UC Davis pepper sprays seated protestors

[FArchivist]

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.

Except that orders from the Chancellor to remove tents, do not engage the students, do not attempt to remove students, if resistance is encountered you are to RETREAT, makes it not a free pass. I expect an officer to do what he is told.

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.

If you really need it, there's actually a California statute on file stating that law enforcement must use it in defense only, but I don't really want to have to hunt through the damned code again.

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.

Using pepper spray =/= lowest level of force. I have not ever heard a LEO referring to it that way. Even Lt Pike, the man behind the incident, has been recorded to say otherwise, as in the article I linked.

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.

Uh, no. The lowest level of force is, as previously stated, are "control techniques". It is FAR from standard procedure to pepper spray passively resisting protesters. This is why Lt Pike is currently having his ass handed to him, why the CA state government has launched an independent inquiry, and why the Feds are now looking to get involved.

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.

And that's just simply not true. Control techniques are far less violent than chemical weapons. There's no risk or injury involved in cuffing a passively resisting person. If you are talking about active resistance, then we're having a different conversation. Or do you not know the difference between the two?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

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.

If you read the entire post you should have seen that I am very much on the cops side.

My point here is that doing bad things is, under given circumstances, lawful and justifiable. Specifically that this specific bad thing under those specific circumstances was lawful and justified.

The world, life, and morality are all complicated things, worthy of multi-faceted and pluralistic consideration, categorization, and judgement. Trying to dumb these concepts down to black and white, this side v that side pissing matches is a failure to give due credit.

Which, to be allegedly eloquent, is the fallback of inadequacy.

Except that orders from the Chancellor to remove tents, do not engage the students, do not attempt to remove students, if resistance is encountered you are to RETREAT, makes it not a free pass. I expect an officer to do what he is told.

Jeebus and we're already irretrievably thrust into the realm of re-arguing the same things over and over again?
As I previously stated, IMO it's murky at best that the chancellor did indeed give these instructions or is just covering their ass and letting pike take the blame.
Also, I didn't see any tents anywhere in this incident.

If you really need it, there's actually a California statute on file stating that law enforcement must use it in defense only, but I don't really want to have to hunt through the damned code again.

I googled up and down last night for a text that explicitly barred use of pepper spray in anything but a defensive role and found nothing but endless copy-pasta articles alleging the existence of a civil case precedent .

Using pepper spray =/= lowest level of force. I have not ever heard a LEO referring to it that way. Even Lt Pike, the man behind the incident, has been recorded to say otherwise, as in the article I linked.

Well I have, plenty. Level of force is pretty much = to likelihood to cause lasting or permanent harm and pepper spray comes just under tasers and just over harsh language in terms of those thing commonly available to run-of-the mill police officers.
Also, if that atricle is the one from last page there was no such quote by pike, rather, bunches of quotes by professors and 'experts' arguing both sides of the issue.

Uh, no. The lowest level of force is, as previously stated, are "control techniques". It is FAR from standard procedure to pepper spray passively resisting protesters. This is why Lt Pike is currently having his ass handed to him, why the CA state government has launched an independent inquiry, and why the Feds are now looking to get involved.

Not according to the opinions and information I have on hand which, as above, judges level of force pretty much exactly along with likelihood to cause bodily injury. By that barometer the physical nature of 'control techniques' especially against passively or actively resisting persons is considered a higher level of force than pepper spray which is not physical control, instead, it's pain compliance.
It's my suspicion that abating the controversy is the primary and pretty much sole cause of the hubub rather than any serious standing issue of criminality.

And that's just simply not true. Control techniques are far less violent than chemical weapons. There's no risk or injury involved in cuffing a passively resisting person. If you are talking about active resistance, then we're having a different conversation. Or do you not know the difference between the two?

There's a big difference between passive resistance and cooperation. In a situation of cooperation, cuffing someone does indeed pose no risk to injure whatsoever. These people were NOT cooperating, they were passively resisting. As soon as you have to MAKE someone's body do something to cuff them the chance to injure is very real indeed. This is the case with passive resistance.

[FArchivist]

My point here is that doing bad things is, under given circumstances, lawful and justifiable. Specifically that this specific bad thing under those specific circumstances was lawful and justified.

If you hold to that, than we will never agree. Doing bad things is NEVER lawful and justifiable, just as standing aside and allowing bad things to happen makes you just as bad as the perpetrator of the bad things.

