We have been critical of the university’s policies in responding to the bank blockers all along, and that now escalates with the decision by the Yolo County District Attorney to file charges against twelve of the protesters at the behest of UC Davis.
We spoke with Kristin Koster, one of the bank blockers who was not arrested. She told us that, most likely, the purpose of this decision was to protect the university from a potential lawsuit from US Bank.
“It’s important to note that the UCD administration first sent the names of protestors to SJA in February,” she told the Vanguard, about referrals to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA).
It was only when US Bank announced its intention to close, she said, “The administration cancelled the SJA meetings, and elected to have the police forward the names of a larger group of students and faculty to the DA.”
“This decision makes sense from the university’s perspective, as a way to protect itself from a lawsuit,” she said.
A reader questioned this statement, but from our view it is largely accurate. It is very clear what happened here. In the aftermath of the negative public scrutiny of UC Davis following the November 18 pepper-spray incident, UC Davis understandably attempted to avoid police actions.
But in so doing, as we explained two weeks ago, they underreacted to the bank blockers’ actions. Ultimately, US Bank had enough and decided to simply leave. We think that was an error, as well.
Nevertheless, it seems clear that the prosecution by the DA’s office is more about showing US Bank that they are going to be serious and crack down on these protests.
UC Davis is quick to defend how they handled this matter.
As Spokesperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard, “Campus representatives tried daily for nearly two months to engage these individuals, both to understand their motives and try to reach some common ground. Over the ensuing weeks, notices were posted and handed out, explaining the potential legal consequences of blocking the bank entrance.”
He said this had no discernible effect and the university called in the DA’s office to review the matter.
This did not happen. Instead, the university and police attempted to go soft and simply try to convince the protesters to leave. This was never going to happen. You have a committed group of protesters who naturally believe in their cause. Moreover, they wanted to trigger a confrontation to publicize it.
They may not have gotten that immediately, but they will have it now. They get their trial. They get to show the heavy hand of the university working in concert with the Yolo County DA’s office. They get to pull out the million dollar threat of restitution as more evidence of the heavy-handedness of UC Davis.
The Vanguard is still unclear what exactly students were told as they protested.
From the university, we were provided information that, “The Engagement Team has provided bank occupiers with verbal and written information explaining that violations of student conduct standards may be referred to the Student Judicial Affairs office. Such cases may be resolved informally or through a formal hearing process, with potential penalties ranging from counseling to dismissal.”
Furthermore, “The Engagement Team has been providing protesters with verbal and written notification that blocking the entrance to the bank branch is a violation of Section 647C of the California Penal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to ‘willfully and maliciously’ obstruct the free movement of any person on a street, sidewalk or other public place.”
The university added, “Signs were also posted on Monday, Feb. 13, in the branch windows, explaining that blocking the bank or any other public place is a misdemeanor violation of Section 647c.”
But as Mr. Shiller explains, none of that worked. And there is no reason why anyone would have reasonably expected that it would have. Civil disobedience requires that the demonstrators confront the authority and get arrested.
UC Davis somehow thought it could avoid the part where the confrontation occurred, but that did not work. The consequence was that the bank got frustrated and left.
Now UC Davis is trying to show US Bank that they are serious about cracking down on protests, and they have asked the Yolo County District Attorney’s office to step in.
I think it is notable that, until now, the Yolo County DA had avoided this fray, and for good reason.
But as Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven explained to the Woodland paper, this is a different matter than the November 18 protests where the protesters were merely refusing to leave the Quad. This actually constitutes the interference of a commercial entity’s right to do business.
The question that a lot of people are going to ask is whether this is the right approach. The segment of commenters on the Vanguard who typically oppose the protests and support the heavy-handed approach of the DA’s office are applauding the move.
But it may not be the wisest move. First, the more heavy-handed the DA’s office is here, the more sympathy it will generate for the protesters.
The DA’s office now becomes part of the 1% rallying to the defense of UC Davis and US Bank. That falls right into the hands of the protesters, who now become causes célèbres.
Second, in Sacramento the DA’s office attempted to charge Occupy Sacramento defendants. In a short amount of time, a group of private attorneys stepped forward, rallied to the cause, and agreed to represent the defendants, pro bono. Ultimately faced with an impossible scenario, Sacramento County dismissed the charges.
