

The pepper spray shouldn't have been necessary. But it was. And you only have one group of people to blame for that.

The cop in the video, by the way, actually threatened to shoot the students if they don't move away

Sure he did.

Comment Re:Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement (Score 1) 566

Um, no. Watch the whole video. At the end the cops are huddled together in a small group, surrounded by activists. The activists then chant in unison (in that creepy echo-chamber thing they do) about how they will give the cops a 'moment of peace' and 'allow them to leave'. It is clear who the aggressors are in that crowd, which is why that part is excised from all the video everyone's getting angry about. And while I'm sure you're qualified to tell us when the use of pepper spray is appropriate, after they ignored the notice they received TWO WEEKS ago telling them to vacate, they were given a 24-hour notice that if they did not voluntarily leave they would be forcibly removed. Pepper spray was listed as one of the options for their removal. You can make excuses for these thugs all you want, but they refused to obey the law, disrupted campus faculty meetings and classes, made threats towards faculty members, refused to allow students to attend class, spread garbage and feces and urine, and generally acted as lawless people. The police did exactly what the police are supposed to do in a society of laws: remove the offenders with minimal force. The only reason they are being vilified is this nonsensical, juvenile, anti-establishment BS that morons keep foisting on us.

Comment Re:Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement (Score 1) 566

Actually, fire is forceful. Acid would probably qualify as well since they both inflict permanent harm. But thanks for playing the definitions game with me, and ignoring all the salient facts: that these kids were given notice, refused to leave, then surrounded the cops who were trying to evict them, and after the heavily edited pepper spray video, threatened the cops then 'allowed' them to leave without violence.

Comment Just Some Facts (Score 1) 566

- They were given a letter two weeks before the pepper spraying indicating that they were being evicted - They continued to disrupt normal campus business - Several faculty meetings had to be canceled because of threats to faculty members by OWS - Students were unable to attend classes because OWS refused to vacate the premises - They were given an order in writing that indicated that if they did not leave within 24 hours, they would be forcibly removed, and pepper spray was listed as one of the options So, yeah. They wanted this to happen. It happened. Blame the correct people: the morons who have been blocking up business and schools and tying up traffic because of their childish temper tantrum.

Comment Re:Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement (Score 0) 566

Actually, it's both. There is no 'physical force' involved, ergo it does not qualify as 'violence'. Now, it IS something that someone on the receiving end undoubtedly does not want. But that's why you listen to the police and move when you're told. Those kids knew the pepper spray was coming, which is why they didn't move. They wanted their video online to rally the idiots, just like that 84-year-old professional protester in Seattle with milk on her face pretending it was pepper spray and she was individually targeted by Officer McSadist. You're being played.

Comment Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement (Score 0, Flamebait) 566

The sheer inanity of the OWS crowd is only one-upped by the people attempting to analogize a bunch of spoiled rich kids demanding more 'free' stuff (and refusing to accept responsibility for their tragic error in 2008) to actual freedom-fighters of America's past and the world's present. You know how these kids like to chant "the world is watching"? Yeah, the world is watching ... and laughing. All around the world we are the laughingstock of poorer nations. And by the way: pepper spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement. The purpose of pepper spray is exactly that for which it has been used: to force compliance from people who have been given every chance to voluntarily comply. In addition to needing education in economics and politics, it seems our kids now need education in basic rights. You do not have the 'right' to occupy public property indefinitely, or private property at all.

Comment Re:The Private, Free Market (Score 1) 188

"Health insurance has been 'free market' for ages in the US and it's in a terrible state of corruption"

It amazes me how the most ignorant speak with such assurance.

Health care in the US is anything but a free market. Most state governments have larded on mandates - insisting that companies cover IVF and alcohol counseling, for example. Government has also forbidden interstate competition in health insurance. Further, private insurance policies are charged an extra premium to cover the shortfall in what Medicare and Medicaid pay providers. This is only a fraction of the government's long-arm reach into our health care system.

If health care were a truly free market, quality would go up and prices would go down. Because just like every other mostly-free to fully-free market (such as auto insurance, cell phones, utilities, trucking) small companies would be able to compete with the big ones like Kaiser and Blue Cross to provide low-cost, custom-tailored health care and insurance. Practitioners would be able to handle most of the non-critical care needs.

How do we know this? Because that's how things used to be. Prior to government stepping into health care, strangely everyone in America could afford health care when they needed it. The 'crisis' in health care (of course there is no 'crisis', just problems we could easily fix if people stopped demagoguing) arose when government tried to create a socialist utopia. Same as in the housing market.

