UC police Capt. Margo Bennett on Occupy UC Berkeley

"The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."

Bennett said police merely wanted to enforce the ban on camping on Sproul Plaza, but were prevented from doing so by students.

"Students who linked arms were interfering with the officers who were attempting to remove those tents," she said.



Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2011/11/11/MNH21LTC4D.DTL

So you heard it here first folks. Linking arms is violent. Seriously the police are pathetic sometimes. I don't have the video on hand but I've seen it. The protesters weren't being violent, the police were.

Here is something I think adds a bit to the story. By the way if I ever add your comments here and you don't want them up just tell me and I"ll gladly edit them down.

TheBitingCat (_) 578 points 5 hours ago (738|153)
Margo may want to reconsider that statement - if the act of locking arms will be considered violent protest and punished as such, there will no longer be any incentive to restrain from using actual violence in protest. Saying this is akin to shooting your own foot; it invalidates your credibility as a representative of law enforcement.

[–]super6logan (_) 417 points 3 hours ago (493|71)
In criminal law this is called marginal deterrence. If robbery gets the same treatment as murder then there's very little incentive for a robber not to kill his victim.t

Source

Police also protest for the right to be above the law.

Now they apparently want to define law.

Linking arms .. is linking arms.. not a crime.

Your order to disperse is ignored as it's unconstitutional.

Your abuse of power.. and assault however.. is a crime.. enjoy the lawsuits. And the scrutiny.

There is something wrong with your link, but I'll respond to the minimal info in the OP.

If I understand correctly, the protesters had erected shelters in the park, in violation of an ordinance.

The police attempted to enter the park, in order to remove the illegally erected structures.

The protesters used physical force to prevent the police from entering the park, where the intent was to remove the illegally constructed structures, NOT to remove the protesters.

So, the police, according to the universally accepted force continuum, used a level of force one step greater than that of physical resistance, in order to set about the task of removing the illegally erected structures, NOT the protesters.

Don't recall anything about the "right to peaceable assemble" including the construction of shelters, where it is otherwise prohibited.

Please let me know if I missed an important piece of information...

Let me ask a question. If you were attempting to walk into a publicly accessible area, but were prevented from doing so by a group of people with arms linked, how would you react? Please be honest.

reply to post by Resinveins


LL i've seen cops do that all my life
they'll make anything up in order to "win"
they are always "right" and you are always wrong [you can see this on ats as well, and will no doubt have a leo posting here on how ignorant and lacking upstairs you are
"as a civilian you simply do not and can not possibly understand"

sounds like porky has never seen real violence IMO

edit to add and so it starts see post above

Linking arms is a crime now?

Well I guess we can no longer play red-rover outside with the kids! A swat team may take me out in my own yard....for being violent!

Here is a look at America's future criminals!

reply to post by WTFover


I fixed it. Sorry had no clue the source wasn't working.

Also I don't agree with what you said but can't argue very well. Beating protesters isn't a good level of force to use. Also they weren't forcefully doing anything. They locked arms. and tents are hardly "Structures". I mean come on.

Originally posted by WTFover


2- Don't recall anything about the "right to peaceable assemble" including the construction of shelters, where it is otherwise prohibited.

1-Please let me know if I missed an important piece of information...

3-Let me ask a question. If you were attempting to walk into a publicly accessible area, but were prevented from doing so by a group of people with arms linked, how would you react? Please be honest.

1- Mmmkay

2- look up assemble and assembly in a dictionary

3-thanks for the insight and validating OP just an excuse then "they hit 1st, so i'm justified in breaking heads, also known as "self defense has been established"

i'd avoid a picking a fight and ask why, if i agree with them, then i can skip going to the park for now, if i don't there are always other ways to go around an obstacle, than smash right through them.

but since ultimately this is all about showing who's boss...

reply to post by drew1749


Structure was my word. When I have time, I'll try to find the actual ordinance and we can then argue semantics. Regardless, you did not address the crux of my argument. The intent was NOT to remove the protesters.

The problem is the use of the word "violence", by the cop. The correct word was "force". And yes, linking arms to prevent entry to a public park is "force".

What would you do if prevented from entering that park or even walking down a public sidewalk, by people with arms linked? Would you believe you were being "forcibly" restrained from entering or walking?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

2- look up assemble and assembly in a dictionary

www.google.com...=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=assembly&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&s a=X&ei=LJ-9TorbNIer2AX415WgBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=5a3ef425d86707e8&biw=1280&bih=599

Yep, nothing about structures, tents, shelters. Of course, I already knew that.

3-thanks for the insight and validating OP just an excuse then "they hit 1st, so i'm justified in breaking heads, also known as "self defense has been established"

Where did I say anything about "self defense"? Answer. I didn't. That's just your inner straw man coming out.

reply to post by WTFover

Regardless, you did not address the crux of my argument.