I read comments from posters who advocate kicking protesters out of school – that seems a rather harsh penalty to be paid for civil disobedience. The idea that one would advocate to ruin the future of a young student for political disagreements is, quite frankly, appalling. As is the assumption that somehow these are spoiled individuals, when in fact, few know what background the protesters come from.
At the end of the day, those voices likely come from a minority position in our community. They certainly are part of a political minority.
It is a tricky thing to attempt to criminally prosecute these kinds of cases, as UC Davis and the DA’s office discovered when they attempted to prosecute Brienna Holmes, only to realize that they couldn’t find 12 people willing to do that.
It would be good if wiser heads prevail here. Use the police to clear out the path or clear out protesters who break the law, but reserve filing charges for only the worst offenders, when there are no other options.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“At the end of the day, those voice come likely from a minority position in our community. They certainly are part of a political minority.”
LOL, and you know this because? I say a majority of the community has grown tired of these troublemakers and it’s time for them to pay the price for causing a business to close down. As many of you liberals have stated on here, you have to be willing to risk the chance of arrest and criminal charges if you’re going to advocate for a cause. Well it’s time to pay the piper.
I didn’t say I knew it, but I do suspect that your viewpoint on these individuals is not shared in the broader community.
rusty49
“As many of you liberals have stated on here, you have to be willing to risk the chance of arrest and criminal charges if you’re going to advocate for a cause. Well it’s time to pay the piper.”
In being evenhanded with my comments about what I thought was the appropriate “accountability” for police officers and authorities who overstepped their mandate in the pepper spray incident, I would like to offer my ( completely unsolicited ) suggestions about what would be appropriate for the protesters.
Just as I do not think the police officers careers should be destroyed by a single error, I also do not think the protesters futures should be destroyed by this form of civil disobedience. For them, what I would favor is community service. Perhaps working in some capacity in the legislative or judicial areas so that they are able to see the complexity of the process by which our government operates, or maybe in some fund raising capacity with proceeds benefiting public education. I don’t see that anyone, the protesters, the university, the bank, or our society as a whole is helped by the limitation of someone’s future due to a past mistake in judgement. That is true whether the individual is a police officer or a protester.
[quote]”It’s important to note that the UCD administration first sent the names of protestors to SJA in February,” she told the Vanguard, about referrals to Student Judicial Affairs (SJA). It was only when US Bank announced its intention to close, she said, “The administration cancelled the SJA meetings, and elected to have the police forward the names of a larger group of students and faculty to the DA.”[/quote]
Yes, the UCD administration forwarded the names of the protestors to the DA once the damage done by the protestors was greater than just a mere annoyance, including lost $$$ and impinging on the rights of the bank to do business on campus and the right of students to do their banking on campus…
[quote]In the aftermath of the negative public scrutiny of UC Davis following the November 18 pepper-spray incident, UC Davis understandably attempted to avoid police actions.
But in so doing, as we explained two weeks ago, they underreacted to the bank blockers’ actions.[/quote]
The Vanguard’s position seems to be: the university should avoid police action (incident on the Quad/in Mrak Hall), then complains when the university avoids a police action (USB protests) but finds a more effective solution. The Vanguard cannot have it both ways…
[quote]As Spokesperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard, “Campus representatives tried daily for nearly two months to engage these individuals, both to understand their motives and try to reach some common ground. Over the ensuing weeks, notices were posted and handed out, explaining the potential legal consequences of blocking the bank entrance.”
He said this had no discernible effect and the university called in the DA’s office to review the matter.[/quote]
The university’s efforts had no discernible effects bc the purpose of the protestors was to drive USB off campus, which they succeeded in doing. Now they will have to pay the consequences of those actions. What possible difference does it make to protestors whether they were arrested on the spot and turned over to the DA for prosecution, or later turned over to the DA for prosecution out of the sight of the public, other than to miss out on media coverage of their shenanigans?
[quote]From our perspective, the university erred on both sides of this. First they erred when they failed to simply clear out the students, arresting them if necessary. But our view was, as happens in most protests, arrest, release, and dismiss the charges.[/quote]
And allow protestors to continue disrupting the campus and trampling on the rights of everyone else, without any repercussions? Not a solution in my book…
“The Vanguard’s position seems to be: the university should avoid police action (incident on the Quad/in Mrak Hall), then complains when the university avoids a police action (USB protests) but finds a more effective solution. The Vanguard cannot have it both ways…”
Actually that is not the Vanguard’s position.
