UC Davis pepper sprays seated protestors

[Andara Bledin]

because they chose to refuse a LAWFUL order.

The order was lawful. And there are specific consequences for refusing that particular order.

What the police did was not a lawful response.

As MadMike so eloquently put it: If a cop warns someone they'll shoot them if they don't show ID and then does it, does that make it ok because he said he would beforehand?

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

So if a cop says "Show me your identification or I'll shoot you", and you refuse to show it to him, it's OK for him to shoot you?

No, for a variety reasons primarily:
A: Excepting specific circumstances, that's an unlawful order.
B: Police brutality (unlawful use of force)

Furthermore it's a violation of police procedure governing escalation of force (ask, order, tell, make) as well as procedures governing use of lethal as opposed to nonlethal force in a given circumstance.

And to top it all off, assuming the above applies in a specific circumstance, not only would you be legally allowed to refuse, you'd also legally be allowed to employ lethal force to defend yourself.

The order was lawful. And there are specific consequences for refusing that particular order.

Exactly.

What the police did was not a lawful response.

Incorrect, according to what I've been able to find, the protesters were asked to move (lawful) told to move (lawful) ordered to move (lawful) informed of the consequences (icing on the cake) to which there was a reply affirming understanding (sprinkles) and then pepper spray was employed. (lawful)

All in accordance to and exceeding in the positive to lawful procedure.

Why is pepper spray appropriate? Because: compared to other less-than lethal forms of force pepper spray is, without much effort, grand prize winner in the categories of least lasting harm and least lethality.

I'm all for people making sure that they're opinions are heard, and if they're willing to do so by breaking laws, fine, they're choice. There are, however, consequences, a price so to speak, associated with this. They knew all of this and did it anyway.

W_H sympathy level 0%
With all the whining and complaining, I wish I could assign less...

[Andara Bledin]

...informed of the consequences (icing on the cake)

This is where you start to stray from legal...

and then pepper spray was employed. (lawful)

Strike 3...

All in accordance to and exceeding in the positive to lawful procedure.

And that's strike three.

See, the courts have already determined, over a decade ago, that pepper spray is supposed to only be used for defensive purposes, or as an alternative to other forms of force against aggressive targets. It is not supposed to be an option for attacking non-violent targets.

Article at SFGate

An excerpt:

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit in 2000 and set standards for future pepper-spray cases in the federal courts of California and eight other Western states.

Plaintiffs may be able to prove excessive force, the court said, if they can show they "posed no immediate threat to the safety of anyone" and if police had less painful or intrusive alternatives. Jurors, the court said, should also consider the seriousness of the plaintiffs' alleged crime and whether officers were facing an emergency.

The protesters in this case posed no threat at all. They were seated, with their arms linked and heads bowed. How can any reasonable individual claim that those people posed any sort of threat at that time.

There are, however, consequences, a price so to speak, associated with this. They knew all of this and did it anyway.

Yes, there are consequences. Being sprayed in the face at close range with pepper spray is not one of those consequences.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

This is where you start to stray from legal...

It's illegal to inform someone that you're about to do something?

Strike 3...
And that's strike three.

And here we go.

See, the courts have already determined, over a decade ago, that pepper spray is supposed to only be used for defensive purposes, or as an alternative to other forms of force against aggressive targets. It is not supposed to be an option for attacking non-violent targets.

Here's the hitching point, I can find no text of this finding, (among other findings that are mentioned but never given) including you're link which only alleges that the finding exists, not what it says which is kinda sorta massively important. In what way and to which extend is pepper spray ruled out? for whom? are there other exceptions? There's no way of knowing without finding a text of the decision and atm I have neither the time nor the patience for it.

That said, everything else I said stands.
Law enforcement officers are permitted, nay, it's their DUTY to use appropriate force to elicit compliance from persons refusing a lawful order. In this situation the course of action least likely to cause lasting harm was pepper spray. The alternatives (tasers, hard physical force, tear gas, etc.) are far, far more harmful and potentially lethal.