But again, don't let reality stop you. Don't let the fact that our health care system, with all its flaws, still beats every socialized system in the world. Ignore all the problems with socialized systems around the world (dying in the hallways, giving birth in cabs, massive infections, lack of doctors and beds, etc). You have an agenda to push!

"You've been brainwashed by corporate marketing"

It's funny how your type always fall back to this nonsensical, childish argumentation on every subject from health care to 'global warming': any alternative viewpoint, no matter how factually correct, is the result of 'corporate brainwashing'. Sure is easier to say that than actually defend your beliefs, isn't it?

Maybe you should look at how much money these 'corporate brainwashers' give the political party who is trying to force through socialized medicine. Now, why would they do that? Because government in return will hand them a monopoly. Follow the money.

"It's not simply a 'free' vs 'controlled' argument"

Oh, it most certainly is. In fact, that's the entire founding idea of our country.

"Because any system, no matter how perfect on paper, is fundamentally flawed by human operation."

Funny how you just can't see that this applies even more greatly to government, where there is no free market to regulate human flaw.

I don't blame you. I blame the horribly flawed educational system that produced you.

Comment Re:The Private, Free Market (Score 1) 188

"It's because the "free market" is blind to long-term goals, settling for short-term benefits even when it undermines the longterm."

Boy, someone has been effectively brainwashed.

Long-term goals are a product of short-term goals. The free market thus guides us best towards long-term goals, and only at the consent of the people to whom it is providing service. Central planning uses the lure of a long-term goal to be utterly ineffective and to actively thwart reaching either long- or short-term goals. And it is controlled by ideological potentates.

"A 'free market' has only one logical conclusion: monopoly"

Not at all. But monopoly is certainly and provably the result of government interference. In fact, the best way to ensure a monopoly is to get government involved. One can plainly see this in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's why Big Pharma is on-board with ObamaCare. The one thing that corporations most fear is a free market where they have to face opposition. They want the government running things because government officials can be paid off to help them maintain their monopolies.

Count the number of monopolies that existed with less government restriction and compare it to the ones that exist with more. What did big government with its thousands of regulations do to bust up Microsoft? Nothing.

But this time we'll "get it right", right?

"The US doesn't have a free market"

Something I stated in a previous reply. However, the aspects of our market that are free are where all the innovation comes from. The controlled parts are where stagnation and decline come from. This is the best argument for creating a more free market.

"consider how your stance is equally ideologically blind."

But I'm not blind. I see results and I determine to what ideological position those results lead. You, however, continue to sell the same socialist nonsense that has been proven wrong every time it is tried, which is not only hilarious because of the psychotic nature of it in practice, but because you cannot see what is right in front of your face:

If people are so inherently flawed that a FREE market may lead to monopoly, what is the guaranteed result of a CONTROLLED market run by those same people?

If controlled markets are the answer to everything, why do free-market societies always outperform controlled-market societies?

Do you even think?

Comment Re:The Private, Free Market (Score 1) 188

That is the most ridiculous, trite, non-argument I have ever heard. The fact that you make such an idiotic argument means you're either mendacious or ignorant. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. So let me clarify with an analogy.

Let us say Joe is a member of a baseball team. He is the only member to have achieved his status through skill and hard work. Everyone else on the team is provided by some external entity based upon criteria unrelated to success in the sport. Needless to say, his team loses a lot of games.

But one day Joe is at bat and he knocks the ball out of the park. He's a hero - he won the game! Expecting accolades, Joe heads back to the dugout. Instead he is met by someone like you, who presents him with two greetings:

1. Hey Joe! The fact that you won obviously means that 'the system works'!
2. Hey Joe! If you won this game, obviously it's your fault we lost all the other games!

Both are, of course, ridiculous and fallacious conclusions.

To bring it home: this result is an example of a free market operating where it can in America. And while yes, free markets do have problems, to claim that 'anything bad that happens is also the free market' requires you to be blinded by the incredible level of government intervention in the American market. It also requires you to ignore the uninterrupted stream of failures and catastrophes caused by government intervention, including but not limited to the housing boom and bust and the ongoing financial crisis.

Rational people are capable of evaluating these results objectively and giving points to the free market where it succeeds and points to government intervention where it succeeds. People with a grasp of history and basic math realize that the former is a much more common occurrence than the latter.

I will never understand this kneejerk, uninformed reaction people like you have to free markets. You're surrounded by the benefits of this system every single day and yet all you can offer are dirty looks and words of dismissal.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah