Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 24, 1995)
EDITORIAL Tear gas justified to disperse crowd Police officers make difficult decisions everyday and last Friday was no exception. The police used tear gas to break up a drunken crowd. Some i laim that the police wont too far when they used the gas to disperse the crowd. However, the police had no other option and their actions were justified. Consider what the police were up against. Officers on a routine patrol observed a number of peo ple drinking outside — a violation of city law Minutes later, police responded to n complaint of a loud party. People from a number of locations in the area threw bot tles at the two officers, who then called for backup, hence the large number of police officers responding to the party. 1'olit :e estimate that between 200 ami 100 peupt*' who appeared to be drunk, congregated near Hast 17th Avenue at Hiiyard Street, The responding officers wore outnumbered and needed to disperse the crowd with minimum injury to everyone involved. Several hundred peo ple gathered at the inter section near the Hiiyard Street Market. While police repeatedly warned the group to leave or be dispersed by tear gas, an individual Thi' responding offi cers were outnum bereJ and needed to disperse the crowd w ith minimum injury to everyone involved. men tno crowd started a fire in a trash can in front of the market. Others damaged street signs and recycling containers. After another warning, polk « fired a smoke grenade at tin! crowd. The smoke didn't clear the crowd, so police launched the gas. Using tear gas to disperse a crowd is unusual in Eugene — it was last used to break up a party five years ago. However, the police had few options. They ordered the group to leave the area a number of times, at one time reading the group the riot act literally All attempts to prevent the use of gas were exhausted. What else could the police have done' They could have tried to enter the crowd and arrest people, but both the outnumbered police and the crowd faced injuries if the crowd resisted. They party-goers were breaking the law by drinking outside, throwing bot tles and starting fires and the police needed to intervene Homes, businesses and cars faced damage if the crowd was allowed to continue on its rowdy way. The most viable option was to make the crowd dis perse immediately. By doing so. the police prevented a more violent confrontation. Several people suffered the effects of the tear gas, which is unfortunate. However, had the crowd obeyed police orders, no one would have been hurt. Eugene police deserve credit for bringing a potential ly dangerous situation to an end. Oregon Daily PQ UO« JIM tU-GIM 0*€C0N«r«U TNfr Orngon Pay fmmatci i* pubfeybad deify Mc*xltiy though f r<Jay during th« Q» and T uesctey and Thytsdiy dunra fh© summer t?y IN* Or agon Qa^y t mar aid Co . tnc . &l lha Unraartfty of Oregon. ruoaat, Dragon opataiaa **#.«•* of lb# Ufvvarvty wm offkw af $u*t# 300 o* tb* (,?t> Mo---, r- ,<*j ur*on and >* a mamba' 11?>«, Aaaoc^ihad Tfv# t mara*j s» guy ala property Th© tamcv* or uM Of popart it ptoMtutaM© by Urw f dilof -m-Chi*f Kafy Soto aging tcwtor Editor mi Editor N*w* Ad Editor Fr**i*nc« Editor David Thorn flfaotrtws H«vw Lo« Bwftrfwayn N«w» Editor Sports Editor Supplements Editor Nigiht Editor Qvnt Mrt/ T Hoe* Amy Cotumbo Associate tan Of it Uvumoo. Student (JQwmm+nL'Act Marca*«K»a l Oofl^n^ wy. Cotton PoN»g, n*#f*r £ ckjeMtartAdm^ttr&ion Mow* Staff $U)r*t» AjOury. Refpna Brown Matody Co«^ Amy t IWxxxi fVrno For^m*. Gny*ft Forman. Matt Oarton Jo* tfarwood Km H*rvy, T»«vo* K*i»n*y SNww KAju« Mam K>ncf** S»nard>* Marhn. Mar M IV.i* Mah Mt T,i« Pair*.* Mrvkxd. Ban Moo&u*. Hatabm Martga*twry. Anna Mom* Komtetd, SNtfry fW^y kiatMta Stapard Pawl Van $c*to. $**n Sm*n Mathew S*t»fw Mara Sbn*, Jwsmy Staton, Kan Wou. Bn» Womack. i« £acr«k Qorvof •! Monaco/ Judy Advertising Director M*>% Wa«*r Production Manage* M>,?.«h> tto*5 AdVtflltta^: Arm# Amador. Ar»1a Borg*** Utf oOrtg TonyFc* NkCOkl H*r*fn*fc K«*?, Lyon. >«m> Mason Sarah Mtc**f!. Tom Mri*»t4«d* Classified Becky Merchant. Ma^V**' K>** Q*v* Jo* SeAem Distribution John loog f WOK Rakocii, Graham Sampson Ousmest *athy Carbon* $**Wrv*acv Judy ConnoAy production OiM^a McCotifc. Production C<**tfnjfcv Sha* 4 A&*c«* Tara G»w*tney B*ad Jos*. Moa> WcCanU. Jov'..'o ttsand. Dayton too N*wvoom Business OMcs J44-5SU MS-SSIJ CXtpUy Atf**rtl*ing Clmstftad Adv*msMvg MAim M6AJA3 —' . Balancwg the Budget ML CAUSE PAIN, ANO THE PAiN rAUST BE 5HARED &V EvtPVoME. WHERE IS THE PAiH FoR YOUR RiCH supporters umo shd up WITH A $10,000 7A*Cur? I ."Ill . k . * , *4 ‘Qmt nw jxiviiiin^ui r the pmn ot a gviltvConscience' l suppose, IS MOR.Z mAM UDo COULD SWALUOW? u HfAW . ■ Tm(n acc To That tut paw CtiTrw6 M3 SfMPArW A I MJ ■ OPINION Aims of conservatives differ over time Primp A. J. Fomas\ r» this day and age it is hard t« (all oneself “conserve JLtive as computing and. at