UC Berkeley

[ruby59]

If the school does not take action against these agitators, then yes they deserve to be punished for it.

What kind of action can the school take against a group of unaffiliated anarchists? I guess they may have standing to expel students caught, but it doesn't sound like that was the case. So-- what's left for the *school* to do? Specifically.

Have them arrested for being on school property and inciting a riot.

Take them to court for causing bodily harm and damaging property.

Certainly not let them march right out to a band playing, where they caused more damage in the city.

 

[ruby59]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/02/who-knew-there-were-so-many-homophobic-racist-xenophobes-at-berkeley.html


Apparently it was not enough for them to throw rocks and bottles but they attacked people and sprayed one woman in the face with an unidentified liquid. They beat and bloodied another man.

Then went off campus and damaged some buildings in the city for good measure.

My question - why was no one arrested or held accountable?

Did the police just stand there why these people were being attacked?

If the school does not take action against these agitators, then yes they deserve to be punished for it.

I think you will find that police don't regularly jump into active riots. It risks their own safety.

You think because of the event that happened on this one day, it is okay to cut federal funding from one of the leading universities in the world and from its students? Cut off federal funds to a university that produced 22 Nobel laureates, 6 Fields medalists, 4 Pulitzer prize winners, 10 Turing winners, over 50 MacArthur genius grant winners, produced people who've made discoveries, started businesses, and generated intellectual content that served and benefited this country for over a hundred years because of what happened today? Because we have a ridiculous, reactionary bully tweeter for president?

So firemen do not rescue people in burning buildings? Policemen when they see someone being attacked, just drive by?

Three people were seriously injured. One had a liquid sprayed in her face. One man was bloodily beaten.

It is not that the event happened. Sh*t happens. It is now what they do to punish those involved instead of doing nothing.

And some here are advocating 1 day national strikes?

You seem to like to extrapolate to the ridiculous extreme.

It is not up to the University who gets arrested -- specially if what's been report is true and the violent protesters were not even students.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/protesters-storm-nyu-over-conservative-speakers-seminar/

Thankfully, the NYC police did their job.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Jenn, we have different definitions of taking things personally. I merely offered you a true account of an actual Cal student to counter your arguments. I didn't internalize any insults Bc TBH, I don't think the terms snowflake or angels are offensive to me. As to your perception that I defended someone, I guess you internalized my comments and took them personally, if you still remember what I said a week ago? Maybe you should take your own advice and put me on ignore, since it's apparent you don't move on well. I don't care to put you on ignore Bc it's quite entertaining to see you take on the entire forum to repeatedly come to trump's defense. Btw, just Bc you can define logic, doesn't mean you are using it.

It would appear perhaps you have 'stuff' going on 'internally' to focus so much on what someone else might be 'internalizing', when what they were actually doing was just pointing out your hypocrisy. I sincerely hope you come to discern the difference, as I don't imagine 'feet' to be all that tasty. And the reason I remember something you said isn't because I took it personal; it's because I found so baffling how anyone could defend such a hateful, direct & personal attack on another forum member (which appeared to be the consensus).

Rest assured, Nala ... I 'move on' just fine; there is no voucher program for 'free rent' in my head when it comes to the Internet. Bringing this back 'on topic', your energy would be better spent continuing to (as you said) worry about your daughter being in what sounds like a pretty hostile & dangerous community in Berkeley, and worry less about me.

 

[E B]

Have them arrested for being on school property and inciting a riot.

Take them to court for causing bodily harm and damaging property.

Certainly not let them march right out to a band playing, where they caused more damage in the city.

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Have them arrested for being on school property and inciting a riot.

Take them to court for causing bodily harm and damaging property.

Certainly not let them march right out to a band playing, where they caused more damage in the city.

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

I still haven't had this question answered. In THIS CASE, does the president have grounds to withhold federal funding. And if not, was it responsible of him to tweet the threat?

Withholding federal funding to anywhere requires due process, investigation, probably an appeals process. He forgets that he WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE. He is not King Trump, and if he wants to continue to behave as though he is he'd better be prepared for another American Revolution.

 

[E B]

Withholding federal funding to anywhere requires due process, investigation, probably an appeals process. He forgets that he WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE. He is not King Trump, and if he wants to continue to behave as though he is he'd better be prepared for another American Revolution.

You caught me before an edit, but I agree.

To answer Jenn's question about security, it looks like the event planners are responsible for requesting security personnel, so it appears this would have been the responsibility of the Berkeley College Republicans.

http://ucpd.berkeley.edu/operations/special-event-and-police-services-request

In addition: UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests. "Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.

 

[the_mother_thing]

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

I am just 'thinking out loud' here ... perhaps the question is "did/does the University have a 'duty' (with regard to the known previous reactions to Milo) to provide security, and did they reasonably meet that 'duty'?"