The Vanguard’s position is that the university (or at least the police) overreacted on November 18, they underreacted to the bank action, and now that the USB has left, they are trying to make amends by again overreacting.
[quote]This did not happen. Instead, the university and police attempted to go soft and simply try to convince the protesters to leave. This was never going to happen. You have a committed group of protesters who naturally believe in their cause. Moreover, they wanted to trigger a confrontation to publicize it.[/quote]
Bingo! And now the university has beaten the protestors at their own game, by taking away the two basic tools of the protestors’ trade – confrontation; media coverage…
“The university’s efforts had no discernible effects bc the purpose of the protestors was to drive USB off campus, which they succeeded in doing.”
It had no discernible effect because it had no teeth behind it, and moreover it would have undermined the point of the protest.
Yeah their protest was aimed at driving USB off campus, just like many of our protests were aimed at convincing the US to end the war in Iraq, we had no illusions that we would have been successful and neither should the protesters.
“And allow protestors to continue disrupting the campus and trampling on the rights of everyone else, without any repercussions? Not a solution in my book…”
And also not the solution that I offered this morning either.
[quote]Civil disobedience requires that the demonstrators confront the authority and get arrested.[/quote]
So demonstators confronted authority; were clearly warned of the consequences of their illegal behavior; and were arrested for said behavior. So where’s the beef?
“Bingo! And now the university has beaten the protestors at their own game, by taking away the two basic tools of the protestors’ trade – confrontation; media coverage…”
No they have not beaten anyone at anything just yet. They have only upped the ante. They’ll get their media coverage, they got it all weekend. They’ll get it at every hearing. They’ll get it at the trial.
“So where’s the beef?”
Read the article again.
[quote]But it may not be the wisest move. First, the more heavy-handed the DA’s office is here, the more sympathy it will generate for the protesters.
The DA’s office now becomes part of the 1% rallying to the defense of UC Davis and US Bank. That falls right into the hands of the protesters, who now become causes célèbres.[/quote]
We’ll see how much sympathy the protestors garner… but the university did not get drawn into a confrontation w detrimental media coverage…
Isn’t this the same story as you wrote yesterday? I’ve lost the distinction you see between your proposed approach (arrest them, drag them out to jail, then release them) and what the DA did (thoroughly investigate, then charge the ones for which they have adequate evidence to convict).
Were you thinking that they should have been arrested with no intent to charge them and punish them for the crimes for which you wanted them arrested? An odd notion of how to use police power, I’d say.
Now, you don’t want any misfortune to befall on people who publicly and purposely broke laws with the expressed purpose of permanently closing down a business? A three-month blockade suddenly becomes simple “political disagreements” on the part of “young students”?
Can we assume you approve throwing the book at the fully grown and competent Prof. Joshua Clover?
[quote]I read comments from posters who advocate kicking protesters out of school – that seems a rather harsh penalty to be paid for civil disobedience. [/quote]
Even I don’t go that far. First of all, it is my understanding a college professor set a bad example by participating in the USB protests. Secondly, kids are still half-baked/not fully cooked as adults, so you have to give students a bit of leeway. Thirdly, do you really want to start a student down the road of bitterness and hatred of society, perhaps hindering their ability to get a decent job, for a foolish mistake?
Again, I think the real answer here is to allow the university to release the redacted (w/o policemen’s names) Reynoso report for all to see. Then the university can put some clear policies in place on exactly how to handle protests that maximize freedom of speech so long as it does not trample on the rights of others to get an education, businesses to operate on campus and the like.
“Isn’t this the same story as you wrote yesterday?”
No, this is my commentary on the subject.
“I’ve lost the distinction you see between your proposed approach (arrest them, drag them out to jail, then release them) and what the DA did (thoroughly investigate, then charge the ones for which they have adequate evidence to convict). “
Because in my proposal there would be no charges or a trial.
“Were you thinking that they should have been arrested with no intent to charge them and punish them for the crimes for which you wanted them arrested? “
It is what has de facto happened in most civil disobedience cases. Charges are generally filed but dropped. The use of police power here is to keep the bank open without obstruction rather than simply punitive.
“Now, you don’t want any misfortune to befall on people who publicly and purposely broke laws with the expressed purpose of permanently closing down a business?”
I think the situation is closer to the proverbial dog that caught the car it was chasing.
