Shared publicly  - 
303
204
Nav H.'s profile photoJeremy Zano's profile photoChad Keller's profile photoAli Khaledi Nasab's profile photo
34 comments
 
+MARCO SUAREZ
before you say that, don't you think it could be the shitheads who who join protests just to be there and protest, not the ones who are there for a reason
Nav H.
+
1
2
1
 
Gave me a good laugh.
 
Scary thought... with all the attention this cop is getting, is it possible that other cops will try to get their 15 minutes by following his lead?
 
This is a good edit, but I'm not quite sure what to think of it.

(On the other hand, I'm quite sure how I feel about the actual incident.)
 
I'd say the whole world is talking abt the incident, I feel bad abt it, things shouldn't have gone to that extreme. It's just like a prosecution to me. :-(
 
well... maybe he felt threatened... those people have pointy umbrellas!
 
You are all dumb and need to grow up just cause your parents cut you off and you have no money does not mean you can blaim everyone else for taking out loans you can't afford.
 
+Andrew Fenske you sound pretty dumb on your comment. Did you miss class during the section on double negatives?
 
awesome statement. It seems a few 1% are leaving comments,...... Thank you OWS for awakening American.
 
@ Andrew... I think you can blame a system where politicians are bought and paid for by corporations whose lobbyists are getting changes made to the law to promote and benefit the same corporations. Worse, presidents, congressmen, and even the senate and supreme court pass laws and make decisions that benefit not the general populace, but instead the 1% at the top. Occupy has legit grievances, and its sad that it takes the bottom 1% to protest to get any of the silent majority to even take notice of what is happening right under our noses.
 
+Wayne Overman I was defending the commenters from the assault by Andrew Fenske. He called everyone dumb while using improper grammar and spelling. I thought this was a foolish thing to do so I very bluntly told him so. So to answer your questions of what jerk crawled up my rear orifice: Andrew Fenske.
 
What's with the sympathy? The cop stood up and took his orders. Why should the kids have gotten away with breaking the law? Pepper spray is the most non-violent way to subdue someone without force. They refused to leave, they got sprayed. Those kids knew sit-ins/blockading the path was illegal. Makes for a good story, obviously.
 
+Derrick Hanks "Pepper spray is the most non-violent way to subdue someone without force. They refused to leave, they got sprayed."

I think you need to look up the term 'non violent'. What the cop did was illegal.
 
Honest question: Was it illegal? Seriously. Not defending what he did. I'm just curious if this is truly against the law. Not asking if it was wrong or right. I just want to know, if anyone does know, if there is a specific law on the books that he broke.

And by the way, we are not a democracy. =) Look it up. We share some of the ideals of a democracy, but we are not a true democracy. There are some seemingly small differences that make a huge impact. As such, just because people feel they speak for the 99% (which they don't), that doesn't mean anything. Our country is not led by mob rule. Our country is led by the representatives we elect. Got a problem with the way it is run? Stop voting in the same ridiculous career politicians into office. This is where you need to speak up. This is where you make a difference in a positive way. Not by clogging up streets preventing average workers from getting to their place of employment to make an honest living.
 
+Adam Jones If someone sprayed a chemical in your face designed to disable you, wouldn't that be assault?
 
+Ross Byrne If I was sitting in the living room of another persons house and that person was telling me to leave, but I refused to do so, then the term "assault" would be debatable. These students were on private property and were told to disperse. They didn't.

Just because you think it was wrong doesn't make it illegal. I was asking a legitimate question in attempt to gain all the facts of the situation before I passed any sort of judgment. In California, is there a law stating this is not an acceptable method to break up non-violent protesters? It is entirely possible that this police officer did was not illegal and in fact, an "authorized" method of handling the situation. I'm not defending him. I'm just asking for the facts. If this is the case, no need to go around accusing him of criminal behavior. If anything, he is a pathetic excuse for a human being who likes to bully people.
 
It's not acceptable to attack someone just because you disagree with them +Adam Jones

If you think it's just fine to assault protesters just because the people they protest against say it's ok to then maybe you should look at the situation happening in Syria, Egypt.

It's "authorised" to murder people there. Want that to be the next step?
 
I never said or even insinuated it was acceptable to attack someone because another person disagrees with them. Nor have I been defending the actions of that police officer. I've just been pointing out that it is possible there was nothing "illegal" about it. Argue the moral grounds all you want, but I think calling a man a criminal when he may not be only weakens your argument.

I also called to question your definition of "assault", only to express my opinion that it isn't as "black and white" as everyone is making it.

Now, what the protesters were doing was IN FACT illegal.