So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today

I think, though, that there's a disconnect here somewhere.

What do you propose the police do instead? Allow them to continue to disobey and "occupy" the park? The police don't have that option. "Peaceful resistance" is not and automatic ticket to do whatever you want.
Never said it was, and thought I already said appropriate responses were acceptable.

If I speed on the highway and get pulled over, I can't "peacefully resist" my way out of a ticket.
No, but you don't expect to be pepper sprayed, eh?

If students camp in a location they aren't permitted to camp in, they can't "peacefully resist" their way to a free illegal campsite, no matter how many of them there are, nor how just their cause.
You're mistaking protest with 'camping'. As I've stated previously, it's ok to remove them for breaking the law. However, 'just following orders' is a terrible justification for violent reactions to non-violent protests.

I'm quite certain that if you told the police how to remove them from the park and enforce the law without using pepper spray, baton, etc, then they'd be all ears.
Maybe, I don't know, arrest them when they get up? They were all sitting on the ground with locked arms. That is NOT aggressive.

I've asked that a few different times and a few different ways throughout this thread and so far everyone declines to answer.

Do you have an answer?
Yup, gave it above. There are appropriate responses to non-violent protest. I feel in this instance the response was over the top.

It doesn't matter that they pose no threat. A person doesn't have to be posing a threat in order to require police force.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If the protestors don't resist, the police won't use any force.

If the protestors only resist a little, individually, the police will use a little force.

If the protestors lock arms and resist strongly, en masse, the police have no option but to use an equal amount of force.

The protesters are in charge of the amount of force the police must use.

There are abuses, and that is unacceptable, but in general pepper spray has fewer long term effects than many other methods they could use.

But I'm very interested to hear your take on what the police should do instead.
I don't agree that sitting with locked arms is an aggressive protest. Wait an hour and arrest them when they get up (everyone has to pee). There is no way they would be able to sit there forever.
 
Ok, so you are of the opinion that force should only be used for aggressive suspects.

Meanwhile, the police should, what, barricade the protesters so they don't receive support, aid, and "swaps" from others coming and going? Keep a 24/7 watch for a week or longer (you should read about some of the longer sit-ins in the 70's. Groovy, man!)? Ignore the 300 students milling around shouting at and acting in an aggressive manner (of course, you may disagree with what might count as aggression, but if you watch the full 9 minute video you can tell it was a tense situation with many students advancing on the police with balled hands at their sides screaming at them).

The real issue are those that aren't sitting down. At any moment one of them may lose their cool and "fire the first shot" so to speak. It only takes one person to spark the fire that would result in serious injuries on both sides. The police can't simply "wait for a protester to get up and use the restroom" and in that situation, no protester is going to - they'll wet themselves first. They'll go hungry and thirsty for days.

Meanwhile the threatening crowd grows and evolves into something much more likely to turn violent, especially as those looking for a fight find out that there's a place where they might be able to find one.

You can't sit around and wait. You get in. You do your job. You get out. That is simply the safest way for everyone involved.

For those of you who haven't seen the whole 9 minute video then I strongly encourage you to do so. It is chilling, as many people have commented. There is a probe into the action, and it's possible that some changes will be made to procedure, though it doesn't appear that the action was unwarranted. Quite frankly the police and authorities are grappling with how best to deal with protests such as this, and each new eviction comes with its own challenges. We don't have the same tools that were used in previous decades, so the procedures are still shifting.

What surprises me is that with all the ruckus people are making about the police using too much force is that no one has died. We've had one severe concussion (the vet), some broken ribs, and countless hospitalizations, but after applying significant force to thousands of people over the last month, you'd think we'd have had at least one police related death.

If there are better videos I'd appreciate links - it's hard to get a good situational perspective from one video alone.
 
Chemical burns, don't forget those.

Where you say they can't wait, I say they most certainly can. The protesters want the issue to be heard and reported on. What is gained by aggressively removing them? I understand if they are blocking traffic removing them is in the interest of safety, but these people were on school grounds, sitting, and hunched over.
 
B

Biannoshufu

If there are better videos I'd appreciate links - it's hard to get a good situational perspective from one video alone.




AP

Added at: 18:19
I cant seem to post more, but a basic Youtube search can reveal more.
 