“Can we assume you approve throwing the book at the fully grown and competent Prof. Joshua Clover? “
I don’t think you can assume anything. It would depend on the charges and his role. My opposition to charging this case isn’t due to the age of the defendants. I don’t believe I said that it was.
[quote]It would be good if wiser heads prevail here. Use the police to clear out the path or clear out protesters who break the law, but reserve filing charges for only the worst offenders, when there are no other options.[/quote]
The problem with this solution is that the protestors’ motives are to draw the police into open confrontation, hope the police make a misstep for all the world to see through media coverage, and then make the university/university police look bad, while succeeding at whatever goal the protestors have in mind, no matter who it hurts. I don’t see that as a viable solution at all…
Sorry to be so long winded, but just about every sentence in this article gave me serious pause…
[quote]Just as I do not think the police officers careers should be destroyed by a single error, I also do not think the protesters futures should be destroyed by this form of civil disobedience. For them, what I would favor is community service. Perhaps working in some capacity in the legislative or judicial areas so that they are able to see the complexity of the process by which our government operates, or maybe in some fund raising capacity with proceeds benefiting public education. I don’t see that anyone, the protesters, the university, the bank, or our society as a whole is helped by the limitation of someone’s future due to a past mistake in judgement. That is true whether the individual is a police officer or a protester.[/quote]
Very well said, and I concur…
“Sorry to be so long winded, but just about every sentence in this article gave me serious pause…”
I’m glad you read it all.
“The problem with this solution is that the protestors’ motives are to draw the police into open confrontation”
So you don’t believe police are trained to handle situations with uncooperative protesters and can effect an arrest without a pepper spray incident occurring?
Elaine: “Civil disobedience requires that the demonstrators confront the authority and get arrested.”
David: “So demonstators confronted authority; were clearly warned of the consequences of their illegal behavior; and were arrested for said behavior. So where’s the beef?”
The beef comes when those so engaged start whining that they should’t be prosecuted because they just were disagreeing, that they’re just kids, that their success in the future should not affected by their decisions to repeatedly break the law for three months, that they shouldn’t be accountable for the trouble they inconsiderately (and illegally) imposed on others, that society should punish people with whom these folks have “political disagreements,” but ignore their purposeful law-breaking.
This is not difficult to comprehend. I suspect that the Davis Dirty Dozen fully understand this, and are pleased to be exactly where they are now. You call the recent actions “appalling”; my guess is that they call it “success!”
“My opposition to charging this case isn’t due to the age of the defendants. I don’t believe I said that it was.”
Here’s where I got that idea:
“The idea that one would advocate to ruin the future of a young student for political disagreements is, quite frankly, appalling.”
But you left out the first sentence which was: “I read comments from posters who advocate kicking protesters out of school – that seems a rather harsh penalty to be paid for civil disobedience.”
What’s your point: that you don’t think their tender age is is a consideration when the DA is ruining “the future of a [s]young[/s] student for political disagreements”? I’ll just bet that you feel the same way about the kids, whether it’s UCD or Yolo County imposing a “harsh penalty to be paid for civil disobedience.”[quote]”I don’t think you can assume anything. It would depend on the charges and his role.”[/quote]Don’t you know the charges and his role? According to the [i]Enterprise[/i] story today, Professor Clover was one of the dozen charged.
My point, of course, is that the professor should be “tried” (by county and university authorities, however UCD deals with campus lawbreakers) as well as the kids he encouraged to break the law.
Punishment should fit the crimes; it should not be nonexistent. They shouldn’t walk away now just because they believed in their cause, because they’re young or for any other reason you might come up with next.
It would make this whole discussion easier and more concise if you’d be forthcoming, David. A simple question: [quote]”What UCD and criminal court punishments would [u]you[/u] impose on those charged?”[/quote]
“the professor should be “tried” (by county and university authorities, however UCD deals with campus lawbreakers) as well as the kids he encouraged to break the law. “
How do you know that *he* encouraged the kids to break the law?
“Punishment should fit the crimes; it should not be nonexistent.”
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I don’t think every crime needs to be punished.
“They shouldn’t walk away now just because they believed in their cause, because they’re young or for any other reason you might come up with next. “
Again, you’re entitled to your opinion. It seems that I won’t change your opinion given your statement “any other reason you might come up with next…”
“What UCD and criminal court punishments would you impose on those charged?”