The world, life, and morality are all complicated things, worthy of multi-faceted and pluralistic consideration, categorization, and judgement. Trying to dumb these concepts down to black and white, this side v that side pissing matches is a failure to give due credit.

I disagree completely.

While I will happily agree that "good" and "evil" are morally relative and dependent entirely on the viewpoint of the individual person, that individual still has to decide for themselves what is "good" and "evil".

And a person who does not hold to what they have deemed Good? Then they are hypocrites. If you truly believe in what you deem to be Good, you are willing to die for that Good. To suicide. To see the world destroyed and all you love annihilated before you betray that Good.

THAT is known as having the courage of your convictions. The world is easily divided; people who have that courage and those that don't.

As I previously stated, IMO it's murky at best that the chancellor did indeed give these instructions or is just covering their ass and letting pike take the blame. Also, I didn't see any tents anywhere in this incident.

1) The tents are not in the video. They are off-camera behind the crowd.
2) It's not murky at all. There is no proof that the Chancellor is lying, nor evidence that even points to it. Absent proof and evidence, it's just speculation that the Chancellor is lying and so should be ignored. I'm not going to accept pure rumor as possible fact without boots on the ground.

I googled up and down last night for a text that explicitly barred use of pepper spray in anything but a defensive role and found nothing but endless copy-pasta articles alleging the existence of a civil case precedent .

First of all, what was used wasn't "normal" pepper spray. The standard pepper spray used by police officers is a 0.2% solution. The pepper spray that was used by Lt Pike was the 0.7% solution that's designed for use in military riot situations. And to take down BEARS. Recommended minimum distance. SIX FEET. Recommended effective distance? 18-20 FEET. Here's what it does to your body.

Secondly, the relevant statute is California Penal Code 12403.7.(g), which states:

Any person who uses tear gas or tear gas weapons except in self-defense is guilty of a public offense and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years or in a county jail not to exceed one year or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, except that if the use is against a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, engaged in the performance of his or her official duties and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

Pepper spray is classified as a "tear gas" in the state of California. The prohibition against use of tear gas weapons except in self-defense was considered to apply to law enforcement officers as well in Headwaters Forest Defense vs. County of Humboldt (2002) in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein it was stated:

The use of pepper spray under these circumstances was entirely unprecedented: in California, its use was “limited to controlling hostile or violent subjects” and it had never been used in Humboldt County, the State of California, or anywhere in the country against nonviolent protestors.

Emphasis mine. The decision of the court was that the Humboldt County LEOs were incorrect in using the pepper spray on non-violent protesters and so the usual immunity was lifted and the Humboldt County LEOs were remanded to state court to undergo criminal prosecution for violation of California Penal Code 12403.7. (It never reached a verdict; the LEOs plead guilty, were fired from their jobs, and served a reduced sentence.)

Well I have, plenty. Level of force is pretty much = to likelihood to cause lasting or permanent harm and pepper spray comes just under tasers and just over harsh language in terms of those thing commonly available to run-of-the mill police officers. Also, if that atricle is the one from last page there was no such quote by pike, rather, bunches of quotes by professors and 'experts' arguing both sides of the issue.

I repeat, with emphasis: 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.

Like I said previously, strangely, he has the ability to take down a hostile weapon-wielding maniac without using pepper spray...but passively resisting protesters? FULL MAXIMUM PEPPER SPRAY TAKEDOWN, OH YEAH! All while doing the Arrogant Security Strut too, walking down the line with that pepper spray maybe 3 feet away, if that, going "Look at me with my BADASS pepper spray, in my BADASS riot uniform, OH YEAH! GET SOME!"

Seems to me like an officer who can take down a violent guy with a stabbing weapon without resorting to pepper spray just MIGHT be able to cuff passive resistors without injury or harm. Just sayin'.

It's my suspicion that abating the controversy is the primary and pretty much sole cause of the hubub rather than any serious standing issue of criminality.

Your suspicion doesn't match the seriousness which other LEOs are taking this or comments from other LEOs I've known online and offline that Pike seemed to be "going rogue" and using excessive force. From one guy I know:

"As a former law enforcement official, I can readily confirm that use of force to be unprovoked and unethical."

I dunno. I guess that according to you he must be lying.

