About a week or so ago, I spoke with one of the spokespersons with UC Davis, and they were almost excited that they had found what to them must have looked like the antidote to months of nightmares dealing with the Occupy UC Davis folks. They don’t need police confrontations, they simply have the DA’s office mail a complaint and suddenly the students are in serious legal jeopardy.
During this conversation, I had an uneasy feeling because, unlike many, I know the DA’s office. I know the court system, and the DA’s office does not mess around. They are not in it to send a message, they are in it to attempt to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and then some.
It is the “and then some” that should make everyone nervous who doesn’t immediately want the book thrown at a bunch of young and inexperienced kids, and for those who perhaps are merely hoping that this will get their attention enough to enable them to back off, stop protesting and go back to school.
The problem is that the DA’s Office does not play like that. They take no prisoners. They go for the kill shot every single time. Sometimes they go for the kill shot at times when their view is obstructed and they create collateral damage. Every so often they overreach and get smacked down by a judge, a jury, or sometimes an appellate court.
Sometimes they’ll make an offer that appears reasonable, and wait for the next time. Maybe they’ll even do that here.
But let’s make no mistake; this is not about sending a message.
You don’t put 5 felonies and 15 misdemeanors on a student to send a message. You don’t charge 12 of them with 21 misdemeanors each if you are sending them a message. You don’t put one of your top prosecutors on the case if you are sending them a message.
This isn’t about sending a message. This is about a pound of flesh. This is forced contrition.
They could not get them on the pepper-spray charges because the university had screwed up the legal basis for the arrest and it was too murky as to whether or not they had legal authority.
The university got their second chance with many of the protesters in the bank-blocking episode.
Let us make no mistake here, the university has to be embarrassed by the events of last six months.
As the Sacramento Bee said last Sunday, “Protests on college and university campuses – including civil disobedience, disruption and, sometimes, violence – are not uncommon.”
Within that framework, “wise university administrators prepare appropriately. They reach out to students and faculty. They set clear guidelines for time, manner and place of protests. They prepare for demonstrations – including training and planning for students affairs staff and campus police. They meet with protesters to attempt to defuse situations. They prepare for the unexpected – what if a crowd gets out of control?”
In the end, “The UC Davis administration, led by Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, failed these basics, resulting in overreaction to a small camp in the quad in the days leading up to the Thanksgiving break, when students leave campus.”
The Woodland Daily Democrat wrote, “One would think that California campuses have never seen protests in the past judging by the ineptitude display by both Katehi and campus police.”
They continued this “wasn’t even a ‘real’ protest,” moreover, “this wasn’t even a serious confrontation. No one was throwing stones, bottles or even offering resistance.”
They write, “Instead of deliberating or considering the full scope of the problem, Katehi and others used inaccurate information and then overreacted.”
UC Davis is embarrassed not only about the report, however, but that their inaction in January and February led to the closing of a bank.
As one attorney told us in passing, how in the hell do a bunch of kids manage to close down a bank? The only way that happens is if the university and its police fail to act decisively.
The notion of retroactive policing has been thrown around and ridiculed by many, but I think the word is accurate in this context because the university must have retroactively realized that their policy had backfired and now seek the full force of the State of California to suppress what is left of the protests.
And yes, this will probably work, but what a price to be paid in terms of liberty and the right to dissent.
Some of you will counter that the first amendment has time, manner and place restriction on it. And, moreover, the students did not have the right to prevent the bank from doing business, did not have the right to vandalize or deface property, and therefore this is not the suppression of first amendment rights, this is due enforcement of the law.
I think we need to tread very carefully here because this will have a definite chilling effect on the right to protest. The line is fuzzy at times. The operation in the Quad and the problems that the university had figuring out what law they had broken tell you that maybe, just maybe when the lines are gray, you err on the side of liberty and allowing dissent.
This week I overheard the police talking about how the Occupy movement was a breed apart, a different sort of protest. For them it meant that they believe the Occupiers believe their cause is so righteous that they should not be arrested.
Frankly, I think that is everyone who uses civil disobedience as a tool for social change. We can go back to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era, the anti-abortion movement, the nuclear freeze movement, and the anti-war movement of the last decade.
Are these protesters really all that different from the Chicago Seven? If anything, the Occupy Movement was milder, it was a bunch of kids sitting in tents or sitting in the Memorial Union.
Abby Hoffman told the judge, “you are a ‘shande fur de Goyim.’ ” I can’t imagine one of these kids being so brazen.
It’s easy to lose perspective.
The other night, the Vanguard was able to observe a large group of these kids, and my remark to someone else was, these are the kids everyone so fears?
I’m not about to condone acts of vandalism, but in this county that has become an offense that could ruin the kid’s life. Is that how we want to deal with young people who have taken up a cause that a lot of us agree with?
If they want to give him probation, community service, and restitution, that’s one thing. Five felonies and 15 misdemeanors in one case and 21 misdemeanors in another case, that is lunacy.
Then again this is a county where the penalty for stealing a $3.99 package of shredded cheese is to face life in prison and when cooler heads prevail, it is 7 years in prison.
This county once charged a man who allowed his goats to run free off his property – or so they claimed – with 170 misdemeanor offenses, one for each goat that got loose. If convicted he would have faced 60 years in prison. The DA would dismiss the charges after the defendant hired the law firm of Gonzales-Leigh to represent him in court.
As I told some of the protesters the other day, welcome to my world. You are about to find out what Yolo County justice looks like. So will the rest of the country.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, this column is not up to your usual high writing standards, and this remark has nothing to do with the topic. Very respectfully, I suggest you do a re-write as there are always those who prefer to attack style instead of substance.
The university got their second chance with many of the protesters in the bank blocking episode.
Yeah, and who’s fault was that? The protestors overplayed their hand – thiniking they could get away with anything after the pepperspray, and found out they made a serious miscalculation. So we are supposed to feel sorry for them because their little spoiled brat stunt backfired?
“Yeah, and who’s fault was that? “
It was a sentence that assigned no fault. That said, I hardly think sitting down in the MU in front of a bank suggests that the protesters thought they could get away with anything. As Daily Democrat, no bastion of liberalism suggested, it’s not like they were throwing rocks here.
Frankly I think that is everyone who uses civil disobedience as a tool for social change. We can go back to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era, the anti-abortion movement, the nuclear freeze movement, and the anti-war movement of the last decade.
first of all, the civil rights movement was a completely different breed of animal – that bears little to no similarity to this.
The students in question, were not forced to sit at a back of a bus, or to use a specific drinking fountain. They were not clubbed or beaten simply for speaking out. If these protestors had simply held up signs and chanted, nobody would have bothered them.
