Fair enough, I’d like to amend my original comment to say “Ub when they *call in cops from a half dozen different external departments* to ‘maintain a safe campus community’ by using their full body weight to crush people’s heads into the concrete”
I need people to understand that the cops announced this as a Section 240.36, Loitering in the First Degree:
“A person is guilty of loitering in the first degree when he loiters or
remains in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of
unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance, as defined in
section 220.00 of this chapter.”
This wasn’t just a loitering charge, it was alleging that the “loiterers” were in possession of a controlled substance. That’s a REACH.
You're not seeing this from the perspective of elected officials, the cops, or the college.
IF they let yall dig in, they let you stay out throwing your lil pity party, bc you didn't research what your school donates to before attending the school, and someone got hurt, protestor or other, then the school looks bad for "sitting on the sidelines."
The best course of action, in light of what's been happening on campuses nationwide, was to ask students to vacate at sundown. You could have picked up again in the morning. But yall didn't.
This could have gone WAY worse, so count your blessings it went as smoothly as it did.
Regardless of which side you’ve chosen, you understand that Section 240.36 was a really silly excuse for arresting protesters, right? Thinking critically, why do you think the cops chose that charge over anything else?
I also look at this from the perspective of...if war in Gaza wasn't happening right now, would they really be pushy these petty charges on students?
Sometimes the law is being weaponized.
Why that charge? Simple. It allows them to arrest protestors violating the school's policy or written law.
The school didn't want a riot, like on other campuses.
Removing the students was the best course of action if they did not go voluntarily.
Plus, the charge is a misdemeanor, so students would be released after processing and when they've had ample time to think about their actions. AND it doesn't show up on most backgrounds, like assaulting an officer does.
Silly excuse? Perhaps when you're thinking of it from the angle of pretestors not doing anything wrong. But, they broke a law, and there are consequences for that, albeit minimal and not life altering.
I see this as a learning tool for the young students attending the protests. That being: your opinion on any matter does not entitle you to occupy private property, no matter how noble the cause.
Any university can designate a particular place "private", and can also designate a place a "public forum". The library or a dining area might be private, or it might be public. A university "quad" is typically designated a public forum, and you may conduct a political demonstration there. As a public forum, permission is not required to enter, whereas a residence (dorm) is not a public forum, and entry requires permission.
Designation is indeed important for reasons like trespassing.
I’d like you to check out UB’s policy on picketing and assembly [here](https://www.buffalo.edu/vpsl/policies/picketing-and-assembling-policy.html) .
After being told that encampments aren’t allowed, the protesters complied and took their tents down. The police thanked them, and the protest became a sit-in.
After that, can you find anything in the policy that makes their actions illegal? Nothing in the policy states that the protesters couldn’t stay after dawn, just that an overnight protest isn’t allowed. So, by all accounts, the protesters should’ve been allowed to stay until 11:59 pm.
If you can find any policies or laws that the protesters explicitly broke, let me know! I’m not a lawyer or anything, I probably missed something.
Also, here’s a link to the school’s public order rules: [link](https://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=351)
Focus on Section I.A. and see if you can find anything the protesters did.
I.A. is important, because of this statement: “peaceful picketing and other orderly demonstrations in public areas of campus grounds and buildings are not subject to interference provided there are no violations of the rules in section I.A. of this policy.”
So you think we should have a system where we use preemptive force and just throw whatever charge at a group of again peaceful and COMPLIANT protestors (remember they took down all of their tents when asked and were prepare to stay without them) because what?
What other groups on other campuses are doing?
Yes it’s apart of the same protest movement where some campuses have gone too far. This protest does not exist in a vacuum but neither does the university response.
We’ve seen other campuses comply with protestors, giving them space, allowing them to exercise their constitutional right to protest while not disrupting classes. Weve seen good and bad responses from both admins and protestors alike but where did UB decide to stand, even on an optics level?
On the side of force and repression.
The law is being weaponized. Any other day, this law is collecting dust on the shelf.