These people were NOT cooperating, they were passively resisting. As soon as you have to MAKE someone's body do something to cuff them the chance to injure is very real indeed. This is the case with passive resistance.

And it is NOT normal procedure to use chemical weapons, tasers, rubber bullets, or what-have-you on people practicing passive resistance. Passive resistance = non-violent protester. This is not the 1960s anymore; hoses and batons are not the way we have dealt with non-violent protesters for over THIRTY YEARS.

Like Andara said, strangely the LA police were able to cuff passive resisters without resort to weapons. What's the UC Davis police problem? Inadequate training? Or maybe, just maybe, they decided to get "gung-ho" and they went off the reservation?

[Andara Bledin]

Man, this is tiring.

If you claim that the officers were prohibited from simply pulling the protesters from their seated positions and arresting them one by one due to Katehi's orders, then you have to allow that their use of any force at all was also prohibited by her orders, making the choice to use pepper spray absolutely excessive.

As for pepper spray use versus simply arresting people without using pepper spray, you still have to manhandle and cuff people who have been pepper sprayed, so it's a false comparison. Plus, Occupy LA was dismantled with 290+ arrests and no injuries while Occupy Davis had most of the protesters given some form of medical care due to the pepper spray. Obviously, in practice, the use of pepper spray absolutely is not the lowest level of force necessary to arrest a non-resisting protester.

For everybody's edification, I present the 2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law: 12401 thru 12426 Tear Gas Weapons.

The relevant section is this:

Any person who uses tear gas or tear gas weapons except in self-defense is guilty of a public offense and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years or in a county jail not to exceed one year or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, except that if the use is against a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, engaged in the performance of his or her official duties and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

There is no allowance for a peace officer to be allowed to do otherwise, thus any peace officer using pepper spray for purposes other than self defense is actually committing a public offense.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If you hold to that, than we will never agree. Doing bad things is NEVER lawful and justifiable, just as standing aside and allowing bad things to happen makes you just as bad as the perpetrator of the bad things.

A remarkable oversimplification in pursuit of lofty ideals, if you ask me. It's overly simplistic to apply one good/bad value on one part of a situation and paint the rest of it. The other factors are important. Context is important.

If you truly think that the whole world can really be swept into neat, black and white boxes of absolute good and absolute bad, then yeah, I guess we can never agree. Kinda par for the course.

[snip] While I will happily agree that "good" and "evil" are morally relative and dependent entirely on the viewpoint of the individual person, that individual still has to decide for themselves what is "good" and "evil".

I'm with you so far...

And a person who does not hold to what they have deemed Good? Then they are hypocrites. If you truly believe in what you deem to be Good, you are willing to die for that Good. To suicide. To see the world destroyed and all you love annihilated before you betray that Good.

In for an inch, in for a mile much? I'm not willing to commit suicide over my ideal of the basic good of courteousness.

More than that, my point here is that nothing is ever 100% anything, good or bad. To deny that good intentions can result in bad outcomes, or that good outcomes may include bad things happening is to deny reality.

THAT is known as having the courage of your convictions. The world is easily divided; people who have that courage and those that don't.

A continuing theme of fiat, black/white divisions.

Moreover, it's my conviction that to truly serve good in this world requires more than raw faith in one's beliefs. Among other things, one must hold themselves to as high a possible standard in considering each part of any issue as well as the whole. To weigh each side and come to a determination.

Courage in these convictions is admitting to one's self that the world is an expanse of gray shades, collateral damage, tradeoffs and tricky situations. To admit this, and square your shoulders to the task ahead.

1) The tents are not in the video. They are off-camera behind the crowd.
2) It's not murky at all. There is no proof that the Chancellor is lying, nor evidence that even points to it. Absent proof and evidence, it's just speculation that the Chancellor is lying and so should be ignored. I'm not going to accept pure rumor as possible fact without boots on the ground.

1) If you say so, couldn't find a mention or image but it's really just an extension of their being there anyway, so I'll take you're word on that one.
2) Really? Pretty much right off the bat there were conflicting stories, disagreements over what did and did not happen. I'm not saying that she's definitely lying or anything, merely that I'm deferring to a formal investigation to establish the events in a factual manner.

First of all, what was used wasn't "normal" pepper spray. The standard pepper spray used by police officers is a 0.2% solution. The pepper spray that was used by Lt Pike was the 0.7% solution that's designed for use in military riot situations. And to take down BEARS. Recommended minimum distance. SIX FEET. Recommended effective distance? 18-20 FEET. Here's what it does to your body.