It was explained to me that there was a process through Judicial Affairs that could have been used to handle this matter. As I explained in the piece, my preference was arrest, hold, release which would achieve the goal of allowing the bank to do business, slow down the protesters, but not clog the system with petty crimes.
[quote]”Instead, the university and police attempted to go soft and simply try to convince the protesters to leave. This was never going to happen. You have a committed group of protesters who naturally believe in their cause. Moreover, they wanted to trigger a confrontation to publicize it.”[/quote]Yet, you advocated a confrontation instigated by UCD as the solution and you charged that it didn’t happen because they were cowardly.
If you knew that convincing protesters to leave “was never going to happen,” what do you think would happen if UCD had selected your option? Do you really think that would have ended the blockade?
Did you ever consider that university officials had enough sense to realize: 1.) the “committed group of protesters” wouldn’t just follow police instructions and wander out without screaming for the cameras, and 2.) the “committed group of protesters” would be back the next day, and the next and the next until they ultimately succeeded the way they did?
The last two days of coverage has just reinforced my feeling that you have no room for anything that isn’t critical of the university. Guess I can reconsider that once you let us know “what would David do?” in response to the question above. But, so far, it bears repeating:[quote]”We’re really back to is the university being unable to take ANY action that wouldn’t subject it to harsh critIcism from the Vanguard, the ACLU, the protestors. “[/quote]
I say yay for US Bank. Go for it all the way. After criminal charges I hope they persue civil compensation. For their sakes the troublemakers better have hefty liability insurance policies if they were to lose. I also wonder that if anyone lost their job because of the closing of this branch might have legal recourse against the protesters?
So Rusty wants them crippled for life in debt and Octane wants them kicked out school. Got it.
[quote]””What UCD and criminal court punishments would you impose on those charged?” [/quote]I thought this was a simple enough question. You did not answer, so I’ll try again.
What punishments do you think UCD should pursue with respect to the 12 people about whom you’ve written?
What punishments do you think the Yolo County DA should pursue with respect to the same 12 people?[quote]”How do you know that *he* encouraged the kids to break the law”[/quote]Well, you got me there. Of course, he’s innocent until proven guilty.
After seeing Professor Clover’s performance with respect to the demonstrations, I just assumed he provide some leadership to these “young students” while he participated in the bank blockade.
My bad, and I hope you’ll maintain the same standard if you’re ever tempted to jump to a conclusion in the [i]Vanguard[/i].
We’ll see what comes forward in his trial, assuming he doesn’t take the typical, cowardly UCD route and avoid a confrontation by taking a plea to some lesser charge.
“So Rusty wants them crippled for life in debt and Octane wants them kicked out school. Got it.”
How about the banks’s losses? How about the possible lost jobs of the bank employees or the inconvenience of being transfered to another location where they may now have to commute? In my opinion these protesters caused tangible losses and the aggreived parties should have the right to be made whole.
And how you are expecting them to be able to make up those loses even if they are culpable for them (which for the purposes of this argument only I will not dispute)? Do you think that the punishment for blocking a bank in political protest should be lifelong financial ruin? Just curious at this point, because you seem awfully vindictive here for a relatively minor crime (and they are charging it as a misdemeanor so don’t tell me its not a minor crime).
David, I wouldn’t want to bug you if you’ve already answered this. I don’t think you have. I think your reluctance is enlightening, ’cause I’ve noticed it on other topics.[quote]”What UCD and criminal court punishments would you impose on those charged?”[/quote]
I previously directly answered: “It was explained to me that there was a process through Judicial Affairs that could have been used to handle this matter. As I explained in the piece, my preference was arrest, hold, release which would achieve the goal of allowing the bank to do business, slow down the protesters, but not clog the system with petty crimes. “
“Do you think that the punishment for blocking a bank in political protest should be lifelong financial ruin? Just curious at this point, because you seem awfully vindictive here for a relatively minor crime (and they are charging it as a misdemeanor so don’t tell me its not a minor crime).”
Minor offense or not, the bank and its employees have the right to try and recoup their losses don’t they? And as for the minor offense, if I remember right (correct me if I’m wrong) it’s punishable by up to 6 months on each count, that doesn’t sound too minor to me. So if I’m blocking a business and that business subsequently closes down it should be okay because it was a political protest? Sorry, but who picks the winners and losers in such situations, who picks who should be closed down and who should be left alone?.
It’s a misdemeanor charge, not a felony.
“So if I’m blocking a business and that business subsequently closes down it should be okay because it was a political protest?”