An excerpt:


The protesters in this case posed no threat at all. They were seated, with their arms linked and heads bowed. How can any reasonable individual claim that those people posed any sort of threat at that time.

Again, pending an actual text of the decision to peruse, threat has nothing to do with it. Force is authorized to enforce a lawful order that's being refused.

Yes, there are consequences. Being sprayed in the face at close range with pepper spray is not one of those consequences.

Proven incorrect even if not in legal terms than in practical application by previous, similar, occurrences. The following question pops up: If the decision does indeed outlaw use of pepper spray except in 'defensive' application against physical threat (which would be stupid since pepper spray kinda sucks in those circumstances except when compared w/nothing at all) than which of the available options would be better:
Breaking them up with truncheons?
Hitting them with bean bag rounds?
Tear gas?
Tasers?

[FArchivist]

I am not saying it was right or the correct thing to do, but it is now shown that they WERE authorized to use force, and it wasn't just he walked up and started spraying them with no warning as previous videos have misrepresented.

I've read previously that he did warn them anyway, but that doesn't really matter. Just because Lt Pike said "If you do not move we will deploy." doesn't mean he had authorization. During Iran-Contra, Ollie North repeatedly said he had authorization, when that authorization did not exist.

I do believe this was released due to the chancellor's attempting to save herself by throwing Lt. Pike under the bus.

That's fine. I still won't believe it was authorized until I see something contradicting the Chancellor's statement. Like a video of the Chancellor giving authorization.

so this, yeah, they were informed what the consequences of their actions would be, they were given the option of leave or be peppersprayed, they made their choice, and the edited vidoe made them heroes and martyrs, which they really are not from the full video.

Neither video to me shows that what Lt Pike did was appropriate. It was still brutality and countless LEOs have told me that what he did was incorrect procedure. Also, he should have obeyed the Chancellor's orders and backed off if they refused to move. That he disobeyed is inexcusable - and he will pay for it, and righteously so.

She can't tell the police not to use equipment to preserve their own safety. Riot gear is as much about protecting the cop as it is enforcing the law. There's nothing inappropriate about its use; those protests could easily escalate into violence, and then you're stuck.

Er, what safety was threatened?
I sure didn't see anyone sporting an AK or even throwing a pebble. Or even engaging in actual physical resistance. Looked like a typical non-violent sit-in to me, straight from the 1960s South.

because they chose to refuse a LAWFUL order. They were made aware what the consequences would be, they CHOSE those consequences. It's not self defense if you are given a legal option to avoid it and choose to not do so.

There's still a problem you haven't considered. A little item called due force. Refusing a lawful order =/= getting maced in the face, and there are court cases to that effect, dating from the 1960s era of peaceful civil disobedience.

If we're going to use that logic, then we need to revise our history on Kent State. They were doing the same things these students were doing, therefore according to your logic, since the Kent Staters refused a lawful order to disperse, it was OK to start shooting.

Law enforcement officers are permitted, nay, it's their DUTY to use appropriate force to elicit compliance from persons refusing a lawful order. In this situation the course of action least likely to cause lasting harm was pepper spray. The alternatives (tasers, hard physical force, tear gas, etc.) are far, far more harmful and potentially lethal.

Oh bullshit. Given the choice of having my mouth forced open and pepper spray practically poured down it or having someone put a gun to my knee and blowing out my kneecap, I'll take the kneecapping. Less painful, less debilitating.

Again, pending an actual text of the decision to peruse, threat has nothing to do with it. Force is authorized to enforce a lawful order that's being refused.

It arose in Humboldt County in 1997, when officers swabbed liquid pepper spray in the eyes of protesters who chained themselves together at the headquarters of Pacific Lumber Co. and fastened themselves to logging equipment. Those who refused to move were then sprayed in the face at close range.

A jury in San Francisco deadlocked 4-4 on whether the officers violated the demonstrators' rights. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker then dismissed the case, saying no reasonable juror could find excessive force.
Guidelines set

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit in 2000 and set standards for future pepper-spray cases in the federal courts of California and eight other Western states.