You gotta love these obviously biased breathless-toned story telling articles. That said, I don't recall making that argument that getting pepper sprayed doesn't suck -HARD- even more so if Pike was using the nastier stuff. That said, with few exceptions the grand majority of the effects go away eventually. Most within hours especially with treatment, some as much as a month but then it's gone, entirely, as if it never happened. Same can't be said from flesh and/or bone damage.

Secondly, the relevant statute is California Penal Code 12403.7.(g), which states:

Any person who uses tear gas or tear gas weapons except in self-defense is guilty of a public offense and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years or in a county jail not to exceed one year or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, except that if the use is against a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, engaged in the performance of his or her official duties and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

Pepper spray is classified as a "tear gas" in the state of California. The prohibition against use of tear gas weapons except in self-defense was considered to apply to law enforcement officers as well in Headwaters Forest Defense vs. County of Humboldt (2002) in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein it was stated:

The use of pepper spray under these circumstances was entirely unprecedented: in California, its use was “limited to controlling hostile or violent subjects” and it had never been used in Humboldt County, the State of California, or anywhere in the country against nonviolent protestors.

Emphasis mine. The decision of the court was that the Humboldt County LEOs were incorrect in using the pepper spray on non-violent protesters and so the usual immunity was lifted and the Humboldt County LEOs were remanded to state court to undergo criminal prosecution for violation of California Penal Code 12403.7. (It never reached a verdict; the LEOs plead guilty, were fired from their jobs, and served a reduced sentence.)

This was the relevant text I was waiting for. You have proven here that use of pepper spray in this context is by this text unlawful in California. However it looks like people in OWS protests and before have been pepper sprayed plenty of times. I can't find something that's specifically like this but in general I wouldn't call it unprecedented. You've proven illegality in CA though, you can claim you're D8 Internets somewhere to the right of the vertical scroll bar.

I repeat, with emphasis: 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.

Like I said previously, strangely, he has the ability to take down a hostile weapon-wielding maniac without using pepper spray...but passively resisting protesters? FULL MAXIMUM PEPPER SPRAY TAKEDOWN, OH YEAH! All while doing the Arrogant Security Strut too, walking down the line with that pepper spray maybe 3 feet away, if that, going "Look at me with my BADASS pepper spray, in my BADASS riot uniform, OH YEAH! GET SOME!"

That's nowhere in the article you linked, but I did manage to dig one up and he is quoted as saying that he didn't use pepper spray because he didn't want to hurt his colleagues. Without an account of that situation I can't tell you why he thought using it would hurt his colleagues (perhaps one was in close proximity and therefore would also be hit? I dunno.)

On the second count I can guarantee you that he probably did hurt the weapon wielding maniac, plenty, so I fail to see why it's therefore justified that he use the same strategy on students.

I have to say that you're little plea to emotion is starting to feel tedious, I could just as easily write out a paragraph of hyperbolistic clause on the part of the students whining about how they broke the law and they were stopped from doing it and it wasn't fun! shock! except that that would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Seems to me like an officer who can take down a violent guy with a stabbing weapon without resorting to pepper spray just MIGHT be able to cuff passive resistors without injury or harm. Just sayin'.

Again, he definitely harmed the former. It's just that it didn't matter because he was, as you said, violent. The reality of physical force being used against non-cooperative persons is that it very often leads to injury (not the same thing as pain, mind) and injury is more serious a consideration than pain.

Your suspicion doesn't match the seriousness which other LEOs are taking this or comments from other LEOs I've known online and offline that Pike seemed to be "going rogue" and using excessive force. From one guy I know:

"As a former law enforcement official, I can readily confirm that use of force to be unprovoked and unethical."

I dunno. I guess that according to you he must be lying.

First of all, you're seriously going to pull anecdotal evidence right after you were able to nail the Cali legality point? weak.

Secondly, according to a guy I know:

"This looks to me to be fairly standard use of pepper spray..."

Difference of opinion =/= lying. I'm saying that the existing difference of opinion means that FACT needs to be established based on more than people's word.

