Pepper spray students.. what the @#%^

UC Davis Pepper Spray Investigation Report Released, Campus Police Condemned For Their Actions

What a surprise. No justification for the use of pepper spray.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, this is the UC Davis task force, not the official STATE investigation, and as such it could not and did not interview the key participants in the event, and no, it did not CONDEMN the use of pepper spray:

So saying they don't think it's use was OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, is not quite the same verbiage as CONDEMN, particularly when they did NOT interview the persons who actually sprayed the stuff.

As to Bell's comment that the pepper spray was not an "authorized weapon", that's actually pretty silly splitting of hairs and shows the leanings of this UC Davis Task Force:

The ONLY difference is that Lt Pike used the MK-9 cannister which is just a LARGER version of the MK-4 canister, but chemically it is in fact identical and has the same impact on the people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think "Occupy Wallstreet". "The Tea Party""The Battle in Seattle" were about...getting national attetion through protest and marches. What the hell have you been smoking? serioulsy you're starting to sound like puff-puff pass to me. Could be worse at least now days we not using leathel force on college students

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gustav i guess you'll have to hate me too...those students are not getting any sympathy from this " Facist" prick.

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Unless you're saying that we should not expect "objectively reasonable" behavior from police when applying force? Calling an application of force by the cops "objectively unreasonable" is about as strong a condemnation as one is likely to find in a bureaocrat-speak document like this. Because we rightly expect cops to behave in an objectively reasonable manner when it comes to their powers to use physical force.

That it leans towards its officers only using weapons that they have been authorized to use, and appropriatedly trained in the use of?

I'm not worried by such a "leaning." I am worried about your callously authoritarian leanings, though:

So you're an expert on pepper spray canisters and their usage now?

Seems to me that a bigger canister could well have different impacts on crowds of people due to the larger quantities of chemicals that could be dispersed, even if they are the same chemicals. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there is separate training and authorization required to use those, and there are presumably reasons for that. So unless you've got some expert on the field who can assert otherwise, the benefit of the doubt rightfully lies with said regulations and you are talking out of your ass.

And, of course, we still have the basic issue that there was no apparent threat to the officers that would justify the use of force in the first place. Just want to make sure that this basic point doesn't get lost in your cavalcade of equivocation, cherry-picking and point-missing.

 

And yet they note they didn't talk to the person who used the spray.

They have been trained in the use of pepper spray.
The fact that it was a larger size canister is a technicality.

Yeah, they both spray the exact same chemical.
One just does it longer than the other.
Of course, 2 officers using the smaller canisters is equal to one officer using the larger canister, so NO, it's not like they aren't aware of the effect of use of more.
Indeed, typical training includes getting sprayed with the stuff.

No, that's not what the report says.
It just says that the manual specifically references one model canister and not the other larger canister. There is nothing about it requiring separate training or authorization required to use the larger canister. It simply isn't mentioned.

You mean like you are?
There are no regulations that say you can't use the larger canister.
This was a UC Davis FACULTY report.
Wait for the actual internal investigation before making claims about what is authorized and what isn't.

And yet the officers in their official report (quoted in this report) say they felt threatened and surrounded by a mob, indeed they pulled their battons, but pepper spray is in fact the lowest form of control force they have, below the battons, and that's what they used.

Had they NOT used it, and then got forced to using their battons when attempting to clear the path, then someone could have actually gotten seriously hurt.

In this case, no one did.

On either side.

 

On the issue of macing sitting protestors, I think you could argue both way, at least as far as the Supreme Court decisions go, and today, with a split court, the decision would probably be made by the most powerful person in this country who is most likely Anthony Kennedy, the tiebreaker.

Macing a passive arrestee is considered excessive use of force, on par with clubbing, beating or shooting them. It has been elevated in seriousness in recent years after arrestees have occasionally suffered serious injury or death from reactions or complicating health problems, such as asthma.

Excessive use of force is prohibited except in rare circumstances such as a prison riot. A violent public demonstration would generally qualify, however, the Kent State massacre raised that bar for police. There should be more than noise and things thrown at them, particularly today when they are well protected and when violent disturbances are rare.

The procedure for arresting a passive demonstrator should be well established. You simply order the person to comply, and when they refuse, you take them by the arms and cuff them. Passive demonstrators do not resist, so there is no cause for excessive use of force. Most police today are amply trained on the procedures for apprehending and cuffing an arrestee, whether they are resisting or not, and many of them have prior military training to give them an edge in "take-down" tactics. For this reason, unless they are brandishing a weapon, threatening suicide or posing "a clear and present danger" the excessive force tactics are generally not warranted.

The manner in which the mace was dispensed, as shown in the video, displays a mens rea or culpable state of mind, which is the subjective element that usually too hard to prove, for lack of video evidence, that makes the courts rely on objective factors.

In my opinion this fulfills the subjective standard because the demonstrated conduct of Pike was "willful and reckless disregard for the safety" of the arrestees during their apprehension which probably would amply sway Kennedy to the liberal opinion and break the tie in favor of the students.

I would expect this to end up in the Supreme Court as long as demonstrations like "occupy" persist. They tend to select matters of national importance over personal cases that may be more serious but affect a small minority, such as one family's wrongful death claim against some other party.

It's probably time for a national consensus that protesters have a limited right to express their protected speech, subject to avoiding the causation of other harm such as obstructing traffic. Then, when they choose to ignore some rule such as this - as emphasis for protest - they may be arrested to a standard procedure, one which allows for the low-keyed passive arrestees to simply be cuffed and led away.

