Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fox10078, Apr 4, 2012.
Sounds like the protestors forcefully entered the meeting area. It only takes a few to ruin a protest.
While I do agree with that, I feel like the pepper spraying at least jumped a few steps. Why couldn't the campus police just drag those people out of the room? Handcuff them (real or ziptie)? I feel like pepper spray has become the go to tool for when someone is faced with a sticky situation they don't know how to handle.
I really can't see how a line of a few officers shoving scrawny kids out of the room isn't any less efficient and better.
I also just love the picture. "Oooh, let me get this on my iPhone!" A phone that costs almost as much as one unsubsidized class or the phone plan associated with it compared to a cheaper alternative costing another unsubsidized class.
Careful there, lest you have a mob form on your doorstep.
An iPhone is an entitlement, don't you know?
Sounds like this is exactly the sort of thing pepper spray was designed to be used for.
The article says there were over 100 people, and they stormed the meeting room. How many police would it have taken to "just drag those people out of the room"?
They got bumrushed. They responded appropriately, IMO.
Spraying into a crowd of people inside a building?
That sounds like an excellent way of hitting bystanders and affecting the breathing of many people in the room.
I'd be surprised if the meeting continued after that.
So it would seem to me that pepper spray was not an effective solution in this case.
More effective than allowing a hundred unruly protesters to storm an organized meeting.
You don't know that was going to happen.
It had already happened, according to the article:
Emphasis mine, naturally.
Id say this is more of a black mark on the college because its supposed to be an institution of higher learning and yet the students attending don't even know how to hold a lawful protest. The school would be good to expel anyone who was found to be actively entering the meeting area unlawfully, maybe their parents can teach them some manners when they are back home working at mcdonalds.
You said ...
Your quoted article states ...
Here is the key point ...
I'm suggesting that your statement of "a hundred unruly protesters to storm[ing] an organized meeting." is an overstatement of what actually occurred.
I dropped my HTC Droid Eris from Verizon last year (when I was a senior in college) for a LG Optimus V from Virgin Mobile to save $50/month. Just pure profit now. Love it.
Beat me to it. Only said some, which based on those that went to the hospital (just a few) sounds like perhaps a handful actually got in and were being disruptive. A few officers could've really handled that better. If it actually was 100 students mad rushing the trustees in a frenzy, then spray away.
Okay, so how many people need to behave this way before pepper spray becomes an option? Does it really need to be all 100? How about 99?
As fat as I'm concerned, even if it was one person, you have no idea what that person's intent is when they force their way past security. That person could be armed for all you know. I'd someone needs to be stopped to maintain order, you stop them.
In any event, it sounds like the number of people who needed to be controlled was at least more than the police were able to control by simply asking them to play nicely. I have no problem with their using the pepper spray under the circumstances.
People need to learn if they overstep the boundaries (and break the local law) they need to face the consequences - even if it's full of pepper spray.
"In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in anothers shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."
TL;DR: The most advanced stages of moral development are based on morality of actions rather than on legality. Unfortunately lots of people don't reach this stage.
So you're suggesting that since limiting the number of people in a room is a dumb rule, it's our obligation to defy it?
What about the fire code?
Well, I guess every activity involving more than 1 person will have to be on surveillance video.
I can't see any other solution to this "they said/they said" ****.
I'm struggling to link these two also, it can't be about the tuition itself as they are not legally bound to pay unless they want to attend college. Surely the poster isn't suggesting people should be able to break into public spaces whenever they choose, and no laws were being created here that bound these students so obstructing the meeting doesn't seem to meet these standards.
It's not about it being dumb. Let me give you a real life example.
In Québec there is currently a massive student strike. In one particular school, one person has gone to court in order to declare the strike illegal and won since there had been some minor procedure irregularities in the referendum (but still, student support was 70%). Students then decided to block the school's hallways with chairs and desks. Sure it was breaking the rules, but the action was moral (the court order, when you evaluate it from a rational point of view, isn't acceptable).
I don't think I'm too off-topic when I ask this: I'm curious, in the "rational point of view" world to which you subscribe," what role, if any, is there for purely procedural rules? I don't ask in a snarky or rhetorical way. Just interested, because your paragraph suggests that punishment (for lack of a better word) for violation of a procedural rule/law deems all manner of future action by the violator(s) to be "moral."
Let me help you with that. "Just" trumps "law". Better.
Didn't need the help, but thanks.
You didn't answer my question. Are you advocating that it's okay (indeed, more "advanced" thinking) to break the law, in this case causing trouble and endangering people's lives by blocking off exits, because you feel like the law being broken has less of a moral standing?
It's an admittedly tough call. However, when you're in an enclosed space (indoors) it seems to me that you're putting other people and the event itself at risk by using it.
I would be curious to find out if the meeting was adjourned after the spray was discharged. I imagine that just the smell of it would be enough to bother people, especially those with breathing problems or other sensitivities.
It would seem to me that the first thing to reach for is your walkie-talkie to call in reinforcements, preferably before the crowd gets out of hand. Using pepper spray jeopardizes the very event you're trying to protect, it leads to bad publicity and PR, and it probably will lead to litigation. It should be used judiciously.
Once the heat ray* is deployed the problem of affecting the ones you're trying to protect will be solved...
*Active Denial System (ADS)