Where did I say it was okay because it was a political protest? I only suggested that they should not have their lives destroyed by it.
“the bank and its employees have the right to try and recoup their losses don’t they?”
Not if they are culpable in their losses. The Bank chose to leave, they did not have to. it is additionally questionable as to how much they lost.
Do you know if the employees lost their jobs?
There is a reason why the bank would choose to sue UCD rather than the protesters.
[quote]Elaine: “Civil disobedience requires that the demonstrators confront the authority and get arrested.”
David: “So demonstators confronted authority; were clearly warned of the consequences of their illegal behavior; and were arrested for said behavior. So where’s the beef?” [/quote]
To JustSaying: Who you attributed the quotes to is backwards! It should have read:
[quote]David: “Civil disobedience requires that the demonstrators confront the authority and get arrested.”
Elaine: “So demonstators confronted authority; were clearly warned of the consequences of their illegal behavior; and were arrested for said behavior. So where’s the beef?” [/quote]
[quote]I previously directly answered: “It was explained to me that there was a process through Judicial Affairs that could have been used to handle this matter. As I explained in the piece, my preference was arrest, hold, release which would achieve the goal of allowing the bank to do business, slow down the protesters, but not clog the system with petty crimes. “[/quote]
It sounds to me what the Vanguard is advocating for is as follows:
1) the police should take the time, trouble and expense from their regular duties to arrest protestors in some sort of “preferred fashion” that does not involve pepper spray, batons or “unreasonable” force, but gives protestors the opportunity to play to the media cameras to the hilt;
2) the police should then take the time, trouble and expense to cart the protestors in proper style, in some sort of “preferred fashion” that does not involve restraints or unreasonable force, to the local pokey to be processed;
3) the authorities should then take the time, trouble and expense to properly warehouse the protestors until the protestors are released on their own recognizance;
4) only to subsequently let the protestors go scot free without any repercussions, with a fare thee well for a job well done, all at taxpayers’ expense;
5) so the protestors can go right back to repeating the above all over again in the name of exercising the protestors’ right to free speech without repercussion, at a repeated ad infinitum expense to said taxpayers.
Does that about sum up the Vanguard’s position, or have I missed something? What would Judicial Affairs have done to recompense the university and the state for all the attendant costs of the protests/damages caused by the protestors?
Elaine: I’ve already stated my position, why the need to distort it?
Thanks, Elaine, my cut-and-paste efforts got misplaced. My own observations about where the beef is responding to your exchange with David is more a frustration with his resistance to acknowledge the reality of what happened at the bank.
Let me ask you, since David still refuses to be responsive about my simple question. What would [u]he[/u] do with these 12 people if he were the UCD decision-makers or the county judge sentencing. To be clear, I’m asking about what to do [u]now[/u], not to keep repeating what someone [u]should have done[/u]–just another way to criticize UCD.
So, Elaine, here’s the question for you:[quote]”What UCD and criminal court punishments, [i]Elaine, do you think David[/i] would [s]you[/s] impose on those charged?”[/quote]I think you know what he would do if he were the chancellor or the judge. I pretty sure I know, but I’d hoped he’d say what he thinks.
[quote]”Elaine: I’ve already stated my position, why the need to distort it?”[/quote]The problem you face, Elaine, is that David’s position on a variety of things is pretty slippery to pin down. Your “distortions” actually are logical extensions of what David has staked out as “positions.” That he refuses to consider what might have happened if his positions (arrest and drag out protesters, for example) had been carried out just confounds your efforts to evaluate them.
[quote]Elaine: I’ve already stated my position, why the need to distort it?[/quote]
Where is the distortion? From what I can tell, you don’t seem to want anything whatever to happen to these students, no matter how much damage/expense they caused, are causing, will cause in the future. It appears you believe in the right to civil disobedience without any true responsibility for any damage caused. The local pokey should be nothing but a harmless revolving door for protestors, and the taxpayers should just pony up the expense as the cost of living in a democracy. I suspect you are dodging the question bc you know your position is indefensible…
Let’s try this from a different angle. What should the university do, moving forward, as a policy for handling protestors, in the Vanguard’s opinion?
As I said, arrest the protesters, hold, release. As an internal matter it can be handled through Judicial Affairs. The one exception would be acts of violence, which obviously should be charged conduct.