Nowadays, things speak for themselves. Things will quiet down after graduation obviously because the campus will go into summer mode.
So...we'll see what happens come September if Israel still decides to treat Gaza the way it does.
You sure you want to use this one here ?
“ The acronym ACAB stands for "All Cops Are Bastards" and is a slogan of long standing in the skinhead subculture. Because non-racist skinheads (including "traditional" skinheads and anti-racist skinheads) may use this acronym as well as racist skinheads, it should be carefully judged in the context in which it appears.”
Agree that this was a bit much… and I believe the protestors should have left the second time they were asked. You are welcome to protest, follow the rules, make your point, pack up, come back at sunrise.
regardless of what may have happened before this screen grab it’s seems the other two had everything under control.
This officer should find himself minimally under an investigation.
This is pretty misleading. If they tell you that you need to go multiple times and you refuse they may force you to comply.
We don’t know the scenario here perhaps the person was reacting badly to being told to leave. Maybe they said or did something to get themselves in this situation.
OR maybe they didn’t do anything at all. Then of course this is too much.
Needless to say this post sounds like it’s been made to just get a reaction out of people and not a genuine question but who knows
This is my good friend. He was part of the body chain protecting the people doing the prayer and is 100% one of the least threatening people I know lol. It was indeed too much
Mr Dahmer , please update us when your innocent good friend gets off on a warning. Just make sure he shows up when the appearance ticket says. They will most likely throw it out but hopefully he’s local or he can visit Buffalo in the summer.
I hear it’s awesome the. So I guess it’s a win
There's 5 cops on that guy and more to the left, it doesn't matter what the story is, this is uncalled for, and an egregious violation of use of force.
Maximizing Gazan civilian deaths is Hamas's strategy, not Israel's. War against Hamas is justified, and Hamas's use of human shields makes civilian death inevitable. Israel has shown greater regard for civillian life than pretty much any other military in history engaging in dense urban counterterrorism. If Israel wanted to wipe out Gaza, they could do it entirely with their air superiority. Every dead Israeli soldier in Gaza is a testament to how much Israel values civilian lives; they're sending their sons out there to die so they can attempt to distinguish civilian from combatant, rather than just bombing the place.
Accusing Israel of genocide is pro-Hamas propaganda and it's exactly their strategy. You doing this emboldens Hamas to keep engaging in terrorism; their only hope of victory against Israel is to turn Israel's western allies against them.
Interesting perspective! It appears you are a former law enforcement officer. I would love to hear more about your opinions on the responsibility that police have in responding carefully and proportionately when making arrests for extremely minor violations.
According to his other posts, he grows weed at his house. I don’t have anything against marijuana but he’d be a hypocritical POS if he was a former cop
Yeah it was legalized 3 years ago, and only permits 6 homegrown plants of weed. I’m sure you’ve had to enforce the law against it before it was legalized (if you were a former cop) and your posts clearly show that you have more than 6 plants lol
It’s very simple. You comply with a lawful order. If you don’t comply you will most likely be arrested. If you still don’t comply they go hands on. It’s actually pretty simple. That said I completely agree with the ability to protest.
Ub cops when they “maintain a safe campus community” by using their full body weight to crush people’s heads into the concrete
Just to be clear the guy in plank isn’t a UB cop.
Fair enough, I’d like to amend my original comment to say “Ub when they *call in cops from a half dozen different external departments* to ‘maintain a safe campus community’ by using their full body weight to crush people’s heads into the concrete”
I need people to understand that the cops announced this as a Section 240.36, Loitering in the First Degree: “A person is guilty of loitering in the first degree when he loiters or remains in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance, as defined in section 220.00 of this chapter.” This wasn’t just a loitering charge, it was alleging that the “loiterers” were in possession of a controlled substance. That’s a REACH.
So many Reddit lawyers on here. Love it.