"Reasonably" of course being highly subjective.

 

[E B]

I am just 'thinking out loud' here ... perhaps the question is "did/does the University have a 'duty' (with regard to the known previous reactions to Milo) to provide security, and did they reasonably meet that 'duty'?"

"Reasonably" of course being highly subjective.

I answered some of this in the post above yours, but I'm not seeing anything about it being the university's duty (though they did help prepare because of past situation(s) with Milo). But Kenny and others mentioning the KKK brings up an interesting question. Though not as inflammatory as the KKK, given past circumstances, the Berkeley College Republicans booked him to speak and, as far as I know, were responsible for requesting the security. So how much of this should fall on their shoulders? Because if the university were to deny them the right to invite Yiannopolous the opportunity to speak, they'd be seen as "limiting free speech," but are still being blamed for "allowing" it to happen and, to some, are responsible for the rioters- likely not even affiliated with the university- not being arrested. None of it makes any sense.

 

[t-c]

You seem to like to extrapolate to the ridiculous extreme.

It is not up to the University who gets arrested -- specially if what's been report is true and the violent protesters were not even students.

University police stood there why people were getting injured. What were they there for - to hold up the buildings they were leaning against.

So are you saying the University should not act when something is occurring on their property? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

The still shot on this video doesn't look like they were just standing around. It looks like they were helping get someone out of the riot. The video also has someone saying that they were firing rubber bullets to disperse the crowd.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

And this article and video from the local news elaborates on the reasons why police did not confront the demonstrators: damage to property is more acceptable than inciting more violence from protestors by aggressive policing. The reporter said that this is a common tactic taken by the police department in the Bay Area. It worked at UC Davis a few weeks ago when there was protest against the same speaker -- the protesting/rioting eventually were diffused with the police not reacting to property damage. And again, from that still on the video above, it looks like once people started getting hurt, the police moved to get them to safety.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-canceled-after-violent-protests/

 

[t-c]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/protesters-storm-nyu-over-conservative-speakers-seminar/

Thankfully, the NYC police did their job.

Yes, they learned from the situation in Berkeley.

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

I am just 'thinking out loud' here ... perhaps the question is "did/does the University have a 'duty' (with regard to the known previous reactions to Milo) to provide security, and did they reasonably meet that 'duty'?"

"Reasonably" of course being highly subjective.

The UC Berkeley took the same precautions that UC Davis did when the same speaker came just 2 weeks prior. And they used the same tactics. Is that reasonable enough for you? The difference was the influx of the small group of violent protesters who, at least from the video I posted above, did most of the damage.

 

[E B]

And this article and video from the local news elaborates on the reasons why police did not confront the demonstrators: damage to property is more acceptable than inciting more violence from protestors by aggressive policing. The reporter said that this is a common tactic taken by the police department in the Bay Area. It worked at UC Davis a few weeks ago when there was protest against the same speaker -- the protesting/rioting eventually were diffused with the police not reacting to property damage. And again, from that still on the video above, it looks like once people started getting hurt, the police moved to get them to safety.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-canceled-after-violent-protests/

Interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

[ruby59]

On your last point - if a college is going to suppress ANYONE'S constitutional rights, they deserve to lose their Federal funding. And I'd say the same if that 'right' being infringed was one's 'reproductive', religious, etc., or any other rights.

Is that what happened here, in your opinion?

Obviously I don't have all the facts, which is why I said "IF". So let me ask you:

Students have a right to an education, yes?

Berkeley is a public college, providing students an "education" for a fee, yes?

Someone - the students, it seems, who PAY to attend this "educational institution" (not me) saw SOME value in learning something by having this person speak (even IF it is to learn he is a bigoted jerk), yes?

Mr. Milo was prevented from speaking (his 'right' by invitation), and the students were prevented from learning that 'something' by the event being canceled, yes?

If those statements are all correct, without digging into constitutional 'tests', case law, precedent, then YES, I think it is reasonable to believe people's rights were violated.

If students do not have a right to an education, then no - I don't think their rights were violated.

So tell me how would you answer at least the first question? Because if students don't have a right to an education, I would LOVE to understand why everyone is up in arms over Devos' nomination to Dept. of Ed.







Do I personally subscribe to THAT level of scrutiny? No. That same logic could be applied to defunding the military, if that were the case. But in a world so quick to feel constitutionally-violated by someone saying "bless you" when they sneeze, it seems to be the litmus test many use.

I think it's important to remember that UC Berkley isn't responsible for what the violent protesters did, so they don't deserve to lose federal funding regardless. Like I said, I disagree with violence and think the people responsible are the ones who should be punished for their actions, not the University at which the protests occurred

I posted in another thread that this has been happening there for years. So one would think that the University would start getting a little more proactive to stop it from occurring.