But they took that to the next level with the I-80 Freeway incident – infringing on the rights and safety of other people, as you cite, not guaranteed by any amendment.
“first of all, the civil rights movement was a completely different breed of animal – that bears little to no similarity to this. “
That’s a subjective view. But it also turns out it doesn’t really matter because the point is really about rights and consequences and the constitution doesn’t distinguish on these matters whether we view this is a worthy or unworthy cause – in fact we wouldn’t want it to.
The decision to bring the weight of the Yolo DA’s office into this case
most clearly demonstrates that the removal of the current UCD Chancellor resignation is now necessary. Anger and discontent on campus will now be driven “underground” with UCD considered the enemy in spite of the Chancellor’s contrite and reassuring rhetoric. The Red Goat* could very well erupt on campus along with the flowers of spring.
*http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/nyregion/graffiti-goats-in-kingston-ny-find-a-following.html
But once again, for the upteenth time…….
the vanguard, looking at this in terms of how the situation affects matzi…. did it ever occur to the vanguard to talk to the bank employees about the situation and how they were affected? how they had to show up to a hostile work environment? once the bank pulled out, what were they going to do? how were they going to earn a living? now there’s an idea!!!
And what is throwing the book at Matzat going to change for the bank employees?
If you are so concerned about the bank employees, then why haven’t you:
1. Determined how many actually lost their jobs after all, I drive by a US Bank every day on my way to my office six blocks away from campus.
2. Determined whether it was necessary for the bank to leave
3. Determined whether UC Davis shouldn’t have made sure that the bank could continue to operate in the MU?
you rarely if ever mention them in your article… so I can make calculated guesses.
Bottom line is that the students should not have been able to shutdown a bank and required massive mistakes from the bank and university in order to accomplish that, therefore any pain and suffering incurred by the bank employees is due to the mistakes of those in charge and moreover, this is all theoretical on your part since you have no idea how many if any actually lost their jobs.
“As one attorney told us in passing, how in the hell do a bunch of kids manage to close down a bank? “
I think this attorney’s question is actually quite telling. I doubt that a hand full of obstructing, but admittedly nonviolent, protesters could have closed a bank that was truly committed to remaining open. I will again use my, admittedly imperfect analogy to women’s health care clinics which choose to remain open despite much more serious threats and violent ( shot gun murders and bombs) actions. My point is not that these two are equivalent situations. Rather it is that if a business with as much financial strength behind it as the bank , wanted to maintain the branch, I am quite sure they could have weathered 3 months of inconvenience. The fact is that they chose not to. These students clearly could have been removed from an obstructing location and arrested, or not. Neither the bank nor the university chose to deal with this issue in a manner which has clearly been shown to be effective in allowing passage into clinics. There is clear and effective precedent for how to deal with these specific techniques and the authorities chose not to use them.
[quote] I doubt that a hand full of obstructing, but admittedly nonviolent, protesters [/quote]
Actually medwoman you are leaping to conclusions. Some of the bank employees have made claims that they were physically harassed by the protestors.
“Some of the bank employees have made claims that they were physically harassed by the protestors.”
And some of the students claim they were physically harassed by the employees.
[quote]
I’m not about to condemn acts of vandalism, but in this county that has become an offense that could ruin the kid’s life. Is that how we want to deal with young people who have taken up a cause that a lot of us agree with?
[/quote]
Really? You won’t condemn acts of vandalism?
I have a fundamental disagreement with the last sentence above. Here is a recipe for fascism:
Do not enforce the law when it is broken by people whose cause you agree with.
JR
“Some of the bank employees have made claims that they were physically harassed by the protestors.”
If true, this only strengthens my point. If indeed the protesters were physically harassing, they should have been arrested at the time thus allowing the bank to remain open. This is clearly the responsibility of the authorities.
JR: That was a typo, it should read: condone, that’s why it’s follow by the “but”
There was a kid, 18 I think, who got busted for a lot of graffiti in Woodland last year. A comparison of the facts and the adjudication of the two cases is in order.
One problem I have with your post is talking about young people the way both you and Katehi do. This guy is 22. Stop patronizing these people because of their age they are adults.
Toad: I was just told this week in another context that research suggests the brain is still developing up until age 24. For me I used the term to describe the fact that they are inexperienced. But whatever.
medwoman
You made a point to advance your argument, stating that the protestors were “admittedly nonviolent”.
I pointed out that your claim was false, and you say that this only reinforces your argument.
[quote]You don’t put 5 felonies and 15 misdemeanors on a student to send a message. You don’t charge 12 of them with 21 misdemeanors each if you are sending them a message. You don’t put one of your top prosecutors on the case if you are sending them a message.
This isn’t about sending a message. This is about a pound of flesh. This is forced contrition.[/quote]
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Students were calling for the pound of flesh and got it – from the university/university police. The career of Annette Spicuzza was ended w a forced retirement. Meyers had his duties as oversight manager of the police stripped. Furthermore a bank branch closed up shop, and can no longer operate on campus. And the student activity fees generated by the bank being there were lost. The university has taken a black eye in the press and in the community. Yes the students got their pound of flesh. Did you really expect the university to sit back and do nothing (catch and release is what you have advocated) in the face of such destruction? Really? At what point is the Vanguard willing to say enough is enough? In my book, we cannot allow anarchy to reign. And by the way, the scuttlebutt I have heard from campus is that law abiding students are pretty fed up w the protestors…
[quote]Bottom line is that the students should not have been able to shutdown a bank and required massive mistakes from the bank and university in order to accomplish that, therefore any pain and suffering incurred by the bank employees is due to the mistakes of those in charge and moreover, this is all theoretical on your part since you have no idea how many if any actually lost their jobs.[/quote]
Your continued insistence that the protestors no responsibility in this when they clearly broke numerous laws and university rules is mindboggling… and quite frankly shows an extreme bias in favor of the protestors. At what point are you willing to hold them responsible? I can understand if you feel the punishment of 15 years in prison is too harsh, or perhaps even jail time – but no responsibility for what they did? I think not…
[quote]I think it is pretty presumptuous of you to assume that these haven’t factored into my considerations along with:
1. Determining how many actually lost their jobs after all, I drive by a US Bank every day on my way to my office six blocks away from campus. [/quote]
Have you bothered to find out if anyone at the campus bank lost their job, including students? If not, why not?
