Police Defend Use Of Force On ‘Occupy UC Davis’

DAVIS (CBS13) – Law enforcement officials defended the tactics used Friday to dismantle an encampment set up by “Occupy Wall Street” sympathizers on the UC Davis quad, a raid that drew accusations of excessive force from students after sitting protesters were subjected to pepper spray at point-blank range.

UC Davis Police officers in riot gear warned “Occupy UC Davis” demonstrators to pack up their tents and leave the field located between the Memorial Union and Shields Library at about 3:00 p.m., and then moved in to take down the protesters’ tents a half hour later.

University officials had warned students several times since Thursday that camping would not be allowed on the quad.

A growing crowd filled the field as officers hauled away tents and a number of protesters linked arms and sat down on the path in the middle of the field, defying orders to leave. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., an officer used a can of pepper spray to coat the sitting demonstrators in the chemical dispersant before officers began taking students into custody one by one.

The watching crowd began shouting chants of “Shame on you” and “Let them go,” while dozens of students recorded the encounter on cell phone cameras.

“I don’t think that was warranted,” one protester told CBS13. “It was non-violent protests, we were sitting, linking arms.”

UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said officers used force out of concern for their own safety after they were surrounded by students.

“If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad,” said Chief Spicuzza. “Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.”

Authorities are still reviewing video of the incident, Spicuzza added.

Officers left the quad after making 10 arrests, nine of which were UC Davis students. Law enforcement retreated out of the field in a direction that was not obstructed by sitting protesters.

Protesters vowed to remain in the quad and reestablish their camp Friday evening, but as of 10:00 p.m. Friday, no demonstrators or tents were visible in the area.

>> Send photos and videos to CBS13.

  • blake

    Last time I checked, when our founding fathers warned us about what to do if this happened. They said

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  • deckofficer

    One goes to college to further their education. I think this incident was a valuable teaching lesson for those young adults. Coming from a family that values education, chances were good that they grew up never having any dealings with law enforcement. I’m certain this interaction with the police was their first, and after being pepper sprayed, these students learned that the police aren’t always the “good guys” they were raised to believe. A very good lesson.

    • blake

      deckofficer – UC Davis is NOT a school for the privelleged my fellow American. Look at the statistics and you’ll see that this isn’t a private school for the rich and elite. UC Davis is a school where you get a 4.6 GPA just to have a hope of getting in. Not only that but you are the captain of your soccer team, student body president, or the leader of various clubs. Yes I know that you may think “Duh, thats the privelleged!” but most of these students are on TUITION ASSISTANCE programs. They are from middle-low income families (not all of them obviously, but a good majority), and this is their one shot.

      Do you really think these kids who worked SO hard to get good grades and be the best of the best are really going to risk their education for something they don’t believe in? This whole protest was about tuition increase and police brutality (a simlilar incident happened at UC Berkeley on Nov 8). It wasn’t a protest for the right to protest. Although they certainly have that right.

      Lastly, the main point is that this is excessive force regardless of whether they’re protesting civil rights, freedom of speech or a change in the lunch menu. The City of David Police Department has condemned their use of force, as has the President of the UC system, who is the head of every UC in California.

      Obviously if these people are condemning the incident, they know they are wrong and are trying to soften the blow by admitting it.

      • deckofficer


        I sure didn’t mean to convey that the students came from any wealth, rather a home setting that values education. My nephew graduated form UCD, and worked very hard for his education.


      • Blake


        I’m sorry I must have misunderstood. You have to understand the basic outrage is over the question – “Did the police use EXCESSIVE force?”, clearly after watching the video – you can view it at change.org, the answer is yes.

        In my opinion the fact that the City of Davis Police Department is saying that it was excessive force (it was the campus police that caused the incident) is enough evidence with the video to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is police brutality.

        Imagine if that was your kid. Standing up for something he believed in (no tuition increase and against UC berkeleys police brutality). You would be PROUD! That’s what AMERICANS do! look at the civil rights movement – people supported the police (at the time) and now we know it was wrong.

        We teach our children civil disobedience in school, and as a 22 year old veteran with a 90% service-connected disability – I joined to defend these rights, and it pains me more than anyone to see them at risk.

        “When men sacrafice Freedom for Safety, they will soon realize they have lost both.”