Okay, I give up. here’s my opinion about what David wants done (or would do himself if he were the one to decide) as punishment to be imposed by the courts or UCD on these 12 lawbreakers. His answer, nothing.
If forced to answer (obviously, he cannot be), he wants no punishment whatsoever for their lawbreaking. And he would have wanted none if they would have been dragged away from the scene as he supposedly wanted them to be.
He doesn’t want them to be tried (although Occupy leaders want trials for obvious reasons) because the DA probably has what David likes to describe as open-and-shut cases. At the end, proven guilt and punishment is made clear.
That’s the problem with these discussions that focus only on what authorities do wrong in any given situation. They’re kind of an armchair anarchist’s luxury. No need to look at the potential damage to society of allowing unfettered lawbreaking, whether it’s medical insurance fraud or blockading a bank until it closes.
It’s a hard case to make that people who hurt others, whether physically or financially, should not be punished for their crimes. But, the Vanguard never hesitates to try whenever lawbreakers are caught, even if in the act. What punishment is appropriate never enters the conversation when no punishment is demand.
[quote]dmg: As I said, arrest the protesters, hold, release. As an internal matter it can be handled through Judicial Affairs. The one exception would be acts of violence, which obviously should be charged conduct.
JustSaying: Okay, I give up. here’s my opinion about what David wants done (or would do himself if he were the one to decide) as punishment to be imposed by the courts or UCD on these 12 lawbreakers. His answer, nothing. [/quote]
JustSaying, you clearly have hit the proverbial nail on the head. From dmg’s statement above I can come up with no other conclusion than exactly what I have already said it appears the Vanguard’s position is:
[quote]1) the police should take the time, trouble and expense from their regular duties to arrest protestors in some sort of “preferred fashion” that does not involve pepper spray, batons or “unreasonable” force, but gives protestors the opportunity to play to the media cameras to the hilt;
2) the police should then take the time, trouble and expense to cart the protestors in proper style, in some sort of “preferred fashion” that does not involve restraints or unreasonable force, to the local pokey to be processed;
3) the authorities should then take the time, trouble and expense to properly warehouse the protestors until the protestors are released on their own recognizance;
4) only to subsequently let the protestors go scot free without any repercussions, with a fare thee well for a job well done, all at taxpayers’ expense;
5) so the protestors can go right back to repeating the above all over again in the name of exercising the protestors’ right to free speech without repercussion, at a repeated ad infinitum expense to said taxpayers.
[/quote]
In other words, allow civil disobedience, no matter how much money it costs the taxpayers; no matter how many people’s rights it tramples on; not matter how much it causes problems for everyone else – the protestors are somehow sacrosanct and on the side of all things right and relevant, and thus are entitled to a “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE” card, while John Q. Taxpayer is left paying the tab. As I said before, this sort of position is indefensible…
I hadn’t realized it before. So, we’ve spent lots of time talking around what David thinks is appropriate when, in the long run, nothing is satisfactory. It’s the same problem “discussing” in the Vanguard any of the issues that involve the criminal justice system or a law enforcement authorities. It’s just becoming clear.
David M. Greenwald
04/01/12 – 01:44 PM…
So Rusty wants them crippled for life in debt and Octane wants them kicked out school. Got it.
And, what does David want to happen to them. (Don’t get it.)
Justsaying, the silence says it all. Speaking of silence, I’m still waiting for the proof that white affluent South Davis parents made racist comments.
What’s really ruining these students’ lives is that they are wasting their chance to get an education at one of the world’s best universities. Instead they are playing at protesting at the behest of professors who got stuck in the sixties and left wing agitators who call themselves progressive but don’t understand basic economics. The students should perhaps get some community service – perhaps they can do some toilet cleaning for six months to make up for some of the costs they incurred from the lost bank fees. The professor should be fired, before he ruins the lives of more naive and unsophisticated young students who don’t realize what a fake he is.
“Speaking of silence, I’m still waiting for the proof that white affluent South Davis parents made racist comments. “
I finally got the emails, and it’s 1000 pages. Are you going to volunteer to help me read through them?
JR: I don’t there’s any evidence that they are doing this at the behest of the professors. The kids are doing it because they believe in it. I’ll await your proof though just in case.
There’s plenty of evidence that the students were encouraged by a professor.
See articles in the Cal Aggie about a teach in led by Prof. Clover of the English Department, who led a teach in at the bank blockage.