And it is NOT normal procedure to use chemical weapons, tasers, rubber bullets, or what-have-you on people practicing passive resistance. Passive resistance = non-violent protester. This is not the 1960s anymore; hoses and batons are not the way we have dealt with non-violent protesters for over THIRTY YEARS.

I'm pretty sure I never advocated tasers or batons (the first for impracticality and lack of necessity, the second because it would be way worse than pepper spray.)

First of all these OWS incidents are the first large scale passive resistance (using an admittedly loose definition of the term large scale) since the civil rights movement, and that pepper spray is not only < hoses and batons by a considerable margin. Moreover, the lack of an action being taken for thirty years =/= illegality. CA DOJ text = illegality. Nor does either = wrong.

Like Andara said, strangely the LA police were able to cuff passive resisters without resort to weapons. What's the UC Davis police problem? Inadequate training? Or maybe, just maybe, they decided to get "gung-ho" and they went off the reservation?

In the LA incidents my understanding is that the police subdued subjects physically. This brings with it plenty of risks of it's own and is most likely justified due to the fact that they were arresting the people not just breaking them up. Moving on...
You mean, different people in different but kinda the same circumstances might make different decisions on what the best course of action is? I'm shocked!
Why, there may well have been different sets of considerations that the people on scene took into account along with different concerns, leading to different conclusions.
I guess my main sticking point is the concept of '20/20 hindsight' as well as the straw through which outsiders like you and me view the event itself. I can't put myself in the heads of the people who were there, experience the events as they transpired and judge the actions people took and when. What, at the time, did they know/not know? How much effort was put into previous attempts to break the protesters up?
Without a timeline of well-established events and cross-referenced accounts, as a result of a formal investigation, the best I can do is ask myself "From what I know, could a reasonable person come to the conclusion that using pepper spray was justified?" and IMO the answer's yes pending further information.

Further information such as the text you provided answered the question "Was Pike's use of pepper spray illegal (prosecutable)?" Yes.

For me the next step in analyzing this situation is going to have to wait for more information, though. Still happy to debate the ideals or philosophy behind it (unless you also find some new information, in which case, that too.)

Next:

Man, this is tiring.

Yeah, I dropped by to kill some time, so I guess that's working. With on the tiring thing though.

If you claim that the officers were prohibited from simply pulling the protesters from their seated positions and arresting them one by one due to Katehi's orders, then you have to allow that their use of any force at all was also prohibited by her orders, making the choice to use pepper spray absolutely excessive.

I haven't brought her orders into account at all for reasons previously highlighted. My stance is specifically based on the comparative risk of physical injury of physically breaking up people resisting said effort over pepper spraying them and cleaning up after they break up by themselves.

As for pepper spray use versus simply arresting people without using pepper spray, you still have to manhandle and cuff people who have been pepper sprayed, so it's a false comparison. Plus, Occupy LA was dismantled with 290+ arrests and no injuries while Occupy Davis had most of the protesters given some form of medical care due to the pepper spray. Obviously, in practice, the use of pepper spray absolutely is not the lowest level of force necessary to arrest a non-resisting protester.

The point isn't that they needed to pepper spray them in order to manhandle and arrest them, it's that unless they are in fact arresting you there's not enough justification to manhandle you so pepper spray is used instead to end the continuing crime.

For everybody's edification, I present the 2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law: 12401 thru 12426 Tear Gas Weapons.

The relevant section is this:


There is no allowance for a peace officer to be allowed to do otherwise, thus any peace officer using pepper spray for purposes other than self defense is actually committing a public offense.

Reference above commentary.

[Gravekeeper]

First of all these OWS incidents are the first large scale passive resistance (using an admittedly loose definition of the term large scale) since the civil rights movement

Errr, no its not. Even if you restrict your statement to US history, Vietnam would like a word with you, heh. ;p

Pepperspray is damn nasty stuff. Its actually preferable to be tazed. Even the typical cop would rather taze you, because of the recovery time and unpredictable effects involved with pepperspray. It's horribly painful, terrifying ( the whole point of the stuff is that it blinds you and triggers respitory distress ), can induce shock, takes a very long time to recover from and can kill someone if you hit the wrong person. It's also very hard to treat because its not water soluable. It won't wash off and touching it in any way rubs it in more and makes it worse. You can't just brush aside the effects because they're not permanent compared to a theorhetical bone snapping curb stomping. Its much easier to deal with a couple scraps and bruises then having your entire nervous system shit itself with no way of stopping it or immediately treating it except riding out the pain.

