Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 30, 2014, 01:58:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82679 Posts in 2251 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left  (Read 38878 times)
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #150 on: November 14, 2011, 04:44:31 PM »

 Woof,
 It's only wrong if Republicans alone are doing it. tongue


J. Scott Applewhite  /  AP
Print Font:
A television report that questioned whether members of Congress are making investment decisions based on insider information drew a heated response from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of those highlighted.
A report on CBS' "60 minutes" on Sunday said Pelosi was among several lawmakers — including Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner — who had profited from transactions that raised the possibility of conflicts of interest.
The report said Pelosi and her husband participated in a 2008 IPO involving Visa even as legislation that would have hurt credit card companies was being considered in the House. Pelosi was speaker at the time and the legislation failed to pass in that session.
In an exchange with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, Pelosi denied that the transaction was a conflict of interest. And in a statement on Sunday, after the show aired, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the report failed to note her work for the rights of credit cardholders.
"Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi," Hammill said.
It is not illegal for members of Congress to buy stocks or make land deals based on information they're privy to through their positions. And the profits are often substantial.
A recent study of House members' stock transactions showed them beating the markets' return by about 6 percentage points annually from 1985 to 2001. A 2004 study involving the same authors showed senators beating the market by 12 percentage points annually.
Advertise | AdChoices



Those results "are way outside the boundaries of random luck," said the studies' lead author, Alan Ziobrowski, a business professor at Georgia State University.
Ziobrowski said Congress is preoccupied with three things: regulation, taxes and the federal budget.
"If you know a piece of legislation is coming down the line and you can trade in that, you can make a lot of money," he told msnbc.com.
The "60 Minutes" piece was all the buzz on Capitol Hill on Monday, where House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) declined to say whether he would support a law making it illegal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading.
Other political news of note
Supreme Court to take up Obama health care law
Taking up its most important case in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the legal challenges to the Obama health care law.
Congress poised to create new tax break
Gingrich: 'this is most volatile race in my lifetime'
Pelosi fires back at report on 'insider trading'
The golden age of opposition research
"I'm not familiar with the details of the Stock Act, but I know it was mentioned in the program last night. My sense is that it requires more disclosure, I'm for increased disclosure, if there is any sense of impropriety or any appearance of that, we should take extra steps that the public's cynicism is addressed. We are not here to be hiding anything. I've always been very supportive of full disclosure," he said at a pen-and-pad discussion with reporters.
Cantor also dodged a question about whether members of Congress should be subject to the same insider trading laws as the ones restricting the finance professionals.
"I'm not as familiar with what triggers insider trading and the specifics of the laws. What I can tell you is that we are accountable to our constituents and we should be providing the kinds of information that would satisfy any kind of perception of impropriet," he said. "Many members don't actively trade in their portfolios, I don't. Full disclosure though can satisfy some of the questions; we should put that in place."
Pelosi's spokesman, Hammill, said the CBS report left out critical information. He said the legislation in question was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 3, 2008, the last day the House was in session before the election break that year and a time when the House was grappling with TARP. He noted that the next Congress passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights along with the Dodd-Frank legislation, which he called "a  stronger, more direct approach to addressing swipe fees."
Hammill also criticized CBS' use of one source for the report, conservative author and editor Peter Schweizer.
"It is very troubling that '60 Minutes' would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career of out attacking Democrats," Hammill said.
Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and is the editor of Bigpeace.com, a website focused on national security founded by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.
In a follow-up story on Monday, CBS News said they had verified every piece of information included in the report.
CBS noted that the "60 Minutes" report also discussed transactions of Boehner and another Republican, Rep. Spencer Bachus, who denied any impropriety.
Boehner said he leaves daily transactions to a broker. "I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account," Boehner told "60 Minutes."
NBC News' Luke Russert and Frank Thorp contributed to this report.
Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #151 on: November 14, 2011, 07:18:22 PM »

This corruption is just so incredible.  This is only one more reason OWS should be in Washington not Wall St.
Yet because the are ALL selfish what can America do for me crats they avoid anything that would harm the Brockster.  They are demogagocrats.

In any case the corruption of both crats and cans in the Houses is just so blantant.  And anyone wonders why people are fed up with both?  I don't see how the "mature" or "grown up" Cans as Scarborough and like Cans calls themselves are not simply protecting their turf.

The real Conservatives are correct in wanting to clean house.  Unfortunately that will never happen.  I have actually gotten to like Bachmann more and more each debate since the vaccine fiasco.  Her appeal is not broad among the populace but hopefully with more experience and fine tuning she will one day catch on.  Her political future looks bright.   Just not this time around.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #152 on: November 15, 2011, 07:47:35 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-left-occupy-what/2011/11/14/gIQAngZHON_blog.html

Posted at 08:00 AM ET, 11/15/2011
Occupy movement deteriorates

By Jennifer Rubin


The left-wing punditiocracy’s fascination with the Occupy Wall Street and its progeny movements has declined in inverse proportion to the upswing in violence, mayhem and public filth stemming from those about whom the left was cooing only a couple weeks ago.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier posted this:
 
While the Occupy DC movement has been here since October 6, 2011 and the Metropolitan Police Department supports an individual’s right to assemble, we do not condone nor will we tolerate violence or aggression. Prior demonstrations had been peaceful. However, the aggressive nature of Friday’s demonstration prompted the Metropolitan Police Department to adjust tactics as needed to ensure safety.

MPD will continue to protect life (residents, visitors, protestors — everyone) and property as warranted. The administration will do what’s necessary to maintain order in the city and to ensure that everyone is safe.