Proven incorrect even if not in legal terms than in practical application by previous, similar, occurrences. The following question pops up: If the decision does indeed outlaw use of pepper spray except in 'defensive' application against physical threat (which would be stupid since pepper spray kinda sucks in those circumstances except when compared w/nothing at all) than which of the available options would be better:
Breaking them up with truncheons?
Hitting them with bean bag rounds?
Tear gas?
Tasers?

How about following their lawful orders from their superior officer and retreating without using force? I mean, really, is that too much to ask?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Oh bullshit. Given the choice of having my mouth forced open and pepper spray practically poured down it or having someone put a gun to my knee and blowing out my kneecap, I'll take the kneecapping. Less painful, less debilitating.

First of all, nowhere did I see anyone's mouth being held open while pepper spray was copiously sprayed therein. A line of people were sprayed in the face from a few feet away, eyes and mouth closed (not that it really matters) and that's it. No permanent damage to speak of (compared to just about all alternatives) and the pain goes away with time and treatment.

When someone blows you're kneecap out you are at risk to:
Die
Lose you're leg
Limp for the rest of you're life
spiral into ruin due to hospital and medical bills and employment complication

etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, someone who chooses permanent flesh and skeletal damage (which itself brings with it incredibly long lasting pain after the fact once you're adrenalin from being seriously injured runs out, for months, or the rest of you're life.) and possibly lose life or limb over temporary pain of large proportions... I just have nothing to say to that.

I hereby call bullshit on that bullshit.

It arose in Humboldt County in 1997, when officers swabbed liquid pepper spray in the eyes of protesters who chained themselves together at the headquarters of Pacific Lumber Co. and fastened themselves to logging equipment. Those who refused to move were then sprayed in the face at close range.

A jury in San Francisco deadlocked 4-4 on whether the officers violated the demonstrators' rights. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker then dismissed the case, saying no reasonable juror could find excessive force.
Guidelines set

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit in 2000 and set standards for future pepper-spray cases in the federal courts of California and eight other Western states.

Which, as I suspected, is according to what is there, which isn't as much as I'd like, nevertheless 'guidelines' pertaining to future 'civil' suits. Has nothing to do with legality or lack thereof only whether or not someone can sue you for it, two entirely different things.

How about following their lawful orders from their superior officer and retreating without using force? I mean, really, is that too much to ask?

At this point I'd hesitate to believe that they were indeed ordered to back down. Whole thing's gone straight into 'he said she said' and 'what I really meant was' territory.

In preparation for either:
If they were ordered to retreat than they are guilty only of refusing an order (unless they demonstrate that they exercised personal discretion in due diligence.)
If they were not ordered to retreat than they are guilty of nothing except playing directly into the hands of the whaaaambulance chasers.

[Canarr]

Possibly stupid question: the campus police of UC Davis, being governed by the same laws that affect other municipal police departments (if I understood Greenday correctly) should have procedures established for the use of the different weapons in their arsenal, correct? Under which circumstances an officer is permitted or forbidden to use his baton, taser, pepperspray, gun... and these procedures should be a matter of public record, correct? Therefore, available for public perusal under your Freedom of Information Act?

If that were the case, it should be a small matter for Occupy or other locally interested groups to look up the regulations governing the use of pepperspray and find out whether or not Lt. Pike's actions were within regulations.

If they were, then he's free and clear (aside from the Chancellor's claims of giving him different orders that he disobeyed), and the university or city might want look into tightening their regulations - then again, they might not.
If they weren't - if his regulations do not permit him to spray peacefully sitting demonstrators with pepperspray, thus inflicting at least temporary pain and suffering on them - he should be charged just as any civillian would in his place.

Is that so? Or am I wrong here?

