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