That’s not evidence that they were encouraged by the professor. You are missing a much bigger picture here in terms of the totality of the occupy movement and student frustrations both with UC and the overall political scene.
[quote]”You are missing a much bigger picture here in terms of the totality of the occupy movement and student frustrations both with UC and the overall political scene.”[/quote]You asked for proof, J.R. provided it.
What does the “bigger picture” have to do with Professor Clover’s role in this? You seem to be arguing that his encouragement was ineffective or a minor contribution, not that he wasn’t encouraging them or leading them. Try to think locally about what happened at the bank on the UCD campus.
Why are you wasting time trying to refute J.R.’s reasonable and apparently proven contention when you should be responding to my question about what punishment you think UCD officials and the Yolo County courts should impose now that they’ve been charged?!
“You asked for proof, J.R. provided it. “
No, that’s not proof, it’s thin in terms of whether it is even evidence. There is not evidence that he caused them to act in that manner or lead to them to do so. Yet that is what JR implies.
“What does the “bigger picture” have to do with Professor Clover’s role in this? “
Because the assertion is that he’s instigating students to act, the bigger picture is that students are acting everywhere.
“You seem to be arguing that his encouragement was ineffective or a minor contribution, not that he wasn’t encouraging them or leading them. Try to think locally about what happened at the bank on the UCD campus.”
JR’s claim is that their actions were at the behest of the professor. Behest means “authoratative order” or “command.” An “ineffective” or “minor contribution does not equate to behest”
“Why are you wasting time trying to refute J.R.’s reasonable and apparently proven contention when you should be responding to my question about what punishment you think UCD officials and the Yolo County courts should impose now that they’ve been charged?! “
Because I already answered your question five times.
[quote]No, that’s not proof, it’s thin in terms of whether it is even evidence. There is not evidence that he caused them to act in that manner or lead to them to do so. Yet that is what JR implies. [/quote]
No “thinner” than “proof” you have frequently offered up…
Elaine on 4/1: “I know I cannot always be as frank as I would like to be at times because of my commission work.”
Elaine on 4/3: “No “thinner” than “proof” you have frequently offered up… “
I shutter to think how you might act if you were as frank as you wanna be.
[quote]”Because I already answered your question five times.”[/quote]You must be kidding. You may have avoided answering my simple question five times or have answered a different question than I asked five times.
Maybe you could complete these sentences:
1. “If I were the Chancellor, I would punish the 10 charged individuals for their actions by ________,” and
2. “If I were the Yolo County judge, I would sentence the 10 (if they’re found guilty) to ______________.”
I think you should consider these questions because you keep announcing that UCD does the wrong thing no matter what they do.
What your reluctance suggests to me is that you don’t really think those who blockaded the bank deserve any punishment for breaking in the law openly and repeatedly until they succeeded in their objective of shutting down the bank.
If you think the demonstrators didn’t break any laws, why don’t you attempt to make the case? If there’s some reason you think that UCD and Yolo County should not punish these people for breaking these laws, why don’t you attempt to justify that case? If you think they deserve some punishment but not some other punishment, why not say so?
It’s frustrating to try to devine your feelings about this part of the bank blockade case if you avoid expressing them. How one feels about whether this is just a free speech demonstration or serious acts of law-breaking makes all the difference.
I think it’s clear the students (and their professor/leader) crossed the line and broke laws. The university should impose penalties (whether expulsion or a year off) and the court system should punish them the same way it would anyone else found guilty of these same crimes.
First, I believe I addressed your question several times.
I think the campus should have sent the protesters through judicial affairs, I believe the police should have arrested them, I believe they should be released uncharged.
“I think you should consider these questions because you keep announcing that UCD does the wrong thing no matter what they do. “
I think your asking the wrong questions. The critical actors are not the Chancellor and the Judge.
“What your reluctance suggests to me is that you don’t really think those who blockaded the bank deserve any punishment for breaking in the law openly and repeatedly until they succeeded in their objective of shutting down the bank. “
I’ve said that.
“If you think the demonstrators didn’t break any laws, why don’t you attempt to make the case?”
I never said that they broke laws, I’ve only said I do not believe utilizing the criminal justice system is appropriate here.
“If there’s some reason you think that UCD and Yolo County should not punish these people for breaking these laws, why don’t you attempt to justify that case? If you think they deserve some punishment but not some other punishment, why not say so? “
I have made my case, you simply don’t agree with it. That’s fine.