Five people that we are aware of were injured. That is no longer a peaceful protest. Demonstrators have become increasingly confrontational and violent toward uninvolved bystanders and motorists. Demonstrators have also jeopardized the safety of their own children by using them in blockades. The following videos highlight such actions by demonstrators:
 
Intentionally Blocking Traffic/putting little children in the street
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpDsogOy2IU

Using little children to blockade the door
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CguFPFJAqlA

Demonstrators blockade doors and injure attendees
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prgkEAuSQT0

Blockading people from leaving the Convention Center
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXf56JhTbs

Regarding the traffic incident and allegations of hit and run, MPD is investigating and is seeking any evidence and witness statements.

Hmm. Doesn’t sound like a bunch of Jeffersonian democrats seeking political redress.
 
No more are the liberal pundits interesting in measuring the level of support for what they only weeks ago characterized as a genuine political movement. Ignored are the reports of sexual assaults. No mention is made among the OWS cheerleaders of the latest effort to re-establish order in Oakland, Calif., and Burlington, Vt. Huffington Post at least reported the facts:
 
Police clad in riot gear and armed with tear gas cleared out Oakland’s anti-Wall Street encampment early Monday, the latest law enforcement crackdown amid complaints around the country of health and safety hazards at protest camps.
 
The raid at the Occupy Oakland camp, one of the largest and most active sites in the movement, came a day after police in Portland, Ore., arrested more than 50 people while shutting down its camp amid complaints of drug use and sanitation issues.
 
Police in Burlington, Vt., also evicted protesters after a man fatally shot himself last week inside a tent.
 
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the left blogosphere, which cheered the Occupy encampments and chided conservatives who had the temerity to point out their disagreeable elements.
 
Funny how the left’s assertion that this was a grand political awakening has now gone down the memory hole. In their frenzy to find a grassroots movement on the left and in their insistence that the public really did support these people, the left-leaning elites tried mightily to ignore the instances of anti-Semitism, violence and fouling of public places. When that became impossible, they simply chose to ignore the whole disgusting mess. Had they been candid from the start about what the Occupy protesters looked like, sounded like and believed, the liberal punditocracy might not be embarrassed (is that possible?), or, at the very least, anxious that someone might call its members out for their immensely dishonest portrayal of the Occupy phenomenon.

 By Jennifer Rubin  |  08:00 AM ET, 11/15/2011

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #153 on: November 20, 2011, 04:39:05 PM »


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/20/the-1-occupation/

The 1% Occupation
 

posted at 4:00 pm on November 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
 





It’s getting pretty cold in New York City these days, and with the courts ruling that protesters can no longer pitch tents in Zuccotti Park, the Occupiers are in for considerable discomfort if they continue.  Actually, that’s only true for, er, 99% of the Occupiers.  The 1% that comprise their leadership apparently have other ideas about what form a protest against The Man should take (via JWF):
 

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.
 
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
 
“Tents are not for me,” he confessed, when confronted in the sleek black lobby of the Washington Street hotel where sources described him as a “repeat” guest.
 
Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.
 
Dutro decided to check into the hotel because he heard that he might have a little trouble on Thursday getting to the protest.  Why?  Because of, um, the protesters:
 

“I knew everything was going to be a clusterf–k in the morning,” he told The Post, alluding to Occupy’s own disruption plans. “How would I get over the bridge when they were shutting it down?”
 
And Dutro isn’t just one of the rank and file out on the street, either.  Guess what his job at OWS happens to be?
 

Meanwhile, Dutro, 35, one of only a handful of OWS leaders in charge of the movement’s $500,000 in donations, checked in on Wednesday, the night after police emptied Zuccotti Park.
 
While hundreds of his rebel brethren scrambled to find shelter in church basements, Dutro chose the five-star, 58-story hotel, with its lush rooms and 350-count Egyptian cotton sheets. He lives only a short taxi ride away in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
 
Two weeks ago, Fritz Tucker warned about the hijacking of OWS by the Spokes Council, a small group that plotted to seize control of the funds and usurp the General Assembly.  Dutro claims that the money came out of his own pocket for the expensive hotel room, but it’s at least curious that one of the few money men of the movement turns up at one of the swankier downtown hotels.  It’s even more curious, given the Huffington Post description of Dutro four weeks ago:
 

“The vast majority of the people here don’t understand how money works,” said Pete Dutro, a core member of the finance group who spends five hours a day in Zuccotti Park handling petty cash requests and handing out money for General Assembly- approved expenditures. “But we have real financial needs. Not everyone wants to barter and trade.” …
 
Dutro, a 36-year-old finance student at New York University currently on leave from classes and the former manager of a tattoo parlor, didn’t want to get involved with the finance group, but he saw that his experience handling money and running a business could be useful.
 
Does that sound like a man who can throw away $500 on a hotel room when he could just go across the bridge to sleep in his own bed?  Perhaps — those student loans come in pretty handy at times — but maybe the GA should give a few up twinkles to an audit.
 
The best irony of all?  The Occupiers have thrown a great deal of vitriol at the economic policies of the Bush administration.  Landing in the lap of luxury at the W Hotel doesn’t exactly sound like a protest, though.  It sounds an awful lot like a further extension of OWS as a practical demonstration of George Orwell’s fears in Animal Farm.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5969


« Reply #154 on: November 20, 2011, 09:29:54 PM »

The park bench sounds good but the guy prefers the honeymoon suite with the Jacuzzi for the occupation.  I'm waiting for Occupy Vail, and the powder in the trees at Steamboat.  What can you really protest when the cameras aren't running anyway.  The rich guy has every right to sympathize with the movement, oppose special treatment for the connected.  Jump right in.  It should not be an us vs. them question, it is right vs wrong.  Is money legitimately earned? Is it treated the same as everyone else?  Let's quit the blind attacks on wealth, let's quit the religious attacks on wealth, let's get off the equal outcomes fantasy, end the favors trading business and focus on equal treatment under the law. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #155 on: November 20, 2011, 11:18:28 PM »

Doug,

That would clash with the actual intent behind OWS.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5969


« Reply #156 on: November 21, 2011, 07:48:10 AM »

"That would clash with the actual intent behind OWS."