If Matzat is young and inexperienced, then he was set up to fail by other, cynical radicals with a message that UC Davis is run by blood-stained crooks and needs a revolution. That message is self-serving garbage, but it’s also alluring in a time of high tuition caused by state budget cuts. High tuition is a valid concern, and revolutionary ideology is especially alluring to a student who is struggling academically.
When Matzat’s brain is fully developed some time after age 24, he will probably realize that it doesn’t do him any good that bystanders call him a hero and a victim and demonize the UC Davis administration. There wasn’t going to be any revolution, and he’s still walked into a lot of trouble. I don’t hate him and I’m not itching to see him punished, but if there has been vandalism and he is charged with vandalism, then that’s his problem to solve.
[quote]And yes, this will probably work, but what a price to be paid in terms of liberty and the right to dissent.
Some of you will counter that the first amendment has time, manner and place restriction on it. And, moreover, the students did not have the right to prevent the bank from doing business, did not have the right to vandalize or deface property, and therefore this is not the suppression of first amendment rights, this is due enforcement of the law.
I think we need to tread very carefully here because this will have a definite chilling effect on the right to protest. [/quote]
There is a right to free speech (not a right to “protest”), but there are limitations on that right. Preventing businesses from doing business and vandalizing are not “protected speech”. When the actions of protestors start trampling on the rights of others, what we have is a tyranny of the few – which is what the Vanguard seems to be condoning here…
[quote]Toad: I was just told this week in another context that research suggests the brain is still developing up until age 24. For me I used the term to describe the fact that they are inexperienced. But whatever.[/quote]
Wow, that’s lame. Are our young men fighting around the world inexperienced? You have men with families, homes, and jobs by that age. Are they inexperienced?
[quote]And some of the students claim they were physically harassed by the employees.[/quote]
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. They probably cost people their jobs or at least pay.
[quote]They are not in it to send a message, they are in it to attempt to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and then some.[/quote]
The DA shouldn’t be going around “sending a message” they should charge and prosecute the charges they feel they can prove. It sound’s like there must have been some pretty significant graffiti to rack up those charges. [b]IF[/b] the charges turn out to be true this adult is in trouble.
Mr Toad
Good point about age of “adulthood”. I would advocate that we end our societal schizophrenic attitude as exemplified by Katehi talking about “our children” while those under her are enabling these kinds of punitive actions aimed at one of “the children”.
What I would argue for here is a common sense approach with reparations to be made by which ever side caused actual damage. If that happens to be graffiti placed by Mr. Matzat, he should be responsible for removing it, either personally or by paying to have it removed. I fail to see how criminalization and/or incarceration helps anyone. Same approach for the police. If indeed Mr. Matzat did sustain nerve damage during an arrest he should be compensated by the police for his injury, and the officer directly causing the injury should be subject to what ever course of corrective action is warranted from retraining to demotion to loss of job as appropriate taken in the context of previous performance.
Where I would place the distinction in behavioral expectation is not on age, but on position. The students are supposed to be learning, not only academics but also about the most effective ways of presenting themselves and getting things accomplished in our society. In this process, we can anticipate that there will be some missteps and that these, if nonviolent, should be learning experiences, not life destroying events. I believe that university administrators and police, who supposedly have training, experience and are payed precisely to handle these sorts of situations in a professional manner should be held to a higher standard.
JR
I apologize for not making my point clear.
It is the responsibility to the police to enforce the law and protect civilians. If I am wrong, and the protesters were violent, all the more reason for the police to arrest them immediately to protect the employees. Thus, whether violent or non violent, the onus of enforcement is on the police
who apparently were simply not doing their job.
“I pointed out that your claim was false, and you say that this only reinforces your argument.”
We don’t know that her claim was false.
Elaine:
“Did you really expect the university to sit back and do nothing (catch and release is what you have advocated) in the face of such destruction? Really?”
Do I expect them to do it or suggest that they do so? Two different questions.
“At what point is the Vanguard willing to say enough is enough?”
When I see something worthy of doing so.
“In my book, we cannot allow anarchy to reign.”
I think you’re definition of anarchy is very loose.
“And by the way, the scuttlebutt I have heard from campus is that law abiding students are pretty fed up w the protestors…”
The scuttlebutt huh? How many people did you talk to? My impression is that it largely depends on who you talk to. After all just a week and a half ago, 500 students showed up at a rally for the bank blockers, obviously those students weren’t fed up. So I’m curious as to how you quantify your claim.
“Have you bothered to find out if anyone at the campus bank lost their job, including students? If not, why not?”
I made a lengthy records request, I was told to expect it on April 26, we’ll see.
Elaine: I believe it should have been handled internally by SJA. I’ve stated this numerous times.
“There is a right to free speech (not a right to “protest”), but there are limitations on that right.”
Protest is a form of speech. In fact, without the right to protest, there would not be a right to truly free speech.
“Preventing businesses from doing business and vandalizing are not “protected speech”.”
Those charges have not been proven. It may be that it was the lack of action by the police rather than the actions of the protesters that prevented business from being performed.
“When the actions of protestors start trampling on the rights of others, what we have is a tyranny of the few – which is what the Vanguard seems to be condoning here…”
Again, I don’t think this has been proven.
“Are our young men fighting around the world inexperienced?”
A lot of them. Which is why at times they make mistakes.
“You have men with families, homes, and jobs by that age. Are they inexperienced?”
Very much so. I wonder what the divorce rate is for people who marry under 24, probably very high.
This is one of your oddest commentaries ever. Its premise is a fictitious discussion with a fictitious UCD spokesperson about a fictitious public orgasm about a supposed “antidote” to the university’s problem of with lawbreaking demonstrators.
Following this phony set-up is an army of 9 straw man statements, 4 untrue allegations, 2 inappropriate comparisons, 5 claims of mind-reading and uncounted numbers of unsupported claims, sweeping generalizations and ignored but significant facts that contributed to these incidents. It’s difficult to know where to start.
You’ve taken all of the fallacious arguments that have been tossed at these incidents over the past four months and packed them into one outrageous column. But, this doesn’t make the discredited claims any more credible than they were when you argued them one at time.
In the words of your wiser side: “It’s easy to lose perspective.”
[quote][u]Elaine[/u]: “Preventing businesses from doing business and vandalizing are not ‘protected speech’.”
[u]David[/u]: “Those charges have not been proven. It may be that it was the lack of action by the police rather than the actions of the protesters that prevented business from being performed.”[/quote]You keep saying this when someone points out very basic flaws in your arguments. This is a distinction without a point.
Whether Mr. Matzat is convicted or not has nothing to do with Elaine’s statement of fact about the law. But you keep using this response to avoid dealing with legitimate points that others offer.