      • blake

        “When men sacrafice Freedom for Safety, they will soon realize they have lost both.” – Benjamin Franklin

        We cannot give up any of the rights (no matter what the reason) that our founding fathers and Americans since then have fought so hard for. Have died for. Because if we lose them, we will not get them back.

        The Right To Protest – ensures us protection from persecution if we peacefully and lawfully assemble, which the students did. The people who are getting injured in these incidents are NOT just students rebelling.

        One professor injured at UC Berkeley was a Pullitzer prize winner.
        Another woman and professor at UC Berekely was struck with a baton. Did I meantion she was a Poet Laurete of the United States?

        These are people who define America and recognize that our risks are in danger. And it’s only right for them to peacefully protest for these rights.

        Finally, all I can do is let you make up your own decision, but even if you still decide against the protestors, I can rest peacefully kowing that at least you were informed and know the full scope of the incident.

        Have a Happy Thanksgiving!


      • blake

        Sory, I said they have the right to protest for the right to protest, what I meant is they have the right To protest which allows them to protest against tuition increase and against police brutaility. They weren’t protesting just to protest.

        Eitherway, first UC Berekley, then UC Davis. Within a week?

        Expect UC Berkeley students to be there right next to the UC Davis students at the next protest. Because they will.

      • deckofficer


        We are on the same page. I think the spraying was a outrageous and cowardly act by that pudgy officer in charge. The lesson is that the police are not civil or any where near as smart as the students, and was a good lesson that the students learned that many police are just bullies. We are in agreement aren’t we? I support the students, not the overzealous, under-educated police.

    • Will

      Or they learned to obey police officers.

  • Blake

    I hope you all realize that all this incident did was cause a huge surge in support for protestors, and most likely all the citations and arrests will be dismissed immediately at arraignment.

    UC Students 2 , POLICE – 0

    view the video at http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/11/18/police-defend-use-of-force-on-occupy-uc-davis/?replytocom=106415

  • blake

    The kid curling in a ball isn’t resisting. He has pepperspray in his eyes from a direct blast in the face and he’s trying to rub it away.

  • Kacrzy

    She should be FIRED….it is one thing to have police act like the badged thugs some of them are (not all). But, these students were sitting quietly…..congures up thoughts of the racist swine Bull O’connor in Alabama when he let dogs loose on children and non-violent marchers….The Chancellor should be FIRED as well. She sounds stupid..and the Chief another dumb broad needs to be FIRED…Not for how stupid they sound…but because of continually making excuses about their failure

    • blake

      Kacrzy the police did not have any say in the matter. The City of Davis PD did not do this. It was UC Davis CAMPUS POLICE. The wanna-be mall cops that think they have so much power and authority, when really they’re nothing more than a bully with a badge.

  • linda

    They weren’t children, they claim to be adults and their age backs it up. The campus police were just that, not thugs. When you protest and block the way for others to get where they need to go-you are breaking the law. The college is a school, a business, a place where people need and want to go. Take your protest out to a back lot where you won’t interfere with regular business. Quit whining, you were asked to step aside & you didn’t. The fees are necessary because out state is losing the ability to keep working. Take the problem to Sacramento as you won’t be in anyones way. They are in Hawaii. They are seldom doing there job or we woudln’t be in the mess we are in. GROW UP!

    • RobK1967

      Sorry linda but you are not only dead wrong, you clearly show you do not understand the Constitution. The right to protest is clearly spelled out, but I am always amused by those who defend thugs.

      • Will

        Sorry, I agree with Linda. You only think you’re right! You can protests but not cause havoc. They have no rights hindering other people’s rights. Like the right to walk on a public path without thugs blocking it!!! You liberal people are always bleeding hearts and NOT about right and wrong!!!!

      • blake

        Will. Yes you can protest. No you can not cause havor. These kids were not causing havoc. They were sitting down with their arms linked. People could have walked around them and it would’ve taken an extra 3-5 seconds. They weren’t blocking the entire campus. Not only that BUT PEPPERSPRAY. I am a US Army veteran and I fought for these rights, and I was also trained with pepperspray, one thing about pepperspray is that you only use it for defence not to force compliance. Period.

        Did you hear about that kid who had pepperspray sprayed down his THROAT? He was still coughing up blood 45 minutes later. That’s not even an authorized USE of pepperspray.