Yes but his situation calls the question perfectly.  Are you against the special treatment and bailouts of wallstreeters or are you against the freedoms inherent in capitalistic wealth?  Without the freedoms of capitalism, the $700 room would never have been built, cleaned or available to him.  The right to charge more, to make more money and to pay more for quality are all part of the capitalistic principle of allocating scarce resources based on price. Those shivering outside should take notice. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #157 on: November 21, 2011, 08:08:48 AM »

"Those shivering outside should take notice."

That would require a degree of intelligence not in evidence amongst the OWS masses. Useful idiots for Soros and others.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #158 on: November 21, 2011, 10:02:39 AM »

The passive aggressive I am going to get in your face nature of OWS is typical of the types of people who crowd it.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to take control over public or private areas and stop usual course of freedom for everyone else.

Does freedom of speech mean not just opening one's big mouth and saying wahtever one wants is okay if you sit in the middle of the road and block everyone else and then when the police come, just dare them to do anything which when they do use any physical means than turn around and call it police burtality, ham it up for MSNBC cameras.

Did any one see CNN calling it police brutality when an officer maced such a group of passive aggressive personality disordered types sitting in a row doing exactly this?

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #159 on: November 21, 2011, 01:29:19 PM »

What is the other side of the story?  Were these people blocking something?  Were they asked to not block the sidewalk?

"their right to peaceful protest".   MSM is flaming this.

police chief on leave after pepper spraying
By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press – 1 hour ago 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The president of the University of California system said he was "appalled" at images of protesters being doused with pepper spray and plans an assessment of law enforcement procedures on all 10 campuses, as the police chief and two officers were placed on administrative leave.

"Free speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history," UC President Mark G. Yudof said in a statement Sunday in response to the spraying of students sitting passively at UC Davis. "It is a value we must protect with vigilance."

Yudof said it was not his intention to "micromanage our campus police forces," but he said all 10 chancellors would convene soon for a discussion "about how to ensure proportional law enforcement response to non-violent protest."

Protesters from Occupy Sacramento planned to travel to nearby Davis on Monday for a noon rally in solidarity with the students, the group said in a statement.

UC Davis said early Monday in a news release that it was necessary to place police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave to restore trust and calm tensions. The school refused to identify the two officers who were place on administrative leave but one was a veteran of many years on the force and the other "fairly new" to the department, Spicuzza earlier told The Associated Press. She would not elaborate further because of the pending
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #160 on: November 21, 2011, 05:07:48 PM »

This is why I am done with working patrol. Perhaps with law enforcement altogether.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #161 on: November 21, 2011, 05:50:58 PM »

Police officers are damned either way.  They enforce the law with people who are not cooperating then they are accused of "brutality".  They don't do anything then they are blamed for not doing anything.

CNN was all over that picture with the Democrat anchors asking the parade of guests "isn't that police brutality?'

The MSM is out of control.  THEY are trying to set the agenda and make news of non news.   I hope most people who see this see it for what it is - a Democrat party ploy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5969


« Reply #162 on: November 21, 2011, 08:02:53 PM »

"This is why I am done with working patrol. Perhaps with law enforcement altogether."

Their loss, our gain.  )
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #163 on: November 21, 2011, 10:39:51 PM »

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/were-uc-davis-police-justified-in.html

Monday, November 21, 2011
Were the UC Davis Police Justified in Pepper-Spraying Students?
That's the query from Wordsmith, at Flopping Aces.

Wordsmith has a 15-minute video, which includes almost 5 minutes of footage leading up to the pepper spray incident. The students were not violent, but they were being told to leave. And when police tell you to leave you leave. All of the progressive outrage is pretty overblown. But hey, no doubt it helps the cause to have police crack down. It's a "police state," dontcha know? And the university earns itself a public relations nightmare. Investigations are coming, which drags out the drama. See New York Times, "California University Puts Officers Who Used Pepper Spray on Leave." And at KCRA-TV Sacramento, "Statewide Investigation After Officers Pepper Spray Student Protesters: Two Officers Placed On Administrative Leave, University Police Say." And from the comments there:
Why are they asking for police presence if they are going to nail the police officers on every move they make?
That's a good question. It's not like UC officials were indifferent to possible outbreaks of violence. See last week at Los Angeles Times, for example, "UC regents cancel meeting, cite security threats":
Fearing potentially violent disruptions, University of California regents on Monday canceled a meeting scheduled for this week in San Francisco, while UC and Cal State students prepared for demonstrations Tuesday at campuses across the state.

The UC board had planned to hold its regular bi-monthly meeting Wednesday and Thursday at UC San Francisco's Mission Bay campus but postponed the session after what officials termed credible threats.

University police had received reports that "rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with UC public safety officers" were planning to join otherwise peaceful protests at the meeting, according to a statement by regents Chairwoman Sherry Lansing, Vice Chairman Bruce Varner and UC President Mark G. Yudof. "Ensuring public safety must be a top priority."

And recall that the concerns are not new. It's been a state of siege at the UC for the past few years: "Berkeley Chancellor's Home Attacked by Torch-Bearing Mob: Governor Decries 'Terrorism'; Activists Pledge, 'Burn Every Rich Man's House to the Ground'!"

Posted by Donald Douglas at 9:00 AM
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5969


« Reply #164 on: November 21, 2011, 11:22:09 PM »

Forget about finding a message.  We need more Cowbell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvhAq1DV5wU
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #165 on: November 21, 2011, 11:36:20 PM »

While I agree it's a bit overblown, the post acknowledges that "the students were not violent".  Being told to leave, and not leaving is not necessarily grounds for pepper spraying students on campus.  It was a huge mistake. Obviously.