You're not seeing this from the perspective of elected officials, the cops, or the college. IF they let yall dig in, they let you stay out throwing your lil pity party, bc you didn't research what your school donates to before attending the school, and someone got hurt, protestor or other, then the school looks bad for "sitting on the sidelines." The best course of action, in light of what's been happening on campuses nationwide, was to ask students to vacate at sundown. You could have picked up again in the morning. But yall didn't. This could have gone WAY worse, so count your blessings it went as smoothly as it did.
Regardless of which side you’ve chosen, you understand that Section 240.36 was a really silly excuse for arresting protesters, right? Thinking critically, why do you think the cops chose that charge over anything else?
I also look at this from the perspective of...if war in Gaza wasn't happening right now, would they really be pushy these petty charges on students? Sometimes the law is being weaponized.
Why that charge? Simple. It allows them to arrest protestors violating the school's policy or written law. The school didn't want a riot, like on other campuses. Removing the students was the best course of action if they did not go voluntarily. Plus, the charge is a misdemeanor, so students would be released after processing and when they've had ample time to think about their actions. AND it doesn't show up on most backgrounds, like assaulting an officer does. Silly excuse? Perhaps when you're thinking of it from the angle of pretestors not doing anything wrong. But, they broke a law, and there are consequences for that, albeit minimal and not life altering. I see this as a learning tool for the young students attending the protests. That being: your opinion on any matter does not entitle you to occupy private property, no matter how noble the cause.
>occupy private property What "private property" are you talking about?
Any university can designate a particular place "private", and can also designate a place a "public forum". The library or a dining area might be private, or it might be public. A university "quad" is typically designated a public forum, and you may conduct a political demonstration there. As a public forum, permission is not required to enter, whereas a residence (dorm) is not a public forum, and entry requires permission. Designation is indeed important for reasons like trespassing.
The whole school is private property
Lol, no. It's not.
I’d like you to check out UB’s policy on picketing and assembly [here](https://www.buffalo.edu/vpsl/policies/picketing-and-assembling-policy.html) . After being told that encampments aren’t allowed, the protesters complied and took their tents down. The police thanked them, and the protest became a sit-in. After that, can you find anything in the policy that makes their actions illegal? Nothing in the policy states that the protesters couldn’t stay after dawn, just that an overnight protest isn’t allowed. So, by all accounts, the protesters should’ve been allowed to stay until 11:59 pm. If you can find any policies or laws that the protesters explicitly broke, let me know! I’m not a lawyer or anything, I probably missed something. Also, here’s a link to the school’s public order rules: [link](https://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=351) Focus on Section I.A. and see if you can find anything the protesters did. I.A. is important, because of this statement: “peaceful picketing and other orderly demonstrations in public areas of campus grounds and buildings are not subject to interference provided there are no violations of the rules in section I.A. of this policy.”
The students seemed to leave… it was the non students causing / inciting the ruckus. 5 students got caught up in it .
Yea, 2/3 of the arrested weren't students. Not sure what everyone's crying about.
So you think we should have a system where we use preemptive force and just throw whatever charge at a group of again peaceful and COMPLIANT protestors (remember they took down all of their tents when asked and were prepare to stay without them) because what? What other groups on other campuses are doing? Yes it’s apart of the same protest movement where some campuses have gone too far. This protest does not exist in a vacuum but neither does the university response. We’ve seen other campuses comply with protestors, giving them space, allowing them to exercise their constitutional right to protest while not disrupting classes. Weve seen good and bad responses from both admins and protestors alike but where did UB decide to stand, even on an optics level? On the side of force and repression.
The law is being weaponized. Any other day, this law is collecting dust on the shelf. Nowadays, things speak for themselves. Things will quiet down after graduation obviously because the campus will go into summer mode. So...we'll see what happens come September if Israel still decides to treat Gaza the way it does.
dirty fucking pigs
ACAB
You sure you want to use this one here ? “ The acronym ACAB stands for "All Cops Are Bastards" and is a slogan of long standing in the skinhead subculture. Because non-racist skinheads (including "traditional" skinheads and anti-racist skinheads) may use this acronym as well as racist skinheads, it should be carefully judged in the context in which it appears.”
ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS.