        How can you defend them?

      • Jonus

        Yeah even though these very students paid to walk on that sidewalk they are not allowed to sit on it without being assaulted by a pepper spraying hooligan John Pike. The Chancellor never even gave an approval for this betrayal of human rights. So think about!!!

      • RobK1967

        Will, I do defend your right to be as wrong as you want to be. The fact you think being bullies is a good thing is scary though.

      • Will

        I beg to differ. I’m sorry we see things differently. You think the cops were bullies, I don’t. Police doing their job is NOT bullying!!

      • blake

        Will, I respect your personal beliefs and opinions, but can you tell me one thing – Do you think (after watching the video) that pepperspray was the best option in that situation? Or did the police maybe overreact? Maybe out of not bullying – but lack of training?

      • Will

        True! The police could of handled it differently. I appreciate your civility. We can all learn from this and move on for the better!

    • Adam

      Apparently, neither Linda, nor Will, have read the 2005 ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which specifically and explicitly forbids the use of pepper spray on non-violent protesters. The judge also ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs legal fees because it “established important precedents and served the public interest.”

      Lundberg v. Humbolt. Read it, and then decide if they were still doing their job by violating federal law. Qualified immunity was never intended to be a de facto Status of Forces agreement

  • http://scams.freelycashmachine.com/scams/michelle-moquins-a-day-in-the-life-of%e2%80%a6-%c2%bb-blog-archive-%c2%bb-%e2%80%9cjust/ Michelle Moquin's "A day in the life of…" » Blog Archive » “Just … | Scams

    […] a report by the CBS Sacramento station Friday night, Spicuzza said the officers’ own safety was also a concern. “If you look at the […]

  • http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/police-pepper-spray-defenseless-passive-protesters/ Police pepper spray defenseless passive protesters

    […] The police defend this needless attack, citing fear: […]

  • Daniel

    Funny how now a 10 minute video has surfaced that shows the UCD students surrounding the officers and saying they would be released when arrested students would be released. Also shows the number of times students were warned. Yet I don’t see any mention of this on this news stations website, or any others. Typical liberal media showing us the 2 minutes of pepper spraying, thus costing the officers their jobs possibly, and even the Dean of the school turned on the officers. I hope the officers turn around and sue for wrongful termination. These officers deserve an apology.

    • Adam

      it still doesnt negate the controlling precedent set buy the 9th circuit court which makes it illegal to use pepper spray on protesters who dont pose a clear and present danger to officers or the public.

      the video shows students surrounding the officers and saying they’ll be relaseased when the students were released, you say? then pepper spray the people blocking your exist. NOT the people who are sitting on the ground. if the threat is so clear and so present that pepper spray is justified, then why are they spraying people who arent posing the danger? from a tactical perspective, that makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. from a legal perspective, they still have to prove that the people they sprayed were posing a threat. they werent. others may have been posing a threat, but hats not who they sprayed, and thats the issue.

      • RobK1967

        Daniel, why do you continue to divert the conversation? Obviously the officers that were ‘surrounded’ as you claim managed to ‘escape’, the pepper spraying had nothing at all to do with that. I expect the police to do their job, and not be thugs.

      • Daniel

        So Adam you must have been there to know that there was no threat whatsoever posed to the officers. So your saying that the police have nothing to worry about when they are surrounded by students, because students would never do anything to hurt them? The fools got their 15 minutes of fame. More than anything, this has shown that the OWS movement is nothing but a bunch of privileged kids that are just looking for a reason to instigate officers, and when something is done to post about it. What ever happned to taking things out of context? Now that everyone will see what truly happened, those dumb people can hopefully be expelled.