Yet, that technique doesn’t keep keep you from basing your own arguments on claims that “have not been proven.” Your very next sentence offers your own oft-repeated claim that the bank closure was the fault of the police not dragging the blockaders off to jail.
As if such a daily fight between police and demonstrators would have changed the bank’s calculation. Not only has this charge “not been proven,” you are the only one who has ever suggested such a weird “solution,” as far as I’ve read.
[quote]The scuttlebutt huh? How many people did you talk to? My impression is that it largely depends on who you talk to. After all just a week and a half ago, 500 students showed up at a rally for the bank blockers, obviously those students weren’t fed up. So I’m curious as to how you quantify your claim.[/quote]
500 out of how many students? 31,732 as of 2011. That is less than 1.3% of the students protesting. I stand by my statement that the scuttlebutt I heard is that most law abiding students are fed up with the protestors…
You dismiss my 500 figure as less than 1.3% and yet accept your own uncited figure which undoubtedly is based on far fewer students – you can’t have it both ways.
[quote]Protest is a form of speech. In fact, without the right to protest, there would not be a right to truly free speech. [/quote]
Protest may be a form of speech, but it is not necessarily protected free speech. Where in the constitution do you see written that citizens have the right to protest by breaking the law? Since when is blocking a bank (a form of protest) protected free speech? Since when is vandalism (a form of protest) protected free speech? Just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech, blocking banks, vandalism, pitching tents on the Quad overnight, etc. are not protected speech.
Elaine: please note, I did not argue that those specifically were protected speech, though I did argue is that those charges were not proven.
[quote]Those charges have not been proven. It may be that it was the lack of action by the police rather than the actions of the protesters that prevented business from being performed. [/quote]
It is amazing to me how you can so blindly blame others for the actions of the protestors, and not in any way hold the protestors accountable for their actions. Now let’s take this a step further. If all that happens is catch and release, as you have previously advocated for, there would be absolutely no incentive to stop illegal activity; everyone else’s rights would continue to get stepped on; and the protestors will move to shutting down classrooms next (something they have already tried by the way)…
You advocate for the protestors to be turned over the SJA. What makes you think a student protestor wouldn’t be expelled for vandalism/blocking a bank/poor grades if brought to the attention of SJA? But apparently you don’t want that either…
[quote]Very much so. I wonder what the divorce rate is for people who marry under 24, probably very high. [/quote]
From [url]http://www.divorcerate.org/[/url]
The divorce rate for 24 and under is 50.5%…
I find it quite amusing that you seem to want to apply the [i]in loco parentis doctrine[/i] (which you keep claiming is dead and buried on college campuses) to the protestors…
“It is amazing to me how you can so blindly blame others for the actions of the protestors, and not in any way hold the protestors accountable for their actions.”
What you seem to be missing is that I do hold the students accountable for their actions, but I don’t believe their actions sufficient to close down a bank, therefore, I have to assess additional blame.
“You advocate for the protestors to be turned over the SJA. What makes you think a student protestor wouldn’t be expelled for vandalism/blocking a bank/poor grades if brought to the attention of SJA? But apparently you don’t want that either… “
SJA has handled all matters from what I can tell. Only one person was expelled and they have the opportunity to regain their academic standing. I don’t have a particular problem with that.
Let me add: you seem to want to CONVENIENTLY apply the [i]in loco parentis[/i] doctrine to the protestors…
“I find it quite amusing that you seem to want to apply the [i]in loco parentis doctrine[/i] (which you keep claiming is dead and buried on college campuses) to the protestors…”
I don’t know what I said to make you believe I want an in loco parentis doctrine applied to college campuses.
[quote][u]David[/u]: “It is the ‘and then some’ that should make everyone nervous who doesn’t immediately want the book thrown at a bunch of young and inexperienced kids…I’m not about to condone acts of vandalism, but in this county that has become an offense that could ruin the kid’s life. Is that how we want to deal with young people who have taken up a cause that a lot of us agree with?”[/quote][quote][u]medwoman[/u]: “I would advocate that we end our societal schizophrenic attitude as exemplified by Katehi talking about ‘our children’ while those under her are enabling these kinds of punitive actions aimed at one of ‘the children’.”[/quote]I’m so torn about which side of this argument to take. Is it really schizophrenic to view young people for which the university has assumed some level of protective responsibility. Is it somehow offensive for us (society) to view our children as children until they’ve finished their college educations?
On the other hand, is it more admirable to argue that a 22-year-old should be given a pass for three months of continuous law-breaking that “could ruin the kid’s life” because of his youth and inexperience? Hmmm.
Tough call? Should one of the kids get punished for costing all of the others in the family so much in actual expenses?
Tougher call? What to do about the “adults” in the family who lead and encourage the kids to violate the law, Joshua Clover and Nathan Brown, and whose incendiary language is the Pied Piper music the kids are following.
[b]”Sunday Commentary: Prosecuting Matzat Isn’t About Sending a Message”[/b]
I agree. Of course, nobody ever said it’s about “sending a message” except you. It’s about crime and punishment. It’s about taking responsibility for one’s unlawful acts.
Talk about sending a message: What does it say to Matzat and others when the [i]Vanguard[/i] tells them that their lawbreaking shouldn’t be prosecuted–that the bank, the university, the D.A. are the ones in the wrong?
Just Saying: I’m not necessarily going to argue that kids should not be punished because they are kids. What I would argue is that going over the top with that punish is not likely to have a lot benefit. The question is left open as to what constitutes over the top.
“It’s about crime and punishment. It’s about taking responsibility for one’s unlawful acts.”
I think we as a society need to revamp how we look at crime and punishment issues, particularly in crimes that do not involve physical arm.
“What does it say to Matzat and others when the Vanguard tells them that their lawbreaking shouldn’t be prosecuted–that the bank, the university, the D.A. are the ones in the wrong? “
I don’t know, what does it say?
[quote]”What does it say to Matzat and others when the Vanguard tells them that their lawbreaking shouldn’t be prosecuted–that the bank, the university, the D.A. are the ones in the wrong? ”
I don’t know, what does it say?[/quote]My guess is that is tells “the kids” that laws can be broken with impunity. It suggests that being charged for breaking existing laws is wrong, and that it’s the responsibility of banks and universities and law enforcement to change their ways rather than stopping our own intentional acts that are illegal.
It says that the professors involved should be ashamed for using students to advance their own political and personal causes. Don’t send kids out to vandalize and block others’ rights to live their lives until you’ve been successful at getting society to eliminate the laws that “do not involve physical harm.”