Perhaps more important, this is (we have discussed before) just Campus Police not the City of Davis Police Department.  Campus Police work for and are to obey the University's Policies and it's Management's direction on campus - period.  They are employees of the Campus.  The Campus Police Chief's Boss, the Davis University President, and her UC boss, both determined that the Campus Police exceeded their authority given the circumstances.  The officer's were suspended (probably with full pay unlike if they worked for a private company). 

And probably they will be reinstated.  If it was a private company, and they were private employees, and disobeyed corporate policy (they disobey the Davis and UC Administration Policy using Pepper Spray without authority) they would be probably be fired and given nothing.  They exceeded their authority; it is not their position as a staff employee of the campus to make policy or to use force unless authorized or necessary to protect themselves.  Only Management can make that call.  Just like a clerk at hamburger place who is fired for bringing a gun to work. That's management's (UC) job to make those rules and decisions.  It's management's choice, not the campus employee's decision.

I usually agree with you CCP, but I'm a little surprised.  Imagine if your receptionist asked a patient and his family to leave your lobby, but the patient refused, however the patient was non violent. non threatening, just annoying and uncooperative.  He and his family just sat there.  What would you say if your receptionist, without being threatened in any way, then pulled out her Pepper Spray and attacked the entire family just to clear your lobby?  Causing damage to the individuals.  Wouldn't you feel a little guilty given the circumstances?  Was Pepper Spray appropriate?  As Management, wouldn't you like to have know before your receptionist Pepper Spayed Patients without justifiable cause and if appropriate, require your approval in advance excluding the employee being physically threatened? 

They exceeded their authority and are being appropriately chastised.  It's embarrassing for the campus and the entire UC System.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #166 on: November 22, 2011, 09:54:20 AM »

JDN I hear you.

But I disagree with everything you say.

This is a set up.

"Being told to leave, and not leaving is not necessarily grounds for pepper spraying students on campus.  It was a huge mistake. Obviously."

They were warned.  I am not sympathetic.  But the University is going to be passive and not back the campus police.  So we will not likely get the whole story.  Just the liberal side of it.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #167 on: November 22, 2011, 10:09:13 AM »

The President of Davis clearly stated that the Campus Police did not have authority to use Pepper Spray without her consent and it was not given.
They disobeyed causing problems for the University, the UC University System, and the University President.

CCP; I think my analogy in your office was good.  If a receptionist took violent action without your authority, (remember she wasn't threatened) causing harm to non violent individuals and because of her actions your business is threatened your morals and ethics are questioned, etc. what would you think of that receptionist?  I bet you would fire her on the spot.

Mind you, I am not deeply sympathetic to the protestors.  I'm focusing on the inappropriate and unauthorized use of force.  That's not a liberal story, that's just wrong.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #168 on: November 22, 2011, 10:22:26 AM »

I'm willing to bet that UC-Davis PD has a use of force policy that does not require the permission of the UC Davis president.

Again, California University Police Officers are CA POST certfied peace officers with the same training, powers and authority as any other California Police Officer.

In the commonly used continuum of force, OC spray is on the low end, sometimes before the use of soft empty hand on non-compliant subjects.

Failure to obey a lawful command of a peace officer isn't just "irritating", it's illegal and an arrestable offense.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #169 on: November 22, 2011, 10:36:03 AM »

**An example of a continuum of force policy

RANGE OF RESPONSE CONTINUUM:

1. Level 1 - Officer Presence:
Sublevels = Standing, Walking, Running, Canine, and/or Equine.
Compliant subjects are those individuals who offer no verbal or physical
resistance to the deputy’s commands and demonstrate their cooperation by
immediately responding to directions.

2. Level 2 - Verbal Commands:
Sublevels = Whisper, Conversation, Shout, and/or Canine.
Passive resistant subjects are those individuals that refuse to comply with
commands but are not attempting to physically prevent or defeat the deputy’s
commands or contact controls.

3. Level 3 - Control and Restraint:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, Restraints, OC Spray, Canine, Equine, and/or
Electronics.
Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others.

4. Level 4 - Chemical Agents: (normally used by SWAT and SRT)
Sublevels = Hand Held, Thrown, and/or Propelled.

5. Level 5- Temporary Incapacitation:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, Electronics, Canine, Equine.
Combative subjects are those individuals who attempt to defeat a deputy’s
compliance techniques in that they are resistant, combative and overtly
attempting to overpower the deputy.

6. Level 6 - Deadly Force:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, and/or Firearms (warning shots are not allowed).
Deadly force assaults are any assaults where the deputy has reason to believe the
subject’s actions are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #170 on: November 22, 2011, 10:55:23 AM »

Actually, the University President was quite clear; the officers did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

And while they may well be "certified" police officers (I have no interest in returning to that discussion) they report to and serve the School.  They are employees of the School.
It would seem to me that disobeying a campus police officer to disburse is only "illegal" and an "arrestable offense" on Campus if the School President and School Policy says it is;
the President sets the policy and rules; not staff.  However, whether it is an arrestable offense or not, my point is that campus police did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

In response to your most recent post which may or may not be applicable to a campus situation.  Probably it doesn't apply since the President clearly said the Campus Police did not
have authority to use Pepper Spray....  The students did not resort to any physical violence nor were the officers in danger.

Level 3.   "Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands
and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others."
 

The students neither physically resisted a deputy's control techniques nor were they a physical threat to others.  Even you previous post focuses on "non violent" protest.
Use of Pepper Spray against passive resistance on a campus is simply inappropriate especially when not authorized.

Further, I am willing to guess that on a school campus the range of forceful response against students is more limited than your general post.  And it should be more limited.



« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 11:02:12 AM by JDN » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #171 on: November 22, 2011, 11:22:13 AM »

Actually, the University President was quite clear; the officers did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

**The prez is in butt-covering mode and it's doubtful she anymore of a legal grasp of the topic than you do.

And while they may well be "certified" police officers (I have no interest in returning to that discussion)

**Because you are wrong, as usual when you opine on anything related to law enforcement.

they report to and serve the School.  They are employees of the School.

