They were given a lawful order to move again and again.

They were warned, multiple times, that they needed to move or they were going to get pepper sprayed.

The alternative to pepper spraying them was to forcibly remove them. But, they were all linking arms, which would have required a good amount of physical force to pull them apart, which may have resulted in physical injury.

Pepper spray does not cause physical injury. It was a better choice than using force to remove them.

They have the right to protest lawfully. But when their protests become unlawful and are given direct orders be law enforcement to move, they must comply.

They didn't. They got pepper sprayed.

What's the problem again?

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

r u a girl?

Nathan Brown, an assistant English professor who witnessed the incident, wrote in an open letter: “Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood... You are responsible.”

No physical injury.

Same article says how the police officers were "feeling threatened".



American cops must be the biggest pussies on the face of the planet, if they're scared by a bunch of SITTING adolescents enough to empty that can of pepper spray into them.

Right? Police warned them to move. Infact, the entire debate is invalid because the property that they are protesting on is private property. That's like people protesting on my yard. I'd call the Police and have them removed one way or the other. They are protesting in a school and they are students to it. They are blocking sidewalks, disturbing the peace and refused to cooperate with The Police. The school called The Police to have them removed, they refused to listen because they unlawfully protested. They didn't listen, they got pepper sprayed, they knew the consequences. The argument ends because again, it's on PRIVATE property and YES it does justify using force. I'm not going to allow some kids for example to protest the color of my house or some s*** on my god damn yard.

Right? Police warned them to move. Infact, the entire debate is invalid because the property that they are protesting on is private property. That's like people protesting on my yard. I'd call the Police and have them removed one way or the other. They are protesting in a school and they are students to it. They are blocking sidewalks, disturbing the peace and refused to cooperate with The Police. The school called The Police to have them removed, they refused to listen because they unlawfully protested. They didn't listen, they got pepper sprayed, they knew the consequences. The argument ends because again, it's on PRIVATE property and YES it does justify using force. I'm not going to allow some kids for example to protest the color of my house or some s#%$& on my god damn yard.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.

Classified as a riot-control agent and banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, pepper spray is meant to be used against violent attackers who are resisting arrest and threatening physical harm to others. That doesn't apply to the passive protesters at U.C. Davis.