Of course, that Mr. Matzat’s punishment will be “over the top” has yet to be proven. So, maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to base any of your arguments on this contention; He hasn’t even been found guilty yet.
[quote]”What you seem to be missing is that I do hold the students accountable for their actions, but I don’t believe their actions sufficient to close down a bank, therefore, I have to assess additional blame.”[/quote]No matter how many times you contend that the blockade actions couldn’t have convinced the bank to close even after three months, you’re stuck with the fact that it really happened.
Look all you want for other parties to blame or for some other scientific phenomena, you won’t find anyone other than the professors and students who successfully carried out their avowed objective. The purpose of blockading the bank was to get rid of the bank’s presence on campus. It worked, and yet you contend that you don’t think the demonstrators were capable of doing what they did.
Why is it so difficult for you to give credit where credit’s due?
Brown and Clover and the students are happy to have accomplished their goal. They’re just disappointed that they thought they had a period of free reign to break the law without being charged because the Katehi and university were hamstrung by their pepper spray scandal.
The weakest reed in your argument is your supposed “solution”–haul the blockaders to jail then release them without charges. Forget about the potential for violence in dragging them off, how would this have changed the outcome in any positive? Do you think the demonstrators would have cooperated with police attempts to arrest them?
Why do you think they wouldn’t have been back in their very same seats the next day? How many times would you have had police clear the place before you would charge them for the same crimes for which they now find themselves facing justice? How many times would you have arrested and charged them if they continued to return to their bank blockade each time?
You attempts to find some other villains is the bank closure don’t survive any of the questions you should have asked when you first conceived the thought. In fact, it appears to simply be a way to say “the kids were just playing a harmless game,” thereby minimizing all of the damage they caused the bank, the university and the students who were trying to get an education.
How long do you think the bank would have stuck it out if the university and DA had followed your
If we are going to treat student protesters as children, whether ostensibly to protect them or “to teach them a lesson” then those who are in the parental role should be setting a standard of consistency. Laws,to be effective, need to be uniformly enforced, not when it suits the mood or press needs of the authorities. This kind of over response ( as in the pepper spraying), then lack of response ( as an immediate response to alleged blockage of the bank), especially if there was any threatening behavior on the part of protesters is, in my opinion, an abrogation of official responsibility and does nothing to foster respect for the involved officials.
The bank clearly wanted to leave campus. They “threw in the towel” so easily. The chancellor showed terrible leadership. If they truly were “harassed ” which I doubt, then the bank or UCD could have hired security. The DA’s is once again over the top. It seems to be his MO. Some in political and legal circles say he has a Napoleon complex. I’m starting to believe it.
“No matter how many times you contend that the blockade actions couldn’t have convinced the bank to close even after three months, you’re stuck with the fact that it really happened. “
That’s not a convincing argument. We don’t know that it really happened as they claim. I suspect that the deal was not as profitable as they thought originally and they were looking for an excuse, exacerbated by the poor handling of UC.
“Look all you want for other parties to blame or for some other scientific phenomena, you won’t find anyone other than the professors and students who successfully carried out their avowed objective. “
I suppose you also argue that the student protests in France in 1968 brought down the 4th Republic?
“Why is it so difficult for you to give credit where credit’s due? “
Because it’s implausible and made possible only by the decision by the police not to arrest the students on the spot.
“Brown and Clover and the students are happy to have accomplished their goal. They’re just disappointed that they thought they had a period of free reign to break the law without being charged because the Katehi and university were hamstrung by their pepper spray scandal.”
To me every time you cite Brown and Clover, you show your ignorance of the inner working of the movement.
“Do you think the demonstrators would have cooperated with police attempts to arrest them? “
Did those arrested resist on November 18? You get this notion that they resisted arrest, but there is no evidence of it. They didn’t get charged with a 148, they got charged with a failure to disperse.
It’s a good thoughtful commentary. Too bad many of the responses get
sillier and sillier.
Most of government is controlled by corporations. Thank goodness some people, e.g. Davis protesters, have been willing to take the time and energy and risk to protest privatizing the university, whether with high tuition or a bank kicking funds back to UCD.
“The DA’s is once again over the top. It seems to be his MO. Some in political and legal circles say he has a Napoleon complex. I’m starting to believe it.”
Obviously you don’t know the DA.
I’ll give you a different analysis. The DA wants to restore order and this guy makes a good example since he seems to be all over the place in these campus protesst.
The real test will be a comparison between this graffiti case and others in this county with similar facts. Only then can you start to critique whether or not this is a political prosecution. Although even if you decide this guy is being singled out a good case can be made that it should not surprise anyone considering his level of involvement. Still justice should be administered evenly and that is why the comparison with other graffiti prosecutions is important.
Toad: “The real test will be a comparison between this graffiti case and others in this county with similar facts”
Not if you believe that the DA systematically overcharges all case.
I asked this on an earlier story about the protestors, but who at UCD ordered the DA to get involved or dd the DA office jump in on their own. I had thought the Chancellor decided to not have the university press charges against the protestors arrested in Nov incident but now seems there wasn’t grounds to arrest. Which is it and did she order these charges for the bank protestors?
So, you again repeat your speculation about what you claim the bank authorities secretly were thinking. And, you again, ignore legitimate questions about what you, yourself, are thinking when you keep claiming arrests and release would have had some better result with the bank staying in place.
Your refusal to even try to give some rationale for why dragging demonstrators away to jail and then releasing them without charges would keep them from showing up the following day at the bank.
After refusing to respond a dozen times you’ve been asked, one has to question why you keep offering at a solution that you claiiiiwould have kept the bank branch open. It gets at least tiresome and eventually clearly is disingenuous.
Why you repeatedly claim that Clover and Brown are not involved in the campus demonstrations and disruptions–by labeling our citations as “ignorance”–is a mystery. To my knowledge, you have yet to list names of the Dirty Davis Dozen, in spite of your repetitive coverage of the events. The list combine with tv and newspaper coverage and self-authored statements and blog exhortations and press releases to make clear both the leadership responsibilities and cheerleader roles that these two have chosen for themselves.
With all this on the record, it’s difficult to understand why you choose to blind your eyes to reality and to kiss off others’ observations as “ignorance” without even a slight attempt to justify the reasoning behind your name calling. But, to buy your theory, one has to disregard everything that the university has said, everything the bank has said and, especially interesting, everything the Occupy materials have said.
If that purposeful refusal to acknowledge what’s in front of your face satisfies your logic, fine. But, please don’t brush off others’ observations as ignorance if they tdon support your speculation.