**They are law enforcement officers employed by the State of California, just as CHP Officers and California DOJ Special Agents are, as an example.

It would seem to me that disobeying a campus police officer to disburse is only "illegal" and an "arrestable offense" on Campus if the School President and School Policy says it is;

**You would be wrong. California's Penal Code determines what the law is.

the President sets the policy and rules; not staff.  However, whether it is an arrestable offense or not, my point is that they did NOT have authority to use force.

**Again, Peace Officers enforce the laws as made by the state legislature and signed by the governor, in doing so, they are empowered to use force to enforce those laws. That's why it's called Law EnFORCEment.

In response to your most recent post which may or may not be applicable to a campus situation.  Probably it doesn't apply since the President clearly said the Campus Police did not
have authority to use Pepper Spray....  Nor did the students resort to any physical violence.

**If you start at the low end of the continuum of force, you move upwards until you gain compliance. If the officer's presence and verbal commands are ignored, then you move to the next level. In addition, the officer uses the force needed to address the situation. If going directly into a gunfight, a officer is not required to try verbal de-escalation first before shooting an armed assailant. You are not going to reach into a non-compliant crowd to go hands on for tactical/officer safety reasons.

Level 3.  "Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands
and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others."


The students neither physically resisted a deputy's control techniques nor were they a physical threat to others. 

**If they were refusing an order to disperse, that's a crime. In order to enforce those laws, force can be used, including spraying the crowd with OC.

Even you previous post focuses on "non violent" protest.

**And as we've seen, they can get violent quite quickly. The job of law enforcement isn't to fight fair, it's to win.

Further, I am willing to guess that on a school campus the range of forceful response against students is more limited than your post..

**Feel free to get UC-Davis PD's use of force policy and post it here.




Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #172 on: November 22, 2011, 11:44:14 AM »

***Imagine if your receptionist asked a patient and his family to leave your lobby, but the patient refused, however the patient was non violent. non threatening, just annoying and uncooperative.  He and his family just sat there.  What would you say if your receptionist, without being threatened in any way, then pulled out her Pepper Spray and attacked the entire family just to clear your lobby?  Causing damage to the individuals.  Wouldn't you feel a little guilty given the circumstances?  Was Pepper Spray appropriate?  As Management, wouldn't you like to have know before your receptionist Pepper Spayed Patients without justifiable cause and if appropriate, require your approval in advance excluding the employee being physically threatened?****

Your analogy is a bit ridiculous but OK.  I'll give a go.  Suppose a group of students walk in my office and sit with arms locked accross the floor and refuse to vacate the premises.  I would then call the police and hope they would have these people removed.  Suppose they refuse to leave based on verbal commands.  Then what?  Since they are not violent I should just throw up my arms and agree it is their right to freedom of speech and let it go?

A receptionist is not the same as a police officer and might be subject to arrest in NJ for using pepper spray. 

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #173 on: November 22, 2011, 11:55:06 AM »

I'll again point out that depending on Dept. policy, OC spray can be before going hands on, because there is a lesser risk of injury to both the officer and the offender from OC.

Unlike CN or CS gas, OC is actually legally classified as a food additive. It's the same compound that makes salsa or curry hot.


Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #174 on: November 22, 2011, 12:10:36 PM »

I'm not avoiding the valid points made, I'm just tied up for the
rest of the day. I'll try to get back tonight or tomorrow.     smiley
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5969


« Reply #175 on: November 22, 2011, 12:26:26 PM »

CCP's answer make sense.  If they block your business and you report it to authorities you would expect them to be removed at some through a series of negotiations and/or increasingly stronger actions taken by LE.

GM:  "Unlike CN or CS gas, OC is actually legally classified as a food additive. It's the same compound that makes salsa or curry hot."

Like a waiter, they could just say they got their order wrong. ) 

Waterboarding is done only with a healthy, all-natural product as well.   wink



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #176 on: November 22, 2011, 12:31:52 PM »

"Waterboarding is done only with a healthy, all-natural product as well."

Hell, with the right marketing, it might become a hot new trend for spas!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #177 on: November 22, 2011, 12:35:25 PM »

* I'm just tied up for the
rest of the day*

I cannot resist this one:

You mean you are on Wall Street with fellow "revolutionaries" elbow to elbow in front of Rupert Murdoch's NY office avoiding a bath?

Sound like a lot of fun.  Oh its so great to be part of history and of 'something'.  And the chicks are freebirds too  grin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #178 on: November 22, 2011, 05:16:31 PM »

As best as I can tell in this case the question presented if whether the Campus Police needed to get permission from the President to follow the standard posted by GM.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #179 on: November 22, 2011, 09:12:42 PM »

As best as I can tell in this case the question presented if whether the Campus Police needed to get permission from the President to follow the standard posted by GM.

I don't think that is the question.  The question is whether it was an appropriate response.

I'm not sure this subject is worthy of a lot of time, but.....

The standard posted by GM was typical of police departments; for example the LAPD.  Schools are different.

While GM may say campus police are employed by the State of CA and are similar to CHP, that's not quite true.  I'ld say they are more like meter maids at best in most cases.
Oh yeah, they too are employed by the State and are similar to the CHP.

Also, did you notice that the Chancellor herself on her own volition decided to suspend the Chief and other Officers?  It looks like they work directly for her.  Nor are they part of the Police Union.
They may well be fired without much recourse.

As far as following the Penal Code, well again the Chancellor makes the decisions (and she did) otherwise the campus police would not have moved against the students.
Campus police exist to serve the School.  They enforce the laws as directed by the Administration.  The students could have stayed there for the rest of the year unless the
Chancellor gave the nod to evict them.

It was an absolute debacle.  I think everyone agrees.