      • Adam

        thats not at all what im saying. im saying if there is a threat, you deal with the person posing the threat. from the students sitting on the ground, there was no threat whatsoever. youre trying to use the threat of others as a pretext for spraying someone you dont happen to like.

        on a personal aside, as a martial arts instructor who teaches batons, knives, and multiple opponents, this had nothing to do with threat reduction. a group that is surrounded and feels threatened assumes a tactical formation as it attempts to work its way out, making sure their backs are only to each other. here, you had officers with backs to their enemy, and there was no attempt – until after spraying – to retreat or get out

        you could make the argument that the use of pepper spray on the protestors sitting is justifiable under the guise of psychological warfare. you could say, as anyone in a tactical field will say, “if you can break them psychologically, you dont have to break them physically.” but, this wasnt about psychological warfare, either. there wasnt a single officer there who expressed fear through his body language. there was no attempt at all to prepare for what might happen if it didnt work. the body language of officer pike, and the others, had nothing to do with legitimate tactics.

        and, we still have the 9th circuit court ruling to deal with, which will very clearly say what happened here violated federal law. the issue is not whether or not there was a conceivable threat. the issue is whether or not the people who were sprayed posed a threat. i can see why someone would want to make the issue about a generalized threat that had to be snuffed out at all costs, regardless of who was actually causing the perceived threat. but, at the end of the day, proof remains that the people who were sprayed – the people whos actions must precipitate and justify the force used against them – were sitting quietly, and federal law states that misdemeanor trespass (as exhibited by the students who were actually sprayed, and not the others casing the threat) does not remove a protestors protections under the 4th amendment.

        your argument of a generalized threat which could be handled through psychological warfare is also obliterated when one sees footage of one officer holding back the head of a non-resisting person while another officer sprays a substance proven to constrict breathing, cause sudden cardiac arrest, and chemical burns, directly down that persons throat, causing them to throw up blood for 45 minutes.

        tell me. with all your experience in discerning subtle-but-distinctive threats, what was going on in that situation?

      • Daniel

        Well I commend you for your prompt viewing of the full 10 minute video for you to be able to give such a tactical summation of what you see. Most of the people on here wouldn’t have bothered to go and view the entire video, they would stick with just what has been shown everywhere else, about 2 minutes worth of video. Thank you for taking the time to at least view the entire thing and give your opinion of the events. I’m not a martial arts instructor, or in law enforcement, but I was brought up to respect the law and when an officer gives orders, you listen or there will be consequences. Question for you, how would you have determined which of the people that was encircling you might be the dangerous one in a quick and efficient manner without possibly putting yourself at risk or your fellow officers? Also, you must know what police officers deal with daily, should officers blindly go into situations like this and not feel like they are in danger merely because they are surrounded by these “kids”?

      • Adam

        that depends on their training. there has, historically, been a big difference between the way an officer was trained to view the public, and how a soldier was taught to view the public. a soldier groups peopl into two categories. the enemy, and the non-enemy. they then kill the enemy and “try” not to kill to many non-enemies. soldiers are seen as an occupying force because thats exactly what they are. hostile, armed, and not particularly apt to treat anyone nicely.

        which brings us to current law enforcement training, which has become very much the same as military training in terms of how they deal with the people around them and why citizens are now instinctively afraid of police officers and view them as, well, an occupying force. its not that people instinctively believe all cops are bad. its that they know if the cop is a bad apple, theres nothing they can do about it. theres no right to resist unlawful search and seizure, no right to resist unlawful arrest – nothing. and, should the cop go too far with his use of force, they also know that the police department will use attorneys who bill at an hour what the victim takes home in a week to defend the officer.

        as for instantly figuring out who is who in a tactical situation. what people who dont work in a tactical field dont understand is that there is no surety. by the time you have surety, its too late. decisions are based on a series of indicators. who in the crowd has a facial expression indicative of someone predisposed to attack you? who in the crowd is always trying to find an opening to get closer? who is trying to incite others? none of these things lead to conclusive answers. theyre only indicators, and, as i said, in real-world tactical environments, by the time you have surety, its too late.

        IF those indicators were present, the actions of the police would have been different. that they were calm, cool, and casual indicates those factors werent there. in the back of every officer is the knowledge that theyre outnumbered and that things COULD turn violent. but, they don they time to worry too much about it if there arent already signs that its going to go that way. go look at other videos where crowds turned violent against police. look for the changes in their tactics, their body language, and the way police come together in defensive postures. look for what hapens when police actually feel threatened. thats when the gloves come off and the stop “playing” authoritarian. thats when their responses become purely tactical and when they, well, seek to crush the threat.

        none of those indicators were here in this video. in fact, the only time the cops assumed any sort of tactic that resembled them feeling threatened was AFTER they sprayed people sitting on the ground. they didnt spray the crowd itself in an attempt to mitigate risk. they didnt try to break their way out of a situation in which they were outnumbered. officer pike calmly drew and showed it too the crowd, nonchalantly sprayed down a row of students, raised his hand high, shook it up, and went in for another pass at the same students.