Re: SODA
The following is just my understanding. On Nov18, the UCD PD made arrests and filed charges to DA. Katehi decided not to press charges. In Jan, those charges were dropped by the DA, but I cannot tell if the DA dropped those charges on Katehi’s request, or that the charges were not good enough. To tell which is which I need to know what statement a typical DA would have made if the charges were dropped by a request.
In Jan, the US Bank Blockade started. In Feb, UCD started forwarding cases and evidence to the DA. As far as I understand, it is up to the DA to decide if there is enough evidence to make a case, when there is enough, then the prosecution process would proceed. In March, that process started. It was unclear whether that process started because it was simply continued the initiation that started in Feb, or that it started because the Bank closed its MU branch, and UCD told the DA to “retaliate.” To tell which is which, I need to know the normal progress of such a process, and the queue in DA’s office to tell if the priority of the US Bank blockade case shifted suddenly.
In March, Matzat was arrested for vandalism. He was arrested on Nov18, and also being charged for US Bank blockade. But none of the current charges have anything to do with Nov18. It is a result that some of those who were protesting on Nov18 were also blocking the bank and at least Matzat was vandalizing. To argue that this is retaliation against Nov18, I would need to know if the UCD PD or UCD SJA knew many vandalist that were not involved in Nov18, but selectively forward Matzat to DA because he was the only one involved.
On why SJA forwarded the case to DA, my [b]guess[/b] is that by the time SJA got the case, Matzat was either already expelled (due to his grades), or about to get expelled, so that SJA cannot handle his case. Someone who knows more on whether SJA can do anything about expelled student, or know when/whether Matzat is expelled could correct my guess.
** By the way, how do people check if Matzat is still a student? When I go to ucdavis.edu and type my name to search under “people”, I still see myself as a “Teaching Assistant” (a status that is at least two years old). That database does not get updated frequently. How did people check whether Matzat is currently a student?
So far I still don’t know what the graffiti are that take over $400 to repair. According to the previous article there were 5 of them. [Ref] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5290:matzat-faces-5-felony-15-misdemeanor-vandalism-charges&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100[/url])
On the north side of Social Science and Humanities building, some of the graffiti had already been painted over. Before the repair was made, there were at least two black stencil images of a cop in riot gear holding a baton. But since they are removed I don’t know exactly where those images were.
Again, I do not know if they were related to Matzat.
[Image of North Side of Social Sci Building] ([url]http://skylet.net/images/2012-04-22 – Building surface.jpg[/url])
[img]http://skylet.net/images/2012-04-22 – Building surface.jpg[/img]
Image showing:
1: Paint over paint. The color now do not match. The mismatch is supposedly only temporary?
2: Something was done on the concrete wall. That concrete wall had no paint on it originally. The photo shows that the image was not completely removed. Who knows how to remove them?
Most important questions to me:
What is the fair expense for the university to repair these? (Taken into account of labor laws, minimum wages, insurance, documentation, accounting, etc.) If each of these do not cost more than $400 to repair, then [i]What[/i] is the graffiti that Matzat is being charged for felony?
What is the minimum expense for someone to repair these, and how long would it take? (e.g. if a team of counter-vandalist just decided to sneak to campus and do the repair themselves without asking for permission, how much would that cost?)
What is the minimum expense for someone to vandalize it again with a stencil, how long would that take?
[Image link corrected] ([url]http://skylet.net/images/2012-04-22_-_Building_surface.jpg[/url]) (Couldn’t have spaces.)
[quote]You dismiss my 500 figure as less than 1.3% and yet accept your own uncited figure which undoubtedly is based on far fewer students – you can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
Good one dmg.
You recently dismissed the 2500 inconvenienced account holders at US Bank’s campus branch as less than 10% of the student body. Yet now you hold the 500 figure out as a large number.
Talk about trying to have it both ways.
“As one attorney told us in passing, how in the hell do a bunch of kids manage to close down a bank?”
Tell your attorney friend they do it by blockading the bank for three months. Four, if necessary. Or, five or six. Simple. They did what they planned to do. It wasn’t that hard. They were given encouragement by a few professors and Occupy demonstrators.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone who watched it happen from day to day. If your attorney friend is too ignorant to understand how a dedicated band of blockaders can manage something like this if they really want to, tell them to watch the trials.
Edgar: Matzat is currently a student, he was only expelled last week and he was given a path to reinstatement.
JR: My only point with regards to the 500 was to put a number on Elaine’s scuttlebutt which remains unquantified.
JS: Sure. The first thing the attorney told me is that if they attempt to collect on the restitution, they would subpoena all of those internal records because the bank would have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt was due to the students.
“And you’ve had to purposely ignore all of the other reporting and the professors own exhortations to be able to pretend that Brown and Clover haven’t been encouraging these students to conduct the illegal actions they’ve carried out. “
I’m not questioning that Brown and Clover used rhetoric that would encourage, I’m questioning whether the students actually acted at their behest. I actually have pretty good evidence that they haven’t.
JustSaying
“Tell your attorney friend they do it by blockading the bank for three months. Four, if necessary. Or, five or six. Simple. They did what they planned to do. It wasn’t that hard. They were given encouragement by a few professors and Occupy demonstrators.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone who watched it happen from day to day. If your attorney friend is too ignorant to understand how a dedicated band of blockaders can manage something like this if they really want to, tell them to watch the trials.”
I would not be too certain regarding cause and effect here. I am fairly sure that no one who posts here is privy to the financial records of the bank and so can say whether this action on the part of the students was the direct cause, a contributing factor, or a handy excuse for a branch closure. If I am wrong, please correct me and state the basis for your knowledge. Otherwise, this is pure speculation on all sides.
[quote]Edgar: Matzat is currently a student, he was only expelled last week and he was given a path to reinstatement. [/quote]
This seems appropriate. It doesn’t help the student to flounder quarter after quarter, digging a deeper and deeper hole academically. Students are dismissed all the time for a wide variety of reasons, but the University usually leaves the door open for the student to return in most situations.
[quote]You dismiss my 500 figure as less than 1.3% and yet accept your own uncited figure which undoubtedly is based on far fewer students – you can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
The number of students at UCD is 31,732. See the following link: [url]http://facts.ucdavis.edu/profile.lasso[/url]
So therefore 500 students protesting is less than 1.3% of the student population. Again I stand by my statement that the scuttlebutt around campus is that the law abiding students are fed up with the protestors. The FACTS speak for themselves…
Correction: The number of students at UCD as of 2011 is 31,732…
[quote]I’m not questioning that Brown and Clover used rhetoric that would encourage, I’m questioning whether the students actually acted at their behest. I actually have pretty good evidence that they haven’t.[/quote]
And what “good evidence” would that be?