The Police Chief's BOSS, the Chancellor as I pointed out put the Chief and other Officers on Administrative leave.  That says something.  The Chancellor apologized.
That too says something.  the Chancellor is worried about her job because of the inappropriate actions of one of her employees.  That too says something is wrong.

If that's not enough, even the UC Board of Regents apologized.  Does ANYONE who matters think these Officers made the right decision?

As for CCP, what can I say but I wish.  smiley  I can only imagine being "tied up" in Rupert Murdoch's office (it probably does have a bath) and freebirds are always nice.   grin

As for my receptionist example, I understand your point, it's valid, but my point is that Campus Police exist to serve the School Administration.  They are not LAPD.  Campus Police break up parties,
a little stealing, minor car accidents, and a lot of parking tickets.   Like a meter maid, they are much different than your receptionist.   In this case perhaps they should have called the Davis PD.  It would have been handled more professionally with less blowback.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #180 on: November 23, 2011, 04:07:41 AM »

"The standard posted by GM was typical of police departments; for example the LAPD.  Schools are different."

**Says the guy with no training, experience or background in law enforcement. Can you point to any statute, caselaw or policy to support that claim?
 
"Campus Police break up parties,
a little stealing, minor car accidents, and a lot of parking tickets.   Like a meter maid, they are much different than your receptionist.   In this case perhaps they should have called the Davis PD.  It would have been handled more professionally with less blowback."

**Davis PD may not have jurisdiction on the campus, though I'd bet money they have a mutual aid agreement with the University PD. Some agencies, such as the one my wife works for cross-deputizes University Officers with the City PD and County Sheriff's Dept. They respond to calls in those jurisdictions and vice-versa.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Who could forget the Virginia Tech and Columbine school shootings? Certainly not the UNCC Campus Police Department, which is why they say they're doing everything they can to prepare for the worst. UNCC Police Department formed a 13-member SWAT team with special training, special gear, and special tools and weapons.
 
"You can't just sit and wait for something to happen. You have to be ready at a moment's notice," said Lt. Josh Huffman of the UNCC Campus Police and SWAT team. "We can mobilize quickly. We have swat members on each squad, dayshift night shift.” "I think it's very possible something like that could happen on campus," said sophomore Corbin Peters. Most of these students weren't in college yet when the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting happened, but it's something they remember. "It was kind of scary. I wasn't even there and I can only imagine how scary it was for the students," said sophomore Calinda Burrus. So learning their college campus has a SWAT team is very comforting. "A lot can happen in a short period of time. For them to be able to react faster makes me feel safer," said senior Jacob Deaton. Officer Jerry Leocomte patrols the campus every day. "I think it's an essential part of a police department even though you hope it's something you'll never need," Leocomte said. The team trains in campus buildings and dorms to learn the layout so if an incident were to occur, they'd know exactly what to do. "We hope that we never have to be activated. It's not something we look forward to or want to happen, but in the event it does happen, we're ready," said Lt. Huffman.


Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/11/06/2753530/uncc-campus-gets-swat-team.html

Police have arrested a member of the Vagos gang in San Francisco on charges that he killed the president of the San Jose chapter of the Hells Angels.

A University of California San Francisco police sergeant spotted Ernesto Manuel Gonzalez, 53, of San Jose at 8:20 p.m. Thursday and took him into custody. Sparks, Nev., police will come to retrieve him, according to UCSF Police Chief Pamela Roskowski.

Gonzalez is wanted in connection with the killing of Jeffrey "Jethro" Pettigrew, 51, the iconic president of the motorcycle club in San Jose, who also worked for the city's Department of Transportation. Pettigrew was shot in the back four times last Friday at John Ascuaga's Nugget casino in Sparks.

Roskowski said Gonzalez was spotted in a rented 2011 Chevrolet Malibu parked near Treat Street, a block away from Mission Center's campus police headquarters.

Sgt. John Gutierrez of the campus police department was on routine patrol when he saw Gonzalez acting "suspiciously," Roskowski said. Apparently, Gonzalez was leaning over the steering wheel and "shuffling around" in the driver's seat of a car with Washington state license plates.

The sergeant asked for identification, and when he ran Gonzalez's name, realized he was wanted in connection with the Hells Angels homicide.

"We're extremely proud of our actions," Roskowski said. "Sgt. Gutierrez is an outstanding police officer."
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #181 on: November 23, 2011, 09:03:52 AM »

Schools ARE different.  The school sets the rules.  The President/Chancellor is their boss - notice on her authority alone she put the Chief of Police on Administrative Leave plus a few others. Student's safety is paramount.  The Chancellor AND the UC Board of Regents APOLOGIZED for the Campus Police.  Doesn't that tell you something is wrong?  Of course Campus Police are different than the LAPD.  Catching the bad guys is barely on their list although it does happen.  The local college (30,000 students) campus police here don't even carry guns; the priority is giving out parking tickets and traffic control.  Sounds like a Meter Maid, walks like a Meter Maid, must be.....  UNCC has a SWAT team; now that is scary.  Or a joke.  I hope it's a joke.  If something that serious happens I don't want meter maids I want professionals.  Do you really think the UNCC's SWAT team is even close to LAPD's SWAT team?  Make a phone call to the local PD's SWAT team.

As to mutual aid agreements, i.e. responding to emergency calls, well Meter Maids respond too if it's an emergency.  All hands on deck including the cook.  That doesn't make them equal to LAPD.

All that said, campus police do a good job taking care of the school and the students.  But they should never have used Pepper Spray without management direction and authority - they may well lose their jobs for doing so.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #182 on: November 23, 2011, 09:56:26 AM »

a) I have seen apparently substantiated reports that the students had the police SURROUNDED and refused to budge.  Pepper spray seems like a pretty fg reasonable response to me!

b) As for the school president apologizing, , ,  any chance politics and cowardice played a role there?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #183 on: November 23, 2011, 10:21:31 AM »

There is absolutely no indication of any student violence, physical threats, or physical resistance on the part of the students to justify use of force.