[Shangri-laschild]

Possibly stupid question: the campus police of UC Davis, being governed by the same laws that affect other municipal police departments (if I understood Greenday correctly) should have procedures established for the use of the different weapons in their arsenal, correct? Under which circumstances an officer is permitted or forbidden to use his baton, taser, pepperspray, gun... and these procedures should be a matter of public record, correct? Therefore, available for public perusal under your Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, they should have a Use of Force Policy and I believe that it would be available through a FOIA request. The only wrinkle is that while according to their use of force policy, they may be able to do one thing. If the chancellor actually did say don't push the issue if they resist, then I'm not sure how that effects things. Now if they resisted, the chancellor wouldn't have as much say in it but since they didn't resist I'm not sure if the chancellor is basically in general able to say, if they don't go on their own but are peaceful, we aren't going to consider it trespassing after all.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Possibly stupid question: the campus police of UC Davis, being governed by the same laws that affect other municipal police departments (if I understood Greenday correctly) should have procedures established for the use of the different weapons in their arsenal, correct? Under which circumstances an officer is permitted or forbidden to use his baton, taser, pepperspray, gun... and these procedures should be a matter of public record, correct? Therefore, available for public perusal under your Freedom of Information Act?

Short answer: yes

Long answer: Yes, but really just about all municipalities/precincts/etc. follow a basic continuum.
First, verbal commands: Ask -> tell -> order
Second, less-than lethal force, usually: pepper spray -> taser/soft hands -> 'hard hands' -> physical force (baton) under specific applications only (no hits to the head or neck, stuff like that)
Third, lethal force: and here it generally devolves into a slurry of gray areas. Rule of thumb being that once lethal force is used or threatened against an officer lawfully executing his or her duties, they are allowed to respond in kind, at which point the exact implement or type of lethal force is generally pretty much entirely up to the discretion of the officer.

Again, generally speaking an officer is de facto authorized to use force one rung above what they meet once lower alternatives are exhausted. Passive resistance allows small force, small force resistance allows harder force and so on.

[Andara Bledin]

From the article I linked in my last post, since it doesn't appear that everybody read it:

The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, which advises police agencies and officers statewide, says pepper spray "can have very serious and debilitating consequences," and "should only be generally used as a defensive weapon" and never to intimidate or retaliate.

Certainly, they aren't actually setting the rules. However, you would think that the government agency responsible for training the state's police force would have a far greater understanding of how things should be done than someone who thinks pepper spraying seated protesters who don't even have their arms available for use (linked together with their neighbors) deserve to be pepper sprayed.

Seriously, arguing that because they were warned, that makes it ok is as stupid as arguing that since parking lot stubs say that the owners of the parking lot have no liability if your car is damaged, that they actually have no liability. It shows a basic ignorance of the law in the state of California. Threatening somebody with what is likely an illegal action isn't necessarily wrong, but actually doing that action is.

Another article raises some interesting questions. If the police wanted the crowd dispersed, the appropriate action was to use tear gas, which is designed to cause the targets to flee the area to escape the gas. Pepper spray, by its nature, is intended to incapacitate the target, meaning that they literally cannot leave. So, if he knew he was incapacitating people that he was supposed to be making depart, did he do so with the intent that once they were incapacitated, he could then add insult to injury (quite literally) by charging them for resisting when they continued to fail to move because they couldn't because of his actions?

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Certainly, they aren't actually setting the rules. However, you would think that the government agency responsible for training the state's police force would have a far greater understanding of how things should be done than someone who thinks pepper spraying seated protesters who don't even have their arms available for use (linked together with their neighbors) deserve to be pepper sprayed.

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes because you aren't being forceful in their commission. Again, note that force is authorized to execute lawful orders.

Seriously, arguing that because they were warned, that makes it ok is as stupid as arguing that since parking lot stubs say that the owners of the parking lot have no liability if your car is damaged, that they actually have no liability. It shows a basic ignorance of the law in the state of California. Threatening somebody with what is likely an illegal action isn't necessarily wrong, but actually doing that action is.

The warning was icing on the freaking cake. What makes it lawful (not same thing as ok) is that they were enforcing a lawful order to disperse. In so many words, they were using force to stop an ongoing crime.