[quote]Your refusal to even try to give some rationale for why dragging demonstrators away to jail and then releasing them without charges would keep them from showing up the following day at the bank.
After refusing to respond a dozen times you’ve been asked, one has to question why you keep offering at a solution that you claim would have kept the bank branch open. It gets at least tiresome and eventually clearly is disingenuous.
Why you repeatedly claim that Clover and Brown are not involved in the campus demonstrations and disruptions–by labeling our citations as “ignorance”–is a mystery. To my knowledge, you have yet to list names of the Dirty Davis Dozen, in spite of your repetitive coverage of the events. The list combine with tv and newspaper coverage and self-authored statements and blog exhortations and press releases to make clear both the leadership responsibilities and cheerleader roles that these two have chosen for themselves.
With all this on the record, it’s difficult to understand why you choose to blind your eyes to reality and to kiss off others’ observations as “ignorance” without even a slight attempt to justify the reasoning behind your name calling. But, to buy your theory, one has to disregard everything that the university has said, everything the bank has said and, especially interesting, everything the Occupy materials have said.
If that purposeful refusal to acknowledge what’s in front of your face satisfies your logic, fine. But, please don’t brush off others’ observations as ignorance if they tdon support your speculation.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]erm: “I find it quite amusing that you seem to want to apply the in loco parentis doctrine (which you keep claiming is dead and buried on college campuses) to the protestors…”
dmg: I don’t know what I said to make you believe I want an in loco parentis doctrine applied to college campuses.[/quote]
How about the following lines:
[quote]dmg: I’m not about to condone acts of vandalism, but in this county that has become an offense that could ruin the [u]kid’s[/u] life. Is that how we want to deal with [u]young people[/u] who have taken up a cause that a lot of us agree with?
dmg: I was just told this week in another context that research suggests the [u]brain is still developing up until age 24[/u]. For me I used the term to describe the fact that they are [u]inexperienced[/u]. [/quote]
Sounds like the in loco parentis doctrine to me –
From wikipedia:
[quote]The term in loco parentis, Latin for “in the place of a parent””[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students’ civil liberties.[1][/quote]
I think many of elaine’s points were spot on. It is worth repeating that Matzi and company got their pound of flesh – Spicuzza got one strike, no chance to “turn her life around” or “learn from her mistakes” – she didn’t even get the luxury of getting demoted or reassigned a position that she could handle……
and Katehi wasn’t given a “second chance” before cries for her head to roll either…….
and yet Matzi was already given his. He wasn’t arrested or kicked out of the university after his participation in the pepperspray incident… and what did he do? turn his life around? no. He decided to cause more trouble, and the end result was others still lost their jobs via his actions – and these bank employees were totally innocent.
I also want to respond to one of the vanguards comments about the “bank employees attacking the demonstrators”
I’m not even going to answer that – it doesn’t dignify a response… the vanguard needs to use its critical thinking abilities on that scenario…
” Again I stand by my statement that the scuttlebutt around campus is that the law abiding students are fed up with the protestors. The FACTS speak for themselves…”
You haven’t cited any facts. All you cited was a nebulous scuttlebutt that has no grounding in any kind of sourcing or quantification.
[i]You haven’t cited any facts. All you cited was a nebulous scuttlebutt that has no grounding in any kind of sourcing or quantification. [/i]
Which makes ERM’s comments marginally better than re-printing known falsehoods attributed to organizations accurately described as ethereal and ephemeral.
[quote]”I would not be too certain regarding cause and effect here. I am fairly sure that no one who posts here is privy to the financial records of the bank and so can say whether this action on the part of the students was the direct cause, a contributing factor, or a handy excuse for a branch closure. If I am wrong, please correct me and state the basis for your knowledge. Otherwise, this is pure speculation on all sides.”[/quote]You’re certainly correct, madwoman, that I don’t have the bank’s records All I have is what is what has been reported to have happened, documented by many media outlets.
There was a bank blockade that went on for three months until the bank gave in. The announced purpose, as repeated by the demonstrators and in many blogs, was to shut down the bank. It worked.
The blockade went beyond lawful demonstrations. Several participants have been charged with crimes committed during the blockade. As a result, some might plead to lesser charges, some might go to trial and some might have charges dropped.
All parties have acknowledged that the blockade drove the bank’s decision to quit business at the campus. Now, we have David trying to make the case that the demonstration didn’t cause the bank to quit, nay, even [u]couldn’t[/u] have been the cause.
And, claiming that the lawbreakers really didn’t break the law but only were charged only because the university wants to show it has guts enough to be tough. And, that the DA in this county took the cases and overcharged them just because, well, that’s what happens in Yolo County.
And, that professors who led the demonstrators by their actions, participation and rhetoric really didn’t influence in spite of their very public efforts.
David has repeated this revisionist history without providing any evidence that it’s accurate, then criticizes those who question it as spreading speculative, nebulous scuttlebutt. “I’ve talked to some people so I know better than what might appear to be true,” is his only response.
No, I don’t have bank records. Isn’t it usually up to the folks who manufacture counter-intuitive schemes to offer up some proof or, maybe, just a little logic?
The [i]Vanguard[/i]’s entire theory on the bank blockade and subsequent charges is based on David’s oft-repeated charge that the bank still would be operating if only university officials would have arrested and released the demonstrators.
After many “tiresome and predictable” requests for him to explain how this would have changed history, he never has responded.
The [i]Vanguard[/i] continues to minimize the actions of the lawbreakers and those who egg them on and to come up with speculation about ways to blame the bank, the university and the county government for the poor kids being in their legal jams.
Sorry, I knew my spell check finally would offend you, medwoman. I’ve corrected it many, many times. Better now than at some time when I’m agreeing with you, eh?
JS:
“There was a bank blockade that went on for three months until the bank gave in. “
Actually that’s not very accurate. It appears that it was about six weeks. Mid-January, bank closed around late February, early March.
“The blockade went beyond lawful demonstrations. Several participants have been charged with crimes committed during the blockade.”
They were charged with 647C which as far I can tell amount to them sitting down in front of the door way.
“All parties have acknowledged that the blockade drove the bank’s decision to quit business at the campus. Now, we have David trying to make the case that the demonstration didn’t cause the bank to quit, nay, even couldn’t have been the cause. “
What I have actually argued is that both the bank and the university mishandled the situation which contributed to the ultimate closing of the bank. Moreover, and this part is speculation, I wonder if the bank really wanted to fight it that hard.