As for allowing themselves to be surrounded (if they were) by peaceful non violent students, well that says a lot for the supposedly well trained campus police's tactics.    grin

Cowardice?  Police resorting to use of force when not needed or authorized is cowardice in my opinion.  If you know UC Davis (very good school) this is a quiet idillic college campus; it's not South or East Los Angeles.  These are students, not violent gang members.  From their ivory tower, for the Board of Regents to apologize means something is very wrong.  They don't apologize very often.  As for politics, the Chancellor is not a political appointee nor is she running for office.  I don't know or care if she is republican or democrat. I do think her apology should be accepted, the officers chastised for their actions, and everyone else move on.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #184 on: November 23, 2011, 11:03:43 AM »

"UC Davis' embattled chancellor said campus police officers defied her orders when they used pepper spray on peaceful Occupy protesters last week."

In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Katehi said her office told the school's police department that officers needed to be peaceful when removing protesters.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it.

So the campus police disobeyed a direct order.  Maybe they/should bel be fired. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #185 on: November 23, 2011, 11:18:01 AM »

Surrounding police and blocking their free movement is a big no no.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #186 on: November 23, 2011, 11:24:29 AM »

The campus police disobeyed a direct order.  THAT'S a big no no.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #187 on: November 23, 2011, 11:29:35 AM »

As usual, JDN, you weren't there and don't have the background or experience to make an informed judgement on this.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #188 on: November 23, 2011, 02:09:28 PM »

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

 The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3.   Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors:  the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances.

"In addition, regional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against nonviolent protestors is excessive. "

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #189 on: November 23, 2011, 04:50:16 PM »

http://www.fletc.gov/reference/reports/fletc-journals/FLETC-journal-Fall2006.pdf

Those of us in the law enforcement community
know them by many names, such as Use of Force
Continuum, Use of Force Model, Use of Force Ladder,
or Use of Force Matrix. Regardless of what they are
called, visual models depicting progressive escalation
and de-escalation of force have become a mainstay in
the law enforcement community. There is a legitimate
debate among police trainers, administrators and
attorneys as to whether Use of Force continuums still
serve a vital function in the modern law enforcement
agency. The purpose of this article is not to take sides
on the issue, but rather to examine the facts, and allow
the reader to make an informed decision as to whether
continuums still serve a purpose in their agency.
Use of Force Continuums have been used in law
enforcement training for many years. According to
Bruce Siddle, founder of PPCT Management Systems
and author of “Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge”, the
first Use of Force models were based on early models
found in U.S. Army Military Police Manuals from the
early 1960’s.1 Siddle also indicated that those models
may have been based
on models developed by
France in the mid 1940’s.
According to police
defense expert George
Williams, “in the late
1960s, law enforcement
trainers who sincerely
desired to assist officers
in properly employing
force developed force continuums.”2 The Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) first developed
its own Use of Force Model as a result of the Use
of Force project which began in September 1990.
Regardless of when they were developed, Use of Force
Continuums have been a foundational element of law
enforcement training for the past twenty years.
Whether one is for or against the use of continuums
in training, an objective look at most continuums
will reveal a number of pitfalls that may limit their
usefulness. The most obvious pitfall is that Use of Force
Continuums are not typically based upon the standard
established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham vs.
Connor3. The Graham court established the standard
for Use of Force that applies to all American police
officers, regardless of jurisdiction.
The Graham court
held that Use of Force used by police officers is judged
upon the “objective reasonableness” standard of the
Fourth Amendment and incorporates the concept of
the totality of the circumstances.
In Graham the court
specifically stated “the test of reasonableness under the
Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition
or mechanical application”4, but that is exactly what
Use of Force Continuums attempt to do. Additionally,
most Use of Force Continuums do not address the
concept of the totality
of circumstances.
Most continuums are
structured in such a
way that a specific
subject action equates
to a specific officer
response, regardless
of the totality of
circumstances known to
the officer at the moment force was used. Experienced
law enforcement officers know that Use of Force
incidents do not occur in a vacuum. There are factors
such as known violent history of the suspect, duration
of the action, officer/subject variables, and other facts
that make up the totality of circumstances. Rather than
a specific response to a subject’s actions, there may be
a wide range of reasonable responses from which an
officer may choose.
Another problem is there is no consensus on the
definitions used in the various models. Passive
resistance may mean many different things to many
different officers. One officer may view passive
resistance as a protestor who refuses to stand up, while
another officer perceives that same protestor as actively
resistant. Who is right? Active resistance is generally
defined as threatening an officer;5 shoving, striking,
wrestling with, and even biting an
officer.6 In contrast, passive
resistance is described
by the following
suspect actions: (1)
remaining seated,
refusing to move,
and refusing to bear
weight;7 (2) protestors going
limp, or persons chaining themselves
together and covering their hands with maple syrup
to impede the use of handcuffs;8 (3) protestors
employing lock-down devices that immobilize their
arms and prevent their separation by police, although
the protestors could disengage themselves from the
devices.9 In many instances, continuums define actions
as active resistance which the courts have defined as
passive resistance. These inconsistencies only add to
the confusion an officer may experience when trying
to apply concepts taught by a model in a dynamic Use
of Force incident.
Finally, most Use of Force continuums are just not
practical from an application standpoint. While they
may certainly have benefit in explaining Use of Force
to juries in a sterile, quiet courtroom environment,
they hardly represent the “tense, uncertain and rapidly
evolving”10 circumstances faced by police officers in the
field.
Linear models, progressive models, or whatever
name one may call them, encourage the officer to
try to find the minimal amount of force necessary to
control a subject’s actions. What happens when that
minimal amount of force fails to control the subject?
The officer now has to use even more force to control
the subject, which is likely to lead to more injuries to
both the officer and the subject who is resisting arrest.