I think the local report that finds that it was excessive use of force puts the state in a difficult position of finding otherwise without pushing the matter into litigation that would likely reach the Supreme Court fairly soon.

California has been though a very expensive period of defending its overcrowded prisons to the federal district court, which was costly to the State, more than just the tangible expenses of correcting that fiasco by reforming the prisons. They lost trust as a responsible caretaker of their charges. It would behoove them to throw their hat into the ring on this minor issue.

 

From the Reynoso report:

When asked if the situation on the November 18 was one in which an officer would typically
deploy pepper spray, replied “Absolutely. It … falls well within our policy to
my understanding and like I said, I'm the department trainer for chemical agents and part of
that training is a review of our use of force policy in where [sic] this tool fits in that policy.”397

At the time the students were chanting:

Video footage shows Pike warning the seated activists on the walkway, one at a time, with
statements including “you are subject to force, pepper ball guns will be deployed” and “you
understand that if you stay here … you are going to be subject to the use of force.”466 At the
time, a single line of seated activists blocked the pathway.467 In his Supplemental Narrative
Report, Pike stated that he advised the activists sitting on the walkway south of the officers
that they would be “subject to use of force if they remained and blocked the officers” from
leaving the Quad.468
Following these warnings, activists stated via the human microphone, “If you let them go - we
will let you leave – if you let them go – we will continue to protest peacefully.”469


What do you think they meant by WE WILL LET YOU LEAVE to the police?

 

By "use of force" wouldn't that apply to resisting arrest? It seems to me he only needed to cuff them and turn them in (or however they coordinate with city police).

Why didn't he say "arrested"? This sounds to me like an admission that he was not going to follow due process. In the minds of the protesters, this would seem to be unexpected. Weren't they expecting arrest?

I think this would have been an opportunity to cut a deal: we will not arrest anyone if you will move 20 feet to the side and allow traffic through. Even if that wouldn't have helped, for the sake of professionalism - these cops are drawing pay after all - they should have demonstrated a sincere effort to make overtures like that before resorting to the heavy-handed approach. Then, when it was time to clear the path, they should have been professional about arresting the resisters, explaining what is happening, that they are under arrest, advising them of their rights, starting with the outermost individuals, peeling them away forcefully but gently, then cuffing them, and, particularly because of their tender age, taking care not to bruise or scrape them as they hauled them away. If at that time the crowd became violent, then the campus police should have withdrawn and the university president should have called the governor. State police should have taken over at that point. I believe they would have cleared the area in half an hour or so without creating new poster children for future anarchists to rally around.

 

Someone Call V! We must vocalise against the voracity of the vindictiveness of these venal vermin who violate our volition!

 

Attention adoucette: if you continue staking out positions such as this, you are going to be subject to the use of force.

So now that I've warned you, I'm totally in the clear to use force against you right? Regardless of whether there's any objective, reasonable basis for claiming that you pose some threat to me that would require me to use force. That is the standard you are asserting?

Again, the term "authoritarian shill" is pretty much unavoidable here.

 

How is this even acceptable? This seems to be really an act of desperate censorship by using force [which we have agreed to give them monopoly on in exchange for honest protection] in a situation where no honest, sensible justifiable need or cause for the abuse of that power was present. Which makes me ask - why did they do it? To incite others and end the protest? Or to simply use their power to stomp a movement they disagree [or are paid to disagree] with? Or was it something else entirely?

But perhaps I let my irrationality and emotion push me too far. I have no knowledge of the background of the protest, so can someone tell me/link something about them? I write about the incident in and of itself, but perhaps I need to consider the context of its background [which I dont have] before forming a complete opinion.

So, anyone - something about the what, where, how and why of this please?

 

Actually, adoucette, I am curious about your rationale for defending the police, instead of the idealists who exhibited admirable character traits like unity, tenacity, bravery and political participation.

I'm sure it takes some of the same to be a cop, at least when there is a crisis or danger involved in the job. But here they had an opportunity to rise above petty authoritarianism and show a greater tenacity and bravery. Really, they could have simply left the protesters alone, brought them food and blankets and set up a first aid station. The university could have set off the spot as a public forum, installed bathrooms, erected statues to notable patriots of the First Amendment, and paved another pathway around this spot. The university president could have delivered a couple of lectures from the freshman government syllabus right there to an enthusiatic crowd of listeners. Not to mention the opportunity for revival of protest songs and coffee house poets and beatniks. The whole event could have been turned into one big group hug.

So where does that desire to crush people like bugs really come from?

 

That would certainly be one of the best outcomes of this situation. I know this isnt the way to do it, but would you please answer my question [above] and my post on the "what to believe" thread?
Thx.

 

And since when did use of pepper spray, to people he warned over and over that they would be sprayed and allowed them time to cover themselves with hoodies and put there faces down before he sprayed them, become the same as "Crushing people like bugs"?

Seems your analogy is WAY off.

Everyone went home that night.

No one sustained any serious injury.

We don't know what would have happened if they had not used the spray and started arresting the students, who greatly outnumbered the police and were chanting that they would let the police go and only be peaceful if they let those already arrested go, and instead of the spray they had used physical force (like battons) for control.

 

but the simple fact of the matter is they ecalated the conflict. the first thing your told not to do when resolving a conflict.