The solution suggested in the Fresh bill is the best way to end this incident quickly, without any loss to anybody involved. The protester has made clear he is willing to leave (as early as the day he climbed up) if he is not arrested. The only thing delaying at this point is UCPD's deceptive tactics in which they promise not to arrest him, but will arrest him later at the DA's discretion since they have apparently ID'd him.

Sometimes it is best to accept a compromise. Most students are annoyed by this ongoing protest. The University is annoyed because it does not give it the press it wants, and it doesn't know how to deal with it (look at Oak Grove). The protestor himself wants to come down.

Because the University and UCPD (as Daily Cal argued today) have already shown their incompetence and inability to end this crisis (I did not mean humanitarian crisis, but I can see that being arguable; I meant the crisis in general), it is up to other students to do what they can to end this without anybody getting hurt in the process.

Finally, the special order is meant to encourage students to use the ASUC as a potential forum/venue for pursuing resolutions to these kinds of grievances.

The only reason to oppose this kind of resolution at this point is hard-headed obstinancy--whether it's by the administration or the protester. The protest is ineffective because it is not making any progress on the related causes; if anything it is generating only bad press for them. If the administration is holding back to make some abstract point about law and order on this campus, it is simply wasting campus resources--not to mention there is something particularly obscene about the fact that 3 officers are stationed at a tree when last semester small crime like muggings was at an uncharacteristic high on campus.
 

Seeing as how the bill suggests that the UCPD is violating the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I think the interpretation of "human rights crisis" is appropriate.
 

you should check your facts yaman.

The cops offered him amnesty yesterday, and he refused it.
 

yaman:

if the protester is offered complete amnesty, what is to keep others from doing the same thing in the future? the point of consequences is that they give people an incentive to not do dumb things like climb a tree and waste university resources. and regarding your last paragraph, there would not be 3 officers stationed beneath a tree if there was not 1 idiot in the tree in the first place.
 

I don't think the police are really obligated to follow through with any agreements they make with criminals in order to get them to stop criminal behavior, so I'm not sure it's accurate to say the police "offered him amnesty."
 

anonymous:

No. That promise is meaningless. It basically means, we're going to let you walk away, but we know where you live so we will come with a warrant (which not UCPD requests but DA or University) to arrest you. Sorry, we didn't lie!

anonymous #2:

I think that this gesture of support is being offered in good faith, and that it doesn't require much manipulation by either protesters or administration before that kind of offer/support evaporates from the students. Given the specifics of this particular case, and the fact that nobody has anything to lose from this ending, but everything to lose from it continuing, this is a reasonable resolution to the situation.

It's nice to make a big deal about the guy in the tree draining resources, but you act as if UCPD has to mobilize every time somebody gets into a tree. Why? It makes sense near the Oak Grove, where there is the issue that the University's plans are being obstructed. But on campus there's no "issue."

In any case, I'd think at Berkeley of all places we would be more willing to consider forgiving cases of civil disobedience, especially when nobody is hurt or threatened during the act.
 

I don't think it's meaningful civil disobedience if the government is typically willing to forgive it.
 

yaman (anonymous #2 here):

you mention the "specifics of this particular case". i reiterate my comment above, that letting this dude off the hook sets a precedent for other dudes to do the same thing in the future and expect no consequences. if this dude is punished, as his actions merit, then a precedent of responsibility will prevent other dudes from wasting resources in the future. when you make things like laws, you need to look beyond the specifics of one case.

as for the reason why ucpd is wasting resources, i'm sure somebody more knowledgeable about the law can tell you about things like liability, among whatever else he will be charged with.

suppose the university had allowed the protest to continue, the dude got injured, sued the university, and won damages. consider the wasted resources that course of action would precipitate.