At a recent law enforcement trainer’s conference this
analogy was used:
“If there was a fire at your home, would you want
the responding firefighters to attempt to calculate
the minimal amount of water that is necessary to
put out the flames, or would you prefer them to
use the reasonable amount it would take to get
the fire out? If they attempt to use the minimum
amount of water, and it doesn’t work, the fire
will most certainly get worse”11
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #190 on: November 23, 2011, 04:55:44 PM »

**This is who you want to smear, JDN. I know who I want watching my back in a bad situation.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...y-honored.html
 
L.A. NOW
 Southern California -- this just in
 
 
UC Davis officer in pepper-spraying was honored for past feats
 November 21, 2011 | 11:48 am

 Lt. John Pike
 
A UC Davis police officer who reportedly pepper-sprayed student protesters Friday is a former U.S. Marine who has been honored for his campus police work.
 
Lt. John Pike, identified by the UC Davis student newspaper as the officer at the center of the pepper-spray incident, was credited by the university for subduing a UC Davis Medical Center patient in 2006 as she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical, according to a UC Davis news release issued in June 2007.
 
Pike was in a hallway when he saw the patient try to assault one of two officers who were trying to prevent her from leaving the hospital against the advice of doctors and her mother, according to the release. He "went flying" to assist the officers and "landed a body block, powering his left shoulder into the patient" just as she was about to stab one of the officers, the release said.
 

Pike was 5-foot-10 and weighed 245 pounds. "I hit her hard," Pike said, according to the release, which said he weighed 245 pounds. He decided against using pepper spray, a baton or a sidearm because he did not want to injure his partners, the release said. One of officers credited Pike with helping to save his life.
 
"You've got all these tools on your belt," Pike said, "but sometimes they're not the best tools."
 
Pike received a meritorious service award from the university, his second such award for exceptional police work, the release said.
 
The patient later pleaded no contest to a single charge of assault on an officer.
 
"For me it was just a normal day at the office," the release quoted Pike as saying. "She posed a threat, and I had to handle it. I didn't want her to hurt either of my partners."
 
Pike's first award stemmed from a 2003 chase in which Pike used his patrol car to bump the vehicle of a person who was about to enter a highway going in the wrong direction of traffic.
 
The release said Pike had worked in law enforcement for 12 years as of 2007 and had divided his time between the UC Davis police and the Sacramento Police Department.
 
On Monday, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza was placed on administrative leave in the wake of the controversy over Friday's pepper-spraying. Two campus police officers earlier were put on leave.
 
The president of the University of California system has called for a review of police procedures on all campuses.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #191 on: November 23, 2011, 05:20:25 PM »

That's a lot of meter maid! cheesy
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #192 on: November 23, 2011, 06:18:05 PM »

While I may want Lt. Pike watching my back, I wouldn't want him on my college campus.  It's different.  He's too Gung Ho, maybe his behavior is appropriate for Iraq or Afghanistan, but not a college campus.  Further, he disobeyed a direct order.  Even in the military that would get him in trouble.  In this case, his action will cost the school in more than one way.  All because of his gross incompetence. 

As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs.  The woman was how big?  And she was a patient in the hospital.  Indicative, the woman plead out to a misdemeanor.  It is sort of like getting a medal for arresting a guy with a single joint.  I mean that's cool, but...

An anti-gay slur by Pike in 2008 resulted in a racial and sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a former police officer against the department, ending in a $240,000 settlement. Officer Calvin Chang’s 2003 discrimination complaint against the university’s police chief and the UC Board of Regents claimed he was systematically ‘marginalized’ as the result of anti-gay and racist attitudes on the force. Chang specifically alleged Pike used profane anti-gay slurs describing him.

This guy is a liability.  He's archaic.  He does not belong on a school campus.

I think enough on this subject; let's see how the investigation plays out.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #193 on: November 23, 2011, 06:19:56 PM »

"Further, he disobeyed a direct order."

Please cite your evidence of this claim.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #194 on: November 23, 2011, 06:26:52 PM »

See above.  But I'll repeat the post.  It's important.

"UC Davis' embattled chancellor said campus police officers defied her orders when they used pepper spray on peaceful Occupy protesters last week."

In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Katehi said her office told the school's police department that officers needed to be peaceful when removing protesters.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #195 on: November 23, 2011, 06:28:23 PM »

 rolleyes

It appears you and she share the same ignorance of policing and general reality.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #196 on: November 23, 2011, 06:29:50 PM »

"As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs.  The woman was how big?  And she was a patient in the hospital.  Indicative, the woman plead out to a misdemeanor.  It is sort of like getting a medal for arresting a guy with a single joint.  I mean that's cool, but..."

You say this as a man with a long history of brave acts under dangerous conditions, right?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #197 on: November 23, 2011, 06:34:59 PM »



http://demotivators.despair.com/tshirts/occupythenorthpoletshirt.gif
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #198 on: November 23, 2011, 06:39:31 PM »

"As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs."

"she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical,"

Some of you may remember Carl James from the tape six of the RCSFg series.  He was what we then regarded as an ancient 41 years old.  Carl served two tours of combat infantry in 'Nam, was a body guard and sparring partner to world boxing champion Alexis Arguello, and was the body guard who saved Larry Flynt's life when his psycho wife went after him with a knife.  Also, he worked the door in some of the more dangerous clubs of East Saint Louis.  In short, he was a man who had seen something of this world.

I remember that he told me the scariest thing for him was to break up two women fighting.  He said they were a combination of pyschol and feline eye scratching/gouging frenzy.  I wasn't there, but then neither were you JDN; put scissors in one's hands and a spray bottle with a caustic chemical, and a good hearty tackle seems well within the bounds of reason to me.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #199 on: November 23, 2011, 06:43:45 PM »

And, facing someone armed with an edged weapon is commonly considered a deadly force scenario.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!