Another article raises some interesting questions. If the police wanted the crowd dispersed, the appropriate action was to use tear gas, which is designed to cause the targets to flee the area to escape the gas. Pepper spray, by its nature, is intended to incapacitate the target, meaning that they literally cannot leave. So, if he knew he was incapacitating people that he was supposed to be making depart, did he do so with the intent that once they were incapacitated, he could then add insult to injury (quite literally) by charging them for resisting when they continued to fail to move because they couldn't because of his actions?

A few problems here. First and foremost being that the cops in question probably did not have access to tear gas, meaning that they are therefore lawfully allowed to make do with what they have. Secondly, tear gas would have been very inappropriate because the protesters that were to be dispersed were far from the only people in the immediate vicinity. Tear gas would have effected the whole area, criminal and bystander alike, and would have been counterproductive in achieving the goal of removing the obstruction to public property because it's use would just create a whole new (worse) obstruction.

A few things to straighten out here is that the fact that people were pepper sprayed not being good is not lost on me. It's bad. However, they are responsible for their actions and the consequences and in this situation I see no reason why pepper spray is either heinous or illegal.

[FArchivist]

First of all, nowhere did I see anyone's mouth being held open while pepper spray was copiously sprayed therein.

You didn't read about what happened AFTER the video.

UC Davis professor claims police held open students' mouths and peppersprayed them down their throats

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

A line of people were sprayed in the face from a few feet away, eyes and mouth closed (not that it really matters) and that's it. No permanent damage to speak of (compared to just about all alternatives) and the pain goes away with time and treatment.

If you're coughing up blood for 45 minutes, I would suspect at least permanent lung damage and an extremely shortened life expectancy, much like tuberculosis.

When someone blows you're kneecap out you are at risk to:
Die
Lose you're leg
Limp for the rest of you're life
spiral into ruin due to hospital and medical bills and employment complication

I'll still take the kneecap, thank you, rather than be exposed to a chemical weapon. At least then I know what I'm getting. Physical pain is fine; the list of "complications" that have arisen from wide-spread use of pepper spray ever since it was approved seems to me to be a quick ride to a bed-ridden invalid, not to mention the alarmingly large numbers of hospitalization for chemical burns and the multiple deaths that have ensued. Being tased for 15 minutes straight is kinder.

At this point I'd hesitate to believe that they were indeed ordered to back down. Whole thing's gone straight into 'he said she said' and 'what I really meant was' territory.

Unless you have proof that the Chancellor is lying, as the superior officer to Lt Pike her testimony is worth far more than his. Furthermore, despite having received rewards for service, Lt Pike's history is less than savory. I also would like to point this out:

He has twice been honored by the university for exceptional police work, including a 2006 incident in which he tackled a scissor-wielding hospital patient who was threatening fellow officers. Afterward, he said he decided against using pepper spray because it might harm his colleagues or other hospital patients.

So he knows how to peacefully take down a violent assailant without use of pepper spray, taser, or firearms...yet non-violent passively-resisting protesters cannot be removed without pepper-spraying the shit out of them? I call shenanigans.

And I end with this reminder:

In assessing the use of force applied to Occupy Wall Street protestors it is important to understand the concept of the “Use of Force Continuum” and the appropriate level of response that comes with each step of that continuum. That is to say, there is a corresponding acceptable level of appropriate enforcement response for each level of subject behavior. In the world of law enforcement, there are several levels of subject classification, they range from Passive Compliant, someone who follows the officer’s orders, to Active Aggressor, someone who actually attacks an officer. People who are blocking a roadway are acting as passive non-compliant offenders, (subjects). The normal use of force for such activity is what is known as control techniques (i.e techniques or actions that have a low probability of causing connective tissue damage, lacerations or broken bones). These would be the use of pressure points, kicks, stuns and arm lock transport or being dragged / carried away from the scene. The next level above passive non-compliant is the active resistor, those who are actively trying to resist a police officer or actively impede him in carrying out a lawful order. It is at this level that pepper spray, baton strikes and physical takedowns are used. As such the police officers at U.C. Davis had clearly upped the level of response beyond what is generally considered appropriate and there has been a nationwide condemnation of their behavior. What some won’t seem to accept, the use of pepper spray on passive resistant protestors, like those at U.C. Davis, constitutes an excessive use of force by law enforcement authorities. The protestors at U.C. Davis were clearly passive resistors who should have been dealt with what are called control techniques.