Well I wasn't arguing. That was my point I wasn't in the mood for it. Haha I guess I'll give it a shot since you insist.

The problem is the use of the word "violence", by the cop. The correct word was "force". And yes, linking arms to prevent entry to a public park is "force".

Well he didn't say force he said violence and the way the police reacted was in retailiation to violence. Have you seen the videos? They're assaulting the protesters.

What would you do if prevented from entering that park or even walking down a public sidewalk, by people with arms linked? Would you believe you were being "forcibly" restrained from entering or walking?

From what I understand they weren't linking arms to prevent entry (they may have I could very well be wrong) but doing it so they couldn't be taken away. You know? Even if they were preventing entry what's the big deal? The Cops were trying to enter and dispose of tents. Big deal it's a tent.

reply to post by drew1749


don't feed the trolls
his reply to me above shows
that there is nobody home just an agenda trying to simulate intelligence

if you insist don't use big words


have you ever set up [assembled] a tent, by any chance?

If you ask me hitting people with clubs is violence in the extreme. I think the police should be beaten also.

If they were linking arms with intent to not let them pass to do their job, which was to remove the tents, then they are in the wrong. It's called obstruction of justice. Whether you define what they were there to do as justice or not doesn't matter. They were ordered to go in and remove those tents. If those protesters were not permitting that, the police have every right to remove them. However comma pause for effect.....the level of force or violence or whatever you want to call it used by the police officers was most likely excessive. The link to the article doesn't work, so there's no way if I can say that's true. But the point of all this is that if those students were indeed preventing the officers from doing their job, it's a crime.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by drew1749

 

Structure was my word. When I have time, I'll try to find the actual ordinance and we can then argue semantics. Regardless, you did not address the crux of my argument. The intent was NOT to remove the protesters.

Structure

something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.

Dictionary.com


tent

a portable shelter of skins, canvas, plastic, or the like, supported by one or more poles or a frame and often secured by ropes fastened to pegs in the ground.


Dictionary.com

I would say a tent and a structure are not the same.

The videos taken by protesters, journalists and casual observers show UC Berkeley police and Alameda County sheriff's deputies in riot gear ordering students with linked arms to leave a grassy area outside the campus administration building Wednesday. When the students didn't move, police lowered their face shields and began hitting the protesters with batons.

Yep.. they were trying to remove the protesters.

I don't care how you try to spin the truth, what the police did was a violent reaction to a non-violent action and the Captain should be dismissed for her statements.

Ok Here in Toronto The idiotic Mayor and other cities are pushing the Occupy protesters out because? what have they done wrong? have they not have a right to protest? who cares a about a park? for once i couldnt care less about the dam dog owners.

Those kids at Berkley have the authorities there right where they want them. They have been presented with an excellent opportunity to truly shine on light on the destructive forces within our government. I hope they capitalize upon it

The goons who bring us "loitering" and "disturbing the peace" as blank checks to unleash the tyranny upon the average citizen. Sadly we have infiltrators on ats attempting to justify the police state we live in. Truly grotesque.

Originally posted by drew1749

Also I don't agree with what you said but can't argue very well.

If you are unable to argue your position, perhaps you need to reconsider your position. Sounds like you established it without critical thinking.

Have you seen the videos?

No, I haven't. Your link still isn't working, so I have only been able to debate what you wrote about the incident.
But, did you bother reading what you posted as a source excerpt?

Well he didn't say force he said violence

I thought the cop your source quoted was a "she"?

You wrote

From what I understand they weren't linking arms to prevent entry (they may have I could very well be wrong) but doing it so they couldn't be taken away.

Yet you excerpted this portion of the article in your OP

"Students who linked arms were interfering with the officers who were attempting to remove those tents," she said.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

don't feed the trolls

Sounds like your definition of a troll is anyone with an opposing view.

if you insist don't use big words

What?

have you ever set up [assembled] a tent, by any chance?

Are you asserting "assemble" and "assembly", as related to the erecting of a tent, is equated to the use of the word in the First Amendment? If so, I'll just quietly walk away and try to forget this conversation ever happened. Because frankly, that leaves me speechless.

Originally posted by WTFover


Are you asserting "assemble" and "assembly", as related to the erecting of a tent, is equated to the use of the word in the First Amendment? If so, I'll just quietly walk away and try to forget this conversation ever happened. Because frankly, that leaves me speechless.

You're speechless because there's no point in continuing to argue when you're wrong.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment

"The right of the People to peaceably assemble" doesn't specify what is to be assembled, whether it be people themselves, or people assembling structures, or even assembling a new government, as they see fit.. Like any legally recognized document, the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation.

Exercising your rights; some assembly may be required.

reply to post by DISINFORMANT


Occasionally, a post comes along that gives me an extreme pain, right here behind my right eye. It is then I am reminded why I took a reprieve from ATS.