There's a reason the stuff is only suppose to be used defensively. Using it offensively is a war crime. But ironically enough, only if you use it on another country's citizens or soldiers. Using it on your own is perfectly fine. Hence the problem here. It was not used as a tool of dispersal, it was used as a tool of punishment. If you want them to disperse, you use tear gas. If you want to arrest them, you just grab them and arrest them as they're passive resisting.

But, if you want to punish them for daring to question your authority, you pepperspray them at point blank range like you're putting on a coat of primer. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

But, if you want to punish them for daring to question your authority, you pepperspray them at point blank range like you're putting on a coat of primer. >.>

All that was missing was for there to be shouts of, "You will respect my authori-tay!"

^-.-^

[Canarr]

The point isn't that they needed to pepper spray them in order to manhandle and arrest them, it's that unless they are in fact arresting you there's not enough justification to manhandle you so pepper spray is used instead to end the continuing crime.

Actually, no, it can't be, at least not in this case. Since the only crime the students committed was trespassing (far as I can tell), the only way to *stop* that ongoing crime was to get them to *move*. They're not moving after being peppersprayed; they're staying where they were, just retching and crying. So, the cops would still need to pick them up and carry them away, only now, they're covered in pepperspray. How, exactly, does that make sense?

It's as Andara said: if the cops only wanted to clear out the protesters, they'd only have to pick them up one by one, disentangle them from their neighbors, and carry them off. Then, the protesters could either:

a) remain where they were, to be carried off (and arrested or fined or whatever) one by one = situation disarmed without physical damage.
b) escalate their own level of force from passive to active resistance = giving the cops justification for the use of pepperspray.
c) get up and leave = situation disarmed without physical damage.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Errr, no its not. Even if you restrict your statement to US history, Vietnam would like a word with you, heh. ;p

True, still when those were broken up they kinda sorta used batons and stuff. Not good.

Pepperspray is damn nasty stuff. Its actually preferable to be tazed. Even the typical cop would rather taze you, because of the recovery time and unpredictable effects involved with pepperspray. It's horribly painful, terrifying ( the whole point of the stuff is that it blinds you and triggers respitory distress ), can induce shock, takes a very long time to recover from and can kill someone if you hit the wrong person. It's also very hard to treat because its not water soluable. It won't wash off and touching it in any way rubs it in more and makes it worse. You can't just brush aside the effects because they're not permanent compared to a theorhetical bone snapping curb stomping. Its much easier to deal with a couple scraps and bruises then having your entire nervous system shit itself with no way of stopping it or immediately treating it except riding out the pain.

I think taser cooked up something a while ago that you could use against a group of people advancing towards you a while back. Between the cost and limited application last I hear almost no one has them.
Yet again, I never said that getting pepper sprayed was fun fun fun. Also there was medical assistance rendered which, while not instantaneous, greatly reduces felt effects after the fact.

There's a reason the stuff is only suppose to be used defensively. Using it offensively is a war crime. But ironically enough, only if you use it on another country's citizens or soldiers. Using it on your own is perfectly fine. Hence the problem here. It was not used as a tool of dispersal, it was used as a tool of punishment. If you want them to disperse, you use tear gas. If you want to arrest them, you just grab them and arrest them as they're passive resisting.

Use of anything other than FMJ ammo is a war crime too, and that doesn't stop the cops either.
Tear gas, again, would have effected everyone in the area which is generally considered unacceptable.
Again, as soon as you enter the realm where you're physically forcing people's limbs and bodies into doing something they don't want to do, injury becomes a very real possibility and, in large numbers, virtually inevitable.

But, if you want to punish them for daring to question your authority, you pepperspray them at point blank range like you're putting on a coat of primer. >.>

Kinda like those protesters who deliberately set the stage for a conflict, going further than just getting in the way and ensuring that to be broken up would require force on the part of those cops, who you then throw under the bus, for daring to enforce the law!

Actually, no, it can't be, at least not in this case. Since the only crime the students committed was trespassing (far as I can tell), the only way to *stop* that ongoing crime was to get them to *move*. They're not moving after being peppersprayed; they're staying where they were, just retching and crying. So, the cops would still need to pick them up and carry them away, only now, they're covered in pepperspray. How, exactly, does that make sense?