[FArchivist]

A few things to straighten out here is that the fact that people were pepper sprayed not being good is not lost on me. It's bad. However, they are responsible for their actions and the consequences and in this situation I see no reason why pepper spray is either heinous or illegal.

No, no, no. It doesn't work like that. You either:

a) approve of Lt Pike's methods and agree completely with what was done, therefore it WAS good, or,

b) Lt Pike did incorrectly, and therefore it was bad.

Don't sit on the fence. Pick a side. Fence-sitting is the refuge of hypocrisy.

[Andara Bledin]

You don't get a free pass to commit crimes because you aren't being forceful in their commission. Again, note that force is authorized to execute lawful orders.

Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that the protesters should get a "free pass."

Merely that the cops don't get a free pass to use what has already been determined in a prior protest case in the state to be unreasonable force.

In so many words, they were using force to stop an ongoing crime.

They were using inappropriate force. There are quite extensive notes regarding how to deal with passive protesters, and pepper spray is not one of the options. It's a shame that they didn't have access to better choices, but when the choice is to use excessive force or none, the proper decision is not to use excessive force when there is not an immediate threat.

However, they are responsible for their actions and the consequences and in this situation I see no reason why pepper spray is either heinous or illegal.

They are responsible for theirs, which was to block a public sidewalk, which is punishable in a number of various manners that do not include force.

The cops are also responsible for their own actions as well, which is the issue at hand.

Occupy LA managed to arrest nearly 300 people without any pepper spray, tear gas, or any other force beyond the issues involved with 3 individuals who were not passive.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that the protesters should get a "free pass."

Actually the implication that the cops should have simply left and allowed this crime to continue uninterrupted has come up several times. If that's not a free pass, no such thing exists.

Merely that the cops don't get a free pass to use what has already been determined in a prior protest case in the state to be unreasonable force.

That determination was in the context of civil lawsuits only, and at that only as a guideline for making future decisions. In no way binding or damning on a legal level.

They were using inappropriate force. There are quite extensive notes regarding how to deal with passive protesters, and pepper spray is not one of the options.

Why not? when compared to the other non lethal means available to most LEOs pepper spray is by far the best in terms of avoiding lasting and serious bodily harm.
I see no reason why using the lowest level of force available to end the commission of a crime is inappropriate.

It's a shame that they didn't have access to better choices, but when the choice is to use excessive force or none, the proper decision is not to use excessive force when there is not an immediate threat.

Excessive force is defined by force that exceeds what is necessary when suitable alternatives exist. Since verbal commands failed (making pain compliance necessary and therefore in no way excessive) the use of the lowest form of available pain compliance is therefore justified. In this case that was pepper spray.

They are responsible for theirs, which was to block a public sidewalk, which is punishable in a number of various manners that do not include force.

'Punish" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Law Enforcement Officers are not responsible for punishing criminals. They are responsible for preventing crimes, stopping ongoing crimes, and recovering criminals for the justice system to then punish.

Any and all uses of force by police officers have nothing in the slightest to do with punishment, and everything to do with eliciting compliance with a lawful order, investigation, arrest etc.

The cops are also responsible for their own actions as well, which is the issue at hand.

I never said that the officers aren't responsible for their actions. My point is that the officers are responsible for the following:
-Acting to end a crime so as to protect the rights of the landowners and public at large.
-Selecting a form of force specifically to avoid lasting or permanent injury.

I don't see a problem with either of those things.

Occupy LA managed to arrest nearly 300 people without any pepper spray, tear gas, or any other force beyond the issues involved with 3 individuals who were not passive.

You mean other than the direct physical force they used to apprehend, subdue, and jail those 300 people.

In case you don't know: grabbing someone, forcing them to the ground/hood of a cop car, and cuffing them is considered, for good reason, a higher level of force than pepper spray.

Why is that? because it's far, FAR more likely to cause lasting or permanent injury.