“claiming that the lawbreakers really didn’t break the law but only were charged only because the university wants to show it has guts enough to be tough.”
That’s not quite what I claimed.
“And, that professors who led the demonstrators by their actions, participation and rhetoric really didn’t influence in spite of their very public efforts. “
I don’t think think that the professors were the leaders of this as you seem to believe.
I’m not going to response to the rest of your sordid theory.
JustSaying
I’ve been called worse ; )
91 Octane
“Spicuzza got one strike, no chance to “turn her life around” or “learn from her mistakes” – she didn’t even get the luxury of getting demoted or reassigned a position that she could handle…… “
I may have missed something in the news coverage, but I don’t think that we actually know what options were made available to Chief Spicuzza
do we ? Perhaps she was made other offers and simply chose that which she felt was her best option.
I personally find this a very sad outcome all the way around. No one ” won” anything here. Not the protesters, not the police, not the administration. I just find this whole episode a very sad commentary on the lesson we are reinforcing to our students and actually all of our citizens about the destructive nature of the adversarial rather than collaborative nature of our society.
medwoman: I may have missed something in the news coverage, but I don’t think that we actually know what options were made available to Chief Spicuzza do we ? Perhaps she was made other offers and simply chose that which she felt was her best option.
I seriously doubt she was made an offer to keep her job.
medwoman: “I personally find this a very sad outcome all the way around. No one ” won” anything here. Not the protesters, not the police, not the administration. I just find this whole episode a very sad commentary on the lesson we are reinforcing to our students and actually all of our citizens about the destructive nature of the adversarial rather than collaborative nature of our society.”
tell that to occupy, Tell that to Matzi.
Moreover, and this part is speculation, I wonder if the bank really wanted to fight it that hard.
yes, you are eager to entertain a fantasy scenario that would absolve the protestors of responsibility.
91 Octane
“tell that to occupy, Tell that to Matzi. ”
The significance of this comment would be ? I believe I stated quite clearly that my comment applies to all involved.
91 Octane
“I seriously doubt she was made an offer to keep her job.”
I agree that you are likely correct about keeping her current job, but that was not the substance of your initial comment that I was responding to.
We have no idea whether or not any other options such as transfer, retraining, demotion, or being assigned a desk job were on the table.
This is pure speculation on your part unless you have inside knowledge you haven’t shared..
Re: David
Thank you for the clarification that Tomas was expelled not long before Apr17 when DAC made that post, and he was given a path of reinstatement. The question remains: did he get expelled fairly?
—-
Some explanation about biased and unbiased accusers
When an Accuser is driven by bias, they would make the most severe accusation they could make without consciously lying. A way to tell whether an Accuser is biased is to check if they making accusations based on conjectures on the motive of the accused instead of based on set principles and procedures.
A biased Accuser would make moves when there is no proof because they want to see the opposition in the worst light possible. They use the unknown to their advantage, and thus appear opportunistic.
An unbiased Accuser cannot move until there is proof because they have no motivation to accuse unless they have to. They let the unknown be the benefit of doubt to dismiss the conflict. This makes them appear reserved.
Regardless whether an Accuser is biased or unbiased, at any moment, their belief could be the truth. Because of this, unless they have to interfere, an unbiased Accuser would tolerate the message from a biased Accuser. The unbiased Accuser understands that the biased Accuser can only operate within the margins of the unknown. As facts are uncovered, the conclusions drawn by biased or unbiased Accusers would converge.
Because of this understanding, suppression is not a tactic of an unbiased Accuser. It is within the liberty of the biased Accuser to use the unknown to their advantage. To suppress that would be to reject a possibility within the unknown. If an unbiased Accuser uses such tactic, they would become a biased Accuser by definition. Therefore, suppression as a tactic is only used by biased Accusers.
—–
In this case, DAC (the Crew) is a biased Accuser because they are accusing based on conjectures on the intention of the arrest and the expelling. The exact motivations of those actions are still within the unknown.
However, according to the principle outlined above, that a biased Accuser would make the most severe accusation they could afford without lying, I could draw the following conclusions because the Crew is close to Tomas and knows more about Tomas than I do.
The Crew knows something about Tomas the keeps them from making the more severe accusations that I would have made by using my bigger margin of unknown. Therefore, the following are inferred to be part of the truth by that principle:
1) Tomas did draw graffiti on campus properties. Reason: The Crew did not make the accusation, “Tomas is innocent!”
2) Tomas did draw at least 5 + 15 = 20 graffiti. Reason: The Crew did not say, “The Admin exaggerated what Tomas did!”
3) The damage of at least 5 of them were indeed over $400. Reason: The Crew did not say, “No way that takes more than $400 to fix!”
4) The police did not beat up or harass Tomas when he was arrested and put in jail. Reason: The Crew did not say, “Tomas was harassed in jail!”
5) The police did let Tomas make phone calls. Reason: The Crew did not say, “Tomas wasn’t allowed to make phone calls!”
6) The police or the Admin did not coerce Tomas to admit guilt. Reason: The Crew did not say, “The Admin asked Tomas to pledge guilty or else he would be expelled!”
——-
Addressing concerns
According to the call for “the general public to reject categorically the administration’s use of legal maneuvering to suppress political dissent” made by the Crew, their concern is suppressed political dissent.
If I have no concern of my own, I would have no reason not to support their call. But I do have concerns, and until my concerns are addressed, I cannot support their call. My concerns are:
1) Ambiguity: How will an action be categorized? What are some examples of violations that can’t be argued to be political?
2) Unnecessity: Why is the current media and methods of expressions not enough? Why isn’t facebook, or the protocol set by the university to protest with permit enough? What is the evidence that those channels are suppressed by the Admin?
“I seriously doubt she was made an offer to keep her job.”
No but she was given an offer to keep her 3% at 50 pension, now wasn’t she? Because she wasn’t fired for cause, she gets to keep that.
[quote]You haven’t cited any facts. All you cited was a nebulous scuttlebutt that has no grounding in any kind of sourcing or quantification.[/quote]
I cited [i][b]facts[/b][/i] about the student population. I properly designated opinions I heard around campus as scuttlebutt, whereas it seems the Vanguard labels such things “unnamed sources”…
[quote]JustSaying: David has repeated this revisionist history without providing any evidence that it’s accurate, then criticizes those who question it as spreading speculative, nebulous scuttlebutt. “I’ve talked to some people so I know better than what might appear to be true,” is his only response. [/quote]
Nicely said!