I tell you how.
Those you didn't specifically spray tend to move themselves once you've sprayed some of them.
Those that you did in fact spray aren't moving themselves, but they also aren't locked together or otherwise resisting anymore. Moving them is no longer a physical struggle.

It's as Andara said: if the cops only wanted to clear out the protesters, they'd only have to pick them up one by one, disentangle them from their neighbors, and carry them off. Then, the protesters could either:

a) remain where they were, to be carried off (and arrested or fined or whatever) one by one = situation disarmed without physical damage.
b) escalate their own level of force from passive to active resistance = giving the cops justification for the use of pepperspray.
c) get up and leave = situation disarmed without physical damage.

Again, you'd have to systematically force them apart which very much does carry the risk of physical damage.
The use of pepper spray, eliminates the need to do that.

[Canarr]

I tell you how.
Those you didn't specifically spray tend to move themselves once you've sprayed some of them.
Those that you did in fact spray aren't moving themselves, but they also aren't locked together or otherwise resisting anymore. Moving them is no longer a physical struggle.

No longer a physical struggle? So, when you're on the ground, blind because your eyes are stinging and tearing up, probably panicked because you can't breathe right and everything's burning, you're not struggling against someone trying to bend your arms back and cuff you? That's your position?

I still have a hard time believing that the pepperspray was the least harmful option - especially considering how he's spraying them twice in a row from three feet away! If Pike had taken a few steps back and contented himself with one "round" of spraying, I could've bought that whole "least harmful" routine. But the way he does it has more of a punitive air than anything else. So, yeah: I hope he serves time for that.

[Evandril]

If you reach down, grab one of the protesters arms, and apply gentle pressure...either the arm will move, or they are actively resisting. If you try and throw them around, then yes, you're going to hurt them. If they start thrashing around, while linked to the others, you get to combine the worst of both worlds!

Now, the fact that the protesters had to be taken to the hospital for treatment, shows that their *WAS* damage done. There is a non-insignificant amount of people who will be seriously hurt by pepper spray, while using physical force on a passively resisting person is *highly* unlikely to cause serious harm. (Note the use of the 'serious' in both statements)

Yes, the protesters were there to make a point, and to get publicity about being moved...And, by choosing to use pepper spray in the manner they did, they *VERY* much got their wish. Occupy LA was peaceably (sp?) removed, with no problems publicly reported...and this guy abusing this authority (IMO, at least) is still scattered all over the internet.

[Gravekeeper]

I think taser cooked up something a while ago that you could use against a group of people advancing towards you a while back. Between the cost and limited application last I hear almost no one has them.

Yes, they have a tazer...er....mine? I've seen it demonstrated before. Its horribly impractical to be honest. It basically 50 tazers glued together and pointed in a general direction.

Yet again, I never said that getting pepper sprayed was fun fun fun. Also there was medical assistance rendered which, while not instantaneous, greatly reduces felt effects after the fact.

It doesn't, actually. Again, its not water soluble. You can't wash it off and you can't touch it. One way or another you're in for at least 10-15 minutes of severe pain, sheer terror, breathing difficulties and blindness before it even begins to wear off. There are special neutralizing wipes that help wipe it off without rubbing it in more, but they're only carried by paramedics and only paramedics that would have the foresight and budget to bring them.

Tear gas, again, would have effected everyone in the area which is generally considered unacceptable.

As opposed to this, which is being universally considered unacceptable. -.-

Again, as soon as you enter the realm where you're physically forcing people's limbs and bodies into doing something they don't want to do, injury becomes a very real possibility and, in large numbers, virtually inevitable.

As opposed to trying to physically force people's bodies and limbs into doing something when they're in a state of total panic? Pepperspray doesn't just magically make people lay down and not move. People freak the fuck out because they can't see, can't breath and are suffering pain. Trying to restrain them on top of that? You're not reducing the risk of injury, you're just adding another lay of potential injuries on top of the risk you had to begin with.

Kinda like those protesters who deliberately set the stage for a conflict, going further than just getting in the way and ensuring that to be broken up would require force on the part of those cops, who you then throw under the bus, for daring to enforce the law!

I don't think you understand the concept of protesting and civil disobedience. >< These are people sitting on the ground with their arms linked, passively resisting. That's not "Setting the stage for conflict" to anyone except the UC Davis police apparently as no other police force has had any problems with this. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, I'm pointing out police abuse of excessive force for no apparent reason than rendering punishment.

