by Dan M. Brown
On November 18th, there was an anti-police riot on the University of California, Davis, campus. A group called UC Davis Cops off Campus led the riot, which involved vandalism, threats, intimidation, and the use of a smoke grenade and/or a flare.
The Yolo County Republican Party condemns the riot, as we condemn all political violence. Unfortunately, UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May has not condemned the riot. He sent out an email on November 19th, the day after the riot, mentioning COVID-19, 
Fall commencement, and an interview he conducted with San Francisco Mayor London Breed, but not the riot. It is verifiable that Chancellor May knew about the riot. Why? Because, on an Instagram post on his Instagram account, he disabled comments after some students asked him what actions the University will take against the perpetrators.
Like these students, we too wonder what actions will be taken against the perpetrators of the political violence on November 18th. Will UC Davis file charges against those who committed crimes? Unfortunately, we are doubtful that they will, as a lack of acknowledgement points to an unwillingness to take any action. The likely prospect of inaction makes us, as taxpayers and law-abiding citizens, angry; afterall, we are the ones who subsidize education at UC Davis and will have these criminals in our communities when they get out of the University.
We hold it evident and true that all who engage in political violence should be condemned, that all who engage in political violence should be punished, and that without law-enforcement, nobody is safe. Does Chancellor May?
Dan M. Brown, Chair
Yolo County Republican Party
Unfortunately Mr. Brown, authorities today look the other way when left wing “vandalism, threats, intimidation” are involved. But if that was a Republican rally that did that you know the response would be much different.
As someone who was out there, a “riot” is a gross mischaracterization of what happened out there.
From what I’ve read I wouldn’t call it a riot either. But do you agree if let’s say the Davis College Republicans had done the same stunt for another reason that there would be consequences?
I think the real issue is that after the pepper spray backfired on them, they decided police would not be involved at all – lest there be the perception of a repeat.
Last week, the Yolo County DA’s office put out a statement on smash-and-grab thefts – which is particularly notable since there has not been any in Yolo County.
Apparently, this comment didn’t age well. According to Next Door, there was a smash-and-grab theft at West Davis CVS last night
Very interesting Shane. You posted this on the wrong article. Please repost it to the proper article as it will add to the conversation.
As someone very involved in the aftermath of the pepper spray incident, I condemned the police actions of November 2011. I would not describe the demonstration this month as a riot either, though I was not there. There are and always will be discussions in the area of nonviolence as to whether property destruction is warranted and/or nonviolent. I fall in the camp that property destruction does cross the line. Therefore, I do condemn the graffiti, which was not only destructive, but unnecessary and will backfire as a message. Chalk would have got the message across just fine. Funny I was just re-reading an article on a friend hassled by police on campus for drawing a protest sign in chalk on campus pavement, the police calling it destructive vandalism. And now spray paint is ignored – yes, perhaps the pendulum has swung too far from ridiculous (chalk is destructive) to ridiculous (spray paint is ignored).
Though I don’t agree with the protestors anti-police message, I salute their ability to march and speak, and that the pepper spray incident did stop the over-reaction of police to student protests, a valuable part of college life and societal messaging. Again, while I don’t support the message, I was impressed with the theatrics of the giant pig and the smoke bombs. And the police restraint when being poked in the eye. But ignoring vandalism goes too far. While police not going after peaceful protestors was a positive outcome of 2011, ignoring damage that happens at a protest is not a good idea either. And it was probably just a couple of people. And, the police probably know who they are (see next paragraph).
I found it amusing that the Vanguard when originally reporting this said that no police were present. I heard the same thing reported the day that thousands of students gathered on the Quad to protest the Pepper Spray Incident. A friend who knew some of the inner-workings of UCD pointed out several people that day who where undercover cops in the crowd – watching them it was clear they were correct. I assure you, dear protestors, there were cops present that day. ‘Janitors in electric carts’, ‘Sweet Jane who joined your group a few weeks ago’, ‘Camera on the pole’. You are being watched. It’s the way of the world.
At least we aren’t being maced in the face for ‘illegal camping’.
As for the article claims of threats & intimidation & political violence — I think that’s stretching the reality a bit.
One thing that I find rather perplexing – clearly the university overpoliced ten years ago, but I never understood why the answer to overpolicing is to stop policing. It’s as if they don’t believe they can adequately police without overpolicing. The same thing happens when people protest police shootings, it’s like fine, we’ll stop shooting people by stop policing.
I fully agree with Dan Brown that illegal actions, regardless of the name one chooses for them should have consequences. However, I do not believe those consequences should be dependent upon which political group is engaged. If this spirit, I would recommend the following:
1.Mr. Brown and his GOP affiliates should apply the exact same standard they applied to the Young Republicans choice to invite Milo to campus in 2016 knowing of the inflammatory nature of his presentations in the past. I do not recall him speaking out against this deliberate provocation of unrest.
2. The university proceed in exactly the same manner with charges as they did at that time.
What charges are you referring to? Did Milo do anything wrong by trying to speak his views on campus? If I remember right it was the leftist activists who caused all of the problems.
Do not leftists on the campus also invite speakers who could be considered a provocation by those on the right? Should they be held responsible for simply inviting those people to speak or for any actions that might be taken by those that find them unsuitable?
I don’t recall the Yolo Republicans issuing a similar statement about the January 6 attack on our nation’s Capitol.
This has nothing to do with Trump or Jan. 6, it’s about the protest of the 10 yer anniversary of the pepper spray incident. Your comment and BM’s are off topic and should be removed.
Isn’t his question just a variant of yours: “ But do you agree if let’s say the Davis College Republicans had done the same stunt for another reason that there would be consequences?”
Hey, I just want to know the rules. I know if I brought up Biden, or as I’ve been told many times this isn’t about national politics or the president, my comment would’ve been deleted. I think you know that too.
Asking about the rules, or making comments regarding discrepancies in how rules are applied is against the rules.
And counts against your 5 comments, as well. Again, depending upon how the rules are applied.
Or, the Chair of the Yolo County Republican Party… perhaps the trump-ets (or -ettes) were muted… or, silenced… or just not chose to “go there”…
It seemed like a gratuitous “letter to the editor”…
Five comment rule is in effect. Please manage your own comment counts.
“This has nothing to do with Trump or Jan. 6, it’s about the protest of the 10 yer anniversary of the pepper spray incident.”
My comment is about what I see as the inconsistency of asking for the law to be invoked in one instance but staying silent about much more serious events. I’m for the law being enforced when appropriate.
RG, I believe the local party chapter may be thinking globally and acting locally.
Perhaps