times, incorrectly stated define lions are tossed hm k and forth Many conservatives. im hid ing those in the Republican Par ty. say they wish to get govern■ moot off of people s b.u ks This is a worthy goal The govern ment is ( ertainly too intrusive m our lives and taxes are certainly too high If conservatives are worried about the government having too much entry into people's wallets, they should he even more worried about the govern ment being too Involved in {am ple's personal lives This seems perfectly rational, doesn't it? "Government off of our backs" should mean, quite simply, gov ernment off of our bucks, noth ing more or less Now the phrase, "government off of our hacks." quite obvious ly, has some limits and must be thought of in a practical sense We do need some level of gov ernment to mn the country, and if we thought differently, we'd be Libertarians. So, it would seem appropriate that since we cannot have gov ernment completely untnvolved in our lives, as conservatives we should want it to have as little influence as possible Unfortunately, this is not the case in some factions of the Republican Party, which, while still concerned about keeping the government out of people's money, are quite willing to let it into people's tiedrooms. The abortion issue is a perfect example. The crux of the argu ment for or against the practice is, "When does life begin?" If it tiegins at conception. as some believe, abortion would have to be considered murder if it begins when the < hild leaves the womb, as others believe, it would not Because science can not give a definitive answer, this has be< ome the most con tentious political issue of our time Let us remember, our goal ns conservatives, as we suv so often, is to get government off of our (lacks If we believe this, should w<- allow the government tell us when life begins, which is a personal and moral deci sion ' Of course not Our i lergy, families and friends may attempt to do so, but tin- dec I sion must, in a Jeffersonian Democracy, lie with the individ ual. What about homosexual behavior? Should it matter to a conservative what consenting adults do when they are alone? Now , once again, I remind all of you who consider yourselves conservative that the goal, as we have defined it. is getting the government off of our hacks, so it should not matter at all Those who think that they are conservative, white in reality they are merely socially c onser vative, are sadly mistaken in their definition of themselves The true goals of the movement — free markets, low taxes and appropriate, limited government — are bastardized by those who are only concerned with over turning Woe \ It'ode and gay rights. If we look at the Republican forefathers James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, when they fought the Federalists so many years ago, they considered the pursuit of personal liberties of primary importance Some in the COP must have forgotten this rich history in the present, whic h is to the detriment of the party, especially as 1996 approaches. The values, as they call them, of the so-called Christian right are destined to fail nationally for the following reasons: First, they are based on » his tor\ that does not exist Many members of the Christian right discuss restoring values in America. Such speeches usually point to the 1050s ns thi* high point of such values, which must seem painfully ironic to African-Americans who were facing the pains of segregation and to women who could not even think of competing with men in the job market mid. they are not appropri ate for the political arena According to Adam Smith, who is the father of conservatism, the government should do four things: establish and operate a system of justice, compensate for the externalities of the mar ket, provide defense and break monopolies The Christian right would add. keep the rules of Christianity." whii !i is absolute ly ridiculous. America is not a theocracy, and evangelical Christians have no right to treat it ns such. Third, they spring from a leadership that is unreliable to say the least The main organi zation of the Christian right is the Christian Coalition, a sub sidiary of the 700 Club, which is led by Pat Robertson Robertson has w ritten a book that blames Jews for a world hooking con spiracy. Once during a speech om.e Robertson said feminism leads women to become Social ists. It is sad and frightening this sort of thinking t omes from the mouth of a powerful national leader. It is simply unacceptable in rational discourse and will eventually cause the GOP more trouble than it could ever let worth. America's history is rich in Christian tradition, and it is important socially and morally for our nation, but we are under the flag of democracy, not a reli gion. Thomas Jefferson said, "a wall of separation between church and state,” is essential, and this wall must stand Finn Primo A /. Fontana is a colum nist for the Emerald