Moving them is no longer a physical struggle.

So if you were suddenly blinded, couldn't breath and your face was on fire, you wouldn't struggle? Admirable, but the average person may start panicking and panicking people don't react well to restraint. Especially if they're in full on fight or flight mode and you're restraining them from trying to save themselves.

The use of pepper spray, eliminates the need to do that.

It does not, it simply creates a different reason to have to physically restrain people while adding a new level of medical difficulties. Which is why, again, its suppose to be a defensive weapon. Even the guy who invented it came out and said "Whoa, WTF?" over this incident. >.>

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Note: Probably going to be my last post unless more information turns up, not going to do a quote-ladder because this is my fourth attempt and they keep getting eaten somehow.

I'm going to try and boil this down to the basics instead of individual quotes and break it up into the points generally involved.

First: Is pepper spray inappropriate for use based on possibility of injury?
The closest thing I can find is a report that one person was taken away via ambulance as a result of the pepper spray. Considering the parade of reports from other OWS protests that were broken up, including Occupy LA, of various tissue damage, fractures and the like, I'm going to say: no.

At the end of the day, we're talking about using force on a large group of people. It doesn't matter what type of force you use, people are going to get hurt. There are reasons why pepper spray can be considered safer than the others, and the same goes for most if not all other tools/approaches. Like that statistically unlikely time that the tazer prong hits someone in the head, the closest you can get when you're talking use of force is something that is "highly unlikely" to cause injury or complications.

The argument seems to be that he should have used some other type of force instead because this type sucks and bad things happened. Well, it takes almost no effort to find incidents where someone did use another type that show that those types suck and bad things happened.

Point being that when someone is put in the position where you have to choose what type of force to use, it's just plain arbitrary to condemn based on that persons decision in that moment. There are reasons to go with any one of them, including pepper spray, and there are times where it doesn't work out.

Second: Should the protest have been broken up in the first place/should force have been used?
In short: yes. When large groups of people conspire to break the law and infringe upon the rights of others, law enforcement is therefore authorized to put an end to it which includes using force if necessary. Generally speaking, LEOs are allowed to use a level of force one level higher than what they encounter.

Third: Which of the two parties is 'in the right'?
If you ask me intellectually I'd probably say that it's more or less impossible to say. One can form an opinion taking into account any number of things, or not, and come down on either side of the fence. Which is exactly why making one side out to be poor innocent blahs just trying to blah while the others are selfish arrogant blahs out to blah is just plain wrong.

If you were to ask my opinion I'd be apt to respond: Don't start no shit and there won't be no shit.

[AdminAssistant]

Second: Should the protest have been broken up in the first place/should force have been used?
In short: yes. When large groups of people conspire to break the law and infringe upon the rights of others, law enforcement is therefore authorized to put an end to it which includes using force if necessary.

What about their First Amendment right to assemble?

[Andara Bledin]

Considering the parade of reports from other OWS protests that were broken up, including Occupy LA, of various tissue damage, fractures and the like, I'm going to say: no.

"Parade of reports?" I've seen a lot of reports on the breakup of the Occupy LA camp with over 290 people detained, and the only injury I've seen noted so far for that camp was one woman who's foot was stepped on by a horse. And they had to remove some of those protesters from trees and chase some others down when they refused to actually leave the area.

Here's an example from CNN, from the 30th.

In contrast, to arrest only 12 seated and unmoving protesters, they sent at least 2 to the hospital in the UC Davis incident.

Point being that when someone is put in the position where you have to choose what type of force to use, it's just plain arbitrary to condemn based on that persons decision in that moment.

This wasn't an "in the moment" event. His use of pepper spray was deliberate, premeditated, and prolonged. And even after they used the spray, they still had to pry them apart with batons, which he could have done in the first place and avoided the whole "pig on a power trip" meme.

Second: Should the protest have been broken up in the first place/should force have been used?

Irrelevant. We're generally not questioning whether it should have been broken up or not. That's an issue between the police and their chain of command. The sticking point wasn't the action itself, but the manner in which the action was taken.

If you were to ask my opinion I'd be apt to respond: Don't start no shit and there won't be no shit.

So, do you get lube or dinner when you choose to just bend over and take it because it's better to be a mindless sheep and not protest injustice?

^-.-^