I have heard many opinions about the police action against those who were standing outside of Wheeler, but I was wondering what people’s opinions were about the intensity (or lack of intensity) of the cops’ actions. I have heard both sides of the story; first, the police were only doing their job, or second, this was brutal action against peaceful protesting.
I was researching this topic online and found a link to a UCSC protest in 2005.
In this video, the police are seen choking students who were peacefully disobeying. What do you suggest do if police are faced with crowds of peaceful people, but they have a mandate to fulfill?
Thoughts, thoughts!
Advertisement
November 30, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Not sure what happened on the 20th was “brutal” – I didn’t see any brutality, sorry!
I feel like brutality is a much higher level. I heard the worst that happened was there was one broken hand… if that’s brutal, then what do you consider the above video, or Rodney King, or other brutality that actually goes to trial…
I am just pretty shocked over some students claiming “brutality” – there doesn’t seem to have been any. I think the police acted quite normally, doing their jobs, not sure you can fault them for that.
November 30, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I want to fix the typo: “What do you suggest TO do if police are faced with crowds of peaceful people, but they have a mandate to fulfill?”
Definition of brutality: The state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting, savage; cruel; inhuman, irrational unreasoning.
It’s hard to define “brutal” because even with a set definition, it can be so subjective..
December 1, 2009 at 12:14 am
How many students were actually significantly injured during the protests? As near as I can tell, one. That doesn’t strike me as particularly brutal.
Remember, if you don’t want to get hit by a truncheon, keep a few feet away from the man with the stick.
December 1, 2009 at 5:08 am
I want to pose this question in response to Ari’s post.
What makes something brutal, is it the act or the intention?
Let’s say that the police tried to hurt people, but no one was injured as a result. THIS could still be considered “brutality” under the circumstances, if the situation did not call for such extreme acts of violence.
“How many students were actually significantly injured during the protests? As near as I can tell, one. That doesn’t strike me as particularly brutal.”
Also, maybe the problem that we have here is with the word “brutality.” While I understand that there might have been some “misconduct,” I feel that what resulted was inappropriate, and hurtful, and demeaning, disrespectful.. The word “brutal” just doesn’t sit right with me.
Now, to respond to “random student visitor” in his/her statement:
“I feel like brutality is a much higher level. I heard the worst that happened was there was one broken hand… if that’s brutal, then what do you consider the above video, or Rodney King, or other brutality that actually goes to trial…”
This statement goes back to the trouble in defining brutality, because situations are subjective. Now, there are youtube videos providing live coverage of the events, and we have resulting injuries.. all we have is what’s in between.. and let’s say that the police have acted in a “brutal” manner.. WHAT NOW?
December 1, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Hey Ari, don’t limit your thoughts on brutality to what was visible. The fact that the police didn’t break more bones does not exonerate them from committing injustices!
December 3, 2009 at 1:39 am
In 1964 we had a few problems with police brutality. Nothing like what we would see a few years later, but even in 1964 the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs were an undisciplined and out of control group of goons, while the Berkeley Police were for the most part fairly professional and restrained. The Oakland police were nearly as bad as the Sheriffs. During the occupation of Sproul Hall in December, 1964, the police went out of their way to injure people they were arresting, and the Chronicle correspondent who was in the building (and whose article was censored by the Chron) will be having his report finally printed in the Dailey Planet this week I believe.
The film I saw of the event at Wheeler was shocking, however, and I was around for a lot of violent police action during the ’60s and early ’70s. And more recently in the WTO demonstrations in 1999 in Seattle. Two of the sheriffs were armed with, and pointing, submachine guns at the students. The cops on the line were out of control with their clubs. The students were loud, and were shooting at the police. But only with their cell phone cameras. One man was shot in the gut at close range with a rubber bullet. This is exceedingly dangerous. From long observation, it was clear to me that the students represented no threat to the police, and the police, operating under a heavy load of fear and adrenaline, were out of control. This is an outrage.
Face it, any police force, anywhere in the world, has some members who are authoritarian, who like to impose their authority, who panic when they find people who non-violently oppose them, who feel threatened by crowds (they in their armor, helmets, clubs, pistols, pepper spray, tear gas, and heavier weapons vs people whose protection might be a hoody and have no weapons, or intent to hurt anyone). And in the video I saw, no police sergeant or superior officer was making any effort to restrain the cops on the line who were clearly out of control. Some police feel that it is their DUTY to punish dissent with pain. Its a fact. When police are called in, even by liberal well-intentioned administrators, they are taking a risk of death or serious injury to people who have peacefully assembled to petition their government for redress of grievances. During People’s Park, Vice Chancellor Bud Cheit called in the sheriffs, and a few hours later, one man was dead, another blinded, and over a dozen shot down by out of control police. Over posession of a muddy parking area that had lain abandoned for ten years until turned into a park.