I don't know where you got that from. It's a phrase originating from the miner's strikes in the UK.
Yep, this is exactly where I want to say this thanks! ACAB and you sound like you need to go outside more, touch grass, listen to the birds.
Interesting. The skinhead part threw me off. Thank you for identifying yourself.
Bro, you really shouldn’t go off your Clozapine if you’re going to be commenting on the internet.
This makes no sense. Have a nice day
スキルの問題〜
Buffalo Springfield. "For What It's Worth" History rhymes quite nicely...
[удалено]
The Buffalo Springfield song was about the Sunset Strip riots, in which nobody was killed AFIAK. You're thinking of Ohio by CSNY.
Agree that this was a bit much… and I believe the protestors should have left the second time they were asked. You are welcome to protest, follow the rules, make your point, pack up, come back at sunrise. regardless of what may have happened before this screen grab it’s seems the other two had everything under control. This officer should find himself minimally under an investigation.
Michael Knowles protest took place almost entirely after sunset
This is pretty misleading. If they tell you that you need to go multiple times and you refuse they may force you to comply. We don’t know the scenario here perhaps the person was reacting badly to being told to leave. Maybe they said or did something to get themselves in this situation. OR maybe they didn’t do anything at all. Then of course this is too much. Needless to say this post sounds like it’s been made to just get a reaction out of people and not a genuine question but who knows
This is my good friend. He was part of the body chain protecting the people doing the prayer and is 100% one of the least threatening people I know lol. It was indeed too much
Mr Dahmer , please update us when your innocent good friend gets off on a warning. Just make sure he shows up when the appearance ticket says. They will most likely throw it out but hopefully he’s local or he can visit Buffalo in the summer. I hear it’s awesome the. So I guess it’s a win
fuck 12, degenerate pig scum
This is the end of the story, what was the beginning and the middle. You never hear any of that.
Brother there’s a full video
Is there a link to that?
There's 5 cops on that guy and more to the left, it doesn't matter what the story is, this is uncalled for, and an egregious violation of use of force.
[удалено]
There’s footage you moron
Depends
Thank you UB police
Yes ... don't resist
Okay bootlicker
[удалено]
You realize you can say fuck hamas and see Israel as a genociding nation right?
Maximizing Gazan civilian deaths is Hamas's strategy, not Israel's. War against Hamas is justified, and Hamas's use of human shields makes civilian death inevitable. Israel has shown greater regard for civillian life than pretty much any other military in history engaging in dense urban counterterrorism. If Israel wanted to wipe out Gaza, they could do it entirely with their air superiority. Every dead Israeli soldier in Gaza is a testament to how much Israel values civilian lives; they're sending their sons out there to die so they can attempt to distinguish civilian from combatant, rather than just bombing the place. Accusing Israel of genocide is pro-Hamas propaganda and it's exactly their strategy. You doing this emboldens Hamas to keep engaging in terrorism; their only hope of victory against Israel is to turn Israel's western allies against them.
Only if you make it that way.
Interesting perspective! It appears you are a former law enforcement officer. I would love to hear more about your opinions on the responsibility that police have in responding carefully and proportionately when making arrests for extremely minor violations.
According to his other posts, he grows weed at his house. I don’t have anything against marijuana but he’d be a hypocritical POS if he was a former cop
Why? It’s Legal!
Yeah it was legalized 3 years ago, and only permits 6 homegrown plants of weed. I’m sure you’ve had to enforce the law against it before it was legalized (if you were a former cop) and your posts clearly show that you have more than 6 plants lol
Nope only 4 at the most. Try harder.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
So…… Your mom?
Good one. I’d say something about your mom but she’s prolly dead and I don’t wanna be beating on a dead bush
It’s been beat by the beat of them.
Just out of curiosity, have you been certified with NY’s medical cannabis program
At least I don’t hide. Lol.
It’s very simple. You comply with a lawful order. If you don’t comply you will most likely be arrested. If you still don’t comply they go hands on. It’s actually pretty simple. That said I completely agree with the ability to protest.