        that is NOT what someone in a tactical field does when he feels threatened

      • Daniel

        That is a good point. Now what do you think we would have been watching plastered all over the evening news if they had tried to use force to break themselves out of the situation? By the way, I’m hispanic and none of the people I know are under the impression that police are bad. I’m not saying there aren’t bad cops out there. Basically the point I’m trying to get to is what would you guys have had the police do in this situation? And I mean now that you have seen the entire video and not just the 2 minute prime time version? I’d also like to know what you suggest the police do in future instances when they give out instructions and nobody is listening? What do they do? No one has answered that? If your wife was a police officer, and she was surrounded by that crowd what would you have expected of her to do?

      • Adam

        if the threat from the encirclement was as threatening as UCD PD claims, they would have taken a defensive posture. given the number of police, theydhave been in separate groups, each with their weapons out and ready for use. then, all the cameras would see was unruly people continually trying to encircle and close in on officers who had their weapons drawn, but who at that point showing restraint in using them. then, when it came time to actually break out, there wouldnt have been time to take your time. the spray would have been used the same way it was recently in seattle – and an indiscriminately dispersed chemical agent to drive large numbers of people backward. and as soon as the opening was created, the officers would have taken it and gotten out. then, if the people who were left decided to chase down the cops or continue to harass them, officers would likely up the ante when they rebuffed those who continued their assault.

        what we would see in the media is not police brutality, but a mob mentality associated with OWS.

        as for what to do when an order isnt followed, id suggest they do what the court said humboldt county should have done in 2005, which is to use other means. if those 10 people refused to comply with a lawful order (and theres an argument to make that it wasnt lawful, given that the quad is public property and that they were sitting in an area designed for sitting, during its expected hours of operation, and that it hadnt been closed. a permit to protest is only needed if it plans to disrupt pedestrian or motorized traffic. as long as there are easily accessible alternatives for those not part of a protest, a permit isnt needed – and its why those sorts of charges are always dropped), arrest them. thats why officers are trained how to not only arrest people safely, but to arrest, lift, and move people who have been injured in a fight with officers or others. refusal to obey a lawful order is not justification for a chemical agent that has been proven to cause those with asthma (and the officers dont know who has asthma and who doesnt) to suffocate. to say nothing of the chemical burns it can cause to the skin, and fact that its, in part, designed to burn the corneas (though, they do heal if not subjected to repeated exposure). its also worth noting that the 2005 ruling was on a case that started in 1997. the judge ordered the county to pay the plaintiffs legal fees because it “established an important precedent” and was “for the public good” that the sheriffs department be completely responsible for proving its actions legitimate so as to prevent the cost of litigation from keeping police departments in check.

        an officer is not supposed to reach for his weapons the first chance he gets. whats the point in training them in submission tactics and joint manipulation if we’re just going to let them use their weapons in lieu of lesser methods of achieving the same result? do you remember when tasers were first introduced? they were couched as a non-lethal alternative when lethal force would have otherwise been justified. now officers are taught to use them to aid in an arrest, as well as a pain compliance tool – meaning there doesnt have to be a threat. just zap them. certain departments also teach to use pepper spray as a compliance tool on people who are neither actively, nor passively, resisting.

        there are plenty of ways to unlink a human chain. and if it was my wife in that situation, id have her abide by the same rules i do, given my considerable abilities: dont kill if you can maim, dont maim if you can injure, dont injure if you can hurt, and dont hurt if you can walk away.

        the officers were unable to walk away (due both to their job description and their situation), so instead of moving to something that only causes pain, they sent people to the hospital.

      • Daniel

        Well you really didn’t answer my questions, mostly legal information. Its good to see people support law enforcement by saying stuff like you have and quoting precedents, then when opportunity presents itself turning around and sueing law enforcement for not doing enough. This is what is causing the decline in America. No common sense.

