MOOR vs. MOOR: Is the police action against the Occupy UC Davis protestors justified?

Police brutality should never be condoned; however, the pepper spraying incident at UC Davis is anything but. Students have a First Amendment right to free speech, but not the right to trespass on government property and set up legions of hobo camps.
These protestors were disruptive to the learning environment and placed school administrators in the difficult position of doing what was best to protect the safety of their students, even if that meant forcefully removing those who did not comply.
Lieutenant John Pike, the police officer who administered the pepper spray, warned them of his actions, and they chose to ignore him. In fact, the protestors were fortunate that Lt. Pike chose to pepper spray them rather than having them physically pried apart which would have put them at risk of injuries.
To many, siding with the students who appear to be peacefully protesting against the raise in tuition may be morally satisfying. However, many overlook the fact that the officers had given the protestors many opportunities to avoid punishment. In other words, the protestors were warned and knew exactly what was going to happen if they did not comply.
Jimmy Tang,
Copy Editor
————————————————————————————————————–
Pepper spray really comes in handy whenever you want something. Whether it would be combating a Black Friday crowd for an X-box or a serial sociopath for your life, this weapon is precious.
On the other hand, one should consider if it would make any sense to use pepper spray against innocent, virtuous human beings who simply have a right to power—certainly not.
The students at the Nov. 28 protest at UC Davis were unethically treated by the police when they were pepper sprayed. In a scenario where students cause violence, such measures would be necessary. However, they were peaceful demonstrators.
It is the students’ fundamental right to protest rising tuition. Their livelihoods and education, as well as those of future incoming students, are threatened.
Although the protest was disruptive to an orderly academic setting and even discomforted a few administrators and uniformed individuals, this provocation is the purpose of civil disobedience.
The bottom line is that the students pay the greater price. The intention to mute students’ voices does not justify even the most minor police force.

Johnny Huynh
Staff Writer