Obama's Occupy Wall Street Loons Obama's Socialist Pals



What’s actually needed are larger doses of pepper spray

Open eyes wide!

Folks, the losers in the Occupy movement, a collection of deadbeat, flat earth Marxists and other miscreants and malcontents, are now heading to the other bastion of collectivist thinking, the campuses of universities and colleges around the US. The A-holes being peppered sprayed by this police officer are acting in violation of the law, forcing the grounds to allow them to have tents set up, and because they’re acting against the police, the following article notes (towards the very end of the article):

At a news conference Saturday, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said the decision to use pepper spray was made at the scene. “The students had encircled the officers,” she said. “They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out.”

So tough luck you bunch of morons, you deserved every bit of pepper spray you received, the police were not being violent in any respect, as their movements show, they needed to get out of a situation in which they were grossly outnumbered by an angry crowd of onlookers. Like I said, more pepper spray please. KGS

UC Davis chief launches probe into pepper-spraying of protesters

Video of the events goes viral on the Web. The chancellor initially didn’t criticize police but later said seeing the images ‘left me with a very bad feeling.’ Some faculty members seek her ouster.

More here.

8 Responses

  1. they’re fine………..if you dont live any where near one.

  2. i hate this comments system; wrong bloody post again 🙁

    1. What do you mean Bilbo? How did you comment to a wrong post?

  3. However harsh the stinging and irritation is temporary, is many countries demonstrators are cruelly murdered by being sprayed with lead. The left is using the photo as propaganda. How many times were they asked to disperse?

  4. Protesters sitting down are no immediate threat to public safety. Pepper spraying them is a completely wrong. The police should be made to answer for their thuggish behaviour and be told in no uncertain terms that what they did was way over the top and and unaccceptable. Maybe even prosecuted for assault and fired.

    It’s easy enough to cheer on police thugs when they’re stomping on no good shits who you disapprove of, but it doesn’t stop there. Surely nobody is stupid enough to believe that the police will limit their use of excessive force only to protesters you disapprove of. When the principle is established that the police can use excessive force and spray irritants in the faces of non-violent protesters, then the next protesters they spray will be the ones you do support. Maybe even you.

    There is a limit in a free society to what the authorities can do. The police in this case went over that limit.

    1. Well Frank, you are absolutely wrong. They were in violation of campus rules, and police commands, sitting in a public space impeding others is an illegal act, spraying pepper spray was one of the least violent methods the police could use in getting these idiots to comply. More pepper spray is the answer, not the problem.


      Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

      But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

      The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

      The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physicalintimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

      Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

  5. Using pepper sprays is violence and violence should not be used in situations where there is no threat to health and safety or great inconvenience to the public. In the incident under discussion, a sit-in on a University campus, the use of pepper spray was not warranted.

    Ayn Rands definition of circumstances in which civil disobedience is permissible is limited. Another legitimate goal of civil disobedience is to bring an issue to public attention. She is right that breaking the law should be met with a response, the question at issue is the nature and intensity of that response. A society in which the police use gross violence out of propertion to the situation at hand is a brutalised society.

    If a public highway was being blocked by demonstrating Tea Party activists who refused to move after requests and warnings then water cannon and mounted police baton charges would be permissible. On a smaller scale anti abortion protesters blocking the pavement outside a clinic who refused to move and who resisted the police trying to move them could legitimately be pepper sprayed and tazered.

    Violence should always be a last resort and a peaceful sit-in on a university campus is not a situation where excessive force should be used. The police response in this situation was over the top.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.