      • Adam

        oh, i answered your questions, daniel. i just didnt realize they were rhetorical and you didnt really expect an answer. you asked what would have happened if they actually did try to break out of the circle instead of jdoing what they did.

        i told you.

        you asked what they should do when orders arent followed

        i told you. you dont appear to like all the legal background, because it doesnt support your theory that anything an officers right of discretion extends to blatant violation of federal law, but, nevertheless, i did, in fact answer your question

        you asked what i would want my wife to do in that situation.

        i told you

        i answered all of your questions and i gave you the relevant tactical and legal background to support my answers. dont sit there and say i didnt answer your questions just because you dont like them and/or dont know how to rebut them.

        youre of the opinion that an officers qualified immunity extends so far as to be tantamount to a Status of Forces agreement, in which they have complete immunity from all local and federal laws and arent subject to judicial review or sanction. thats fine. just own up to it and stop questioning the people taking exeption to the activities of those you think should go withou scrutiny. you have offered NO evidence whatsoever to support your claim that there was a threat proportional to the response. you have had no training. you have read no books on threat analysis or combat stress. you have done NOTHING but espouse, over and over again, some variation of “what they did fine,” based solely on your untutored analysis of a video you dont understand, and the ridiculous notion that “when an officer tells you to do something, you do it” even if that order isnt a legal one or he is in some other way stepping outside his scope as an officer.

        oh, and by the way, if anyone doesnt answer questions, its you. i asked you what was going on when one officer held back someones head while another sprayed a chemical agent known to cause people to suffocate, cause sudden cardiac arrest, and burn the skin, directly down a non-resisting protesters throat, causing him to throw up blood for 45 minutes

        you never even attempted to answer that question. id like one in your next response.

      • Daniel

        Truth is I hope they would die. I guess your right, in my opinion if your instructed to do something by an officer you should do it unless your life is endangered. These same idiots are the same idiots taht would be crying and trying to sue the police for not doing anything if they had not done anything and someone had gotten hurt. It sounds like this is your kind of thing, too bad the rest of the jokers aren’t as dedicated as you, maybe they would be taken seriously by everyone.

      • RobK1967

        More diversion and deflection Daniel?? Why can’t you just address that the ‘cops’ that pepper spayed unarmed protestors are thugs and should be charged for the crimes they committed?? None of your red herrings have anything to do with reality. Why do you want to live under fascism? If you hate what the US stands for so much why not move to a police state?

      • Daniel

        I don’t hate what the US stands for. I hate what these OWS people think they stand for. They do not stand for the 99% like they think they do. Most have parents that are part of the 1%. And when offered a job working at Wall St. one of the OWS people quit OWS and went to work for a brokerage. Doesn’t get any more fake than that. If OWS did stand for what the majority of Americans feel don’t you think that these demonstrations would be continuing on a massive scale? These are just a bunch of worthless entitled children who want everything given to them.

      • RobK1967

        Even more diversion and deflection Daniel? I guess there are some things you can count on. Why you want to defend the 1% who have gotten the US in trouble is quite revealing. And your many incoorect or outright misleading comments are amusing in their lunacy. Are you truly that delusion to think most of the students parents are members of the 1%? What color is the sky on your world because you obviously are not residing on planet Earth

      • RobK1967
      • Daniel

        Rob when you can send me a link with the parameters of the poll I’ll give it a read. You can achieve whatever outcome you want if you phrase the questions right.

    • RobK1967

      You are entitled to your own opinion Daniel, even when your opinion is dead wrong. There was no excuse for the pepper spaying, and no amount of diversionary comments will change that

      • Daniel

        No need for diversion. The full video shows the behavior of the students and they got what they deserve. These students don’t even beleive what they were protesting. If they did, they wouldn’t have gone home to celebrate thanksgiving, they would have stayed in their tents. How many protest movements do you know of that people take time to go on vacation? Maybe you should quit with the sticking to the 2 minute video and give the full video a viewing and see if you think the police should have still gotten in trouble like they did? Your probably one of those little helpless kids that are out there and went home for the weekend. li

      • will

        RobK1967 your opinion is just that your opinion! And it’s WRONG! More people would agree with Daniel than you! Most people listen to the police. Don’t tell me that’s it was an unlawful order. You and they have NO right blocking anything that most likely you didn’t help pay for. So go somewhere else and sit! The sitters will all live BUT I hope they learned a listen! – MOVE when an officer tells you to!!!!

1 3 4 5
blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show
LIVE: Monday through Friday from 6am – 6pm ET

Listen Live