And yes, I understand Berkeley is probably like a mini city unto itself, but after all these years of having to endure these anarchists, can't the police start making some arrests.

 

[ruby59]

And this article and video from the local news elaborates on the reasons why police did not confront the demonstrators: damage to property is more acceptable than inciting more violence from protestors by aggressive policing. The reporter said that this is a common tactic taken by the police department in the Bay Area. It worked at UC Davis a few weeks ago when there was protest against the same speaker -- the protesting/rioting eventually were diffused with the police not reacting to property damage. And again, from that still on the video above, it looks like once people started getting hurt, the police moved to get them to safety.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-canceled-after-violent-protests/

Interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Like I said, these same anarchists have been terrorizing this campus for years.


So this tactic is not working. It is just holding them hostage.

 

[ruby59]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/protesters-storm-nyu-over-conservative-speakers-seminar/

Thankfully, the NYC police did their job.

Yes, they learned from the situation in Berkeley.

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

I am just 'thinking out loud' here ... perhaps the question is "did/does the University have a 'duty' (with regard to the known previous reactions to Milo) to provide security, and did they reasonably meet that 'duty'?"

"Reasonably" of course being highly subjective.

The UC Berkeley took the same precautions that UC Davis did when the same speaker came just 2 weeks prior. And they used the same tactics. Is that reasonable enough for you? The difference was the influx of the small group of violent protesters who, at least from the video I posted above, did most of the damage.

Pay attention.

This same group of anarchists have been terrorizing the Berkeley campus for YEARS.

So I wonder why they continue to get away with that. Oh, maybe their tactic is not working.

 

[ruby59]

Have them arrested for being on school property and inciting a riot.

Take them to court for causing bodily harm and damaging property.

Certainly not let them march right out to a band playing, where they caused more damage in the city.

How would the university have control over who's arrested? The cops were there and didn't arrest anyone-- should the university be penalized for that, too?

I know in these kinds of cases, one wants someone to blame, and it's hard to blame masked attackers. They do, however, appear to be the only ones at blame. And perhaps the policemen if they were "looking the other way," so to speak, but that's for their precinct to handle. Still not the university's fault.

Once again, this has been happening by the same group of anarchists for years.


Be a little proactive instead of allowing it to continue.

If your campus police cannot handle it, employ a detail to keep the peace.

 

[Calliecake]

What, specifically, since he has taken office, has this president said or done to try to unite our country, heal wounds, start to bring the country together?

Unfortunately not one word! He has no intention of uniting this country. I believe he is going to turn this country into everything he said it was in his campaign speeches. What he described then was not my country. I'm scared what he will leave us with.

 

[t-c]

Pay attention.

This same group of anarchists have been terrorizing the Berkeley campus for YEARS.

So I wonder why they continue to get away with that. Oh, maybe their tactic is not working.

Where the hell did you get this idea? I think you need more critical vetting of your sources, specially these crazy notions.

These anarchists have NOT been terrorizing the Berkeley campus for YEARS. There have been countless peaceful protests at Cal. Here, read this about Black Bloc: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/ The UCB Chancellor said "campus administration pulled extra officers to help control the event, but weren't prepared for the 'unprecedented'."

 

[ruby59]

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/2/2/14482840/anarchists-uc-berkeley-violence-protests-california-golden-bears



For those of you unfamiliar with the history of protest at the University of California, anarchists from OUTSIDE campus have been hijacking peaceful student protests at UC Berkeley for years for black block type marches, from “Black Lives Matter” to anti-war rallies. Anarchists tend to be in high supply in our little neck of the woods, and Berkeley is their rallying cry for their small chaos sprees (I’m not sure exactly what they want, other than the dissolution of the world order). It has left many in our nation with the impression that our university’s students are crazy revolutionaries who want to overthrow the state.

 

[t-c]

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/2/2/14482840/anarchists-uc-berkeley-violence-protests-california-golden-bears



For those of you unfamiliar with the history of protest at the University of California, anarchists from OUTSIDE campus have been hijacking peaceful student protests at UC Berkeley for years for black block type marches, from “Black Lives Matter” to anti-war rallies. Anarchists tend to be in high supply in our little neck of the woods, and Berkeley is their rallying cry for their small chaos sprees (I’m not sure exactly what they want, other than the dissolution of the world order). It has left many in our nation with the impression that our university’s students are crazy revolutionaries who want to overthrow the state.

This is clearly an exaggeration because if that was the case, the campus would be rubble right now. Many protests go on at Cal and they usually don't result in any violence -- why do you think this made the news? If these violent anarchists were overrunning Berkeley for years, it would be so normal that no one would even raise an eyebrow.

And these are the usual revolutionaries that normally hang out at Cal:
http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=108612