B

Biannoshufu



(CNN)
-- The chancellor of the University of California, Davis, under calls to resign, Saturday called police use of pepper spray on seated Occupy protesters "chilling" and established a task force to look into the incident.
The video broadcast by CNN Sacramento affiliate KOVR showed an officer, in a sweeping motion, spraying protesters point blank on Friday before other officers moved in. Eleven people were treated on site for effects of the yellow spray. Two of them were sent to the hospital, university officials said.​

"Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent," Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said in a statement.

The incident set off a flood of comments on the school's Facebook page, most of them critical of police and the administration. Protesters rallied again Saturday evening.

In a press conference later Saturday, Katehi refused calls from faculty members and others for her to step down, saying she did not violate campus policies.

"Very unexpected, sad and very inappropriate at least on the face of it," she said of the video, adding she wants the task force to look at how students can express their opinions.

The Davis Faculty Association, citing incidents at other campuses, demanded "that the chancellors of the University of California cease using police violence to repress nonviolent political protests." It called for greater attention to cuts in state funding to education and rising tuition.

"Student debt has reached unprecedented levels as bank profits swell," the group said on its website.

Time: Watch video of police pepper-spraying and arresting students

UC-Davis spokeswoman Claudia Morain told CNN that 25 tents were in place Friday afternoon -- despite fliers explaining the campus prohibits overnight camping. It does so for security and health reasons, Katehi said.

After written and verbal warnings, officers reminded the protesters they would be subject to arrest if they did not move their tents from the quad, Morain said. Many protesters did decide to remove their tents and equipment, officials said.

A group of about a dozen protesters sat on a path with their arms interlocked as police moved in to remove additional tents. Most of the protesters had their heads down.
At one point, protesters encircled the officers and blocked them from leaving, Morain said.

Cut off from backup, the officers determined the situation was not safe and asked people several times to make room, Morain said. One officer used pepper spray when a couple of protesters and some of the 200 bystanders moved in, she added.

Annette Spicuzza, chief of campus police, said officers in riot gear were unable to get out after they were encircled.

A use of force review will "determine whether we made all the right decisions and handled it the way we should have handled it," Spicuzza told reporters.

Ten people were arrested during the face-off, Morain said late Friday. Tentative charges were failure to disperse and lodging without permission.

Morain said the pepper spray was used in lieu of batons. "Obviously, they use this only as a last resort," she said of the officers.

Katehi said the incident followed weeklong peaceful demonstrations over the campus, the cost of higher education and other issues.

"During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful," she wrote. "However, a group of students and non-campus affiliates decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. ... As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way. The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this."

Katehi said the task force made of faculty, students and staff will review the events and provide a report within 90 days.

"This report will help inform our policies and processes within the university administration and the Police Department to help us avoid similar outcomes in the future," she said.
 
I would deem this to be a good use of force, but possibly a case of officer-induced jeopardy, depending on what the officers' instructions were at this point.

The report states that the protesters were advised that their continued presence could and would result in arrests. Such warnings are followed (down here, at least, so I can GUARANTEE that liberal California would include it, as well) by statements that physical and/or chemical munitions may be authorized for use in the face of resistance.

As previously stated, pepper spray wears off, and is generally seen as a preferable alternative to baton strikes as a less-lethal use of force. In this situation, if the officers were encircled, there's no guarantee that a crowd of people will remain non-violent towards police. In lieu of the situation escalating to the point where LETHAL force would be permissible, I can find no fault in their use of OC spray.

It takes a great deal of force to break a human chain, to include pain compliance techniques, strikes, and involves a great deal of exertion on the part of officers, which can (and does) result in fatigue injuries and lapses in judgement as officers become frustrated, leading to excessive force.

If their instructions were what resulted in becoming encircled in the large crowd, then it might be a leadership issue. If it was their interpretation and enforcement of the instructions without a safe exit for officers, then the issue might be with a sergeant or team leader. As for the line officers? I believe they're fine in this situation.

Of course, this is all taking place under the purview of the 9th Judicial Circus, so no doubt some folks are going to be unfairly out of a job.
 
There have been a couple of assertions that I have seen about the pepper spray incident that I was wondering if anyone could verify or disprove. First, that the pepper spray was not used correctly. That the minimum distance for use is 15 feet, nearly 5 times the distance used in this instance. Secondly, that the pepper spray was used in a manner that violated police use of force guidelines and was quite possibly illegal. I have also seen it suggested that the officer in question will ultimately not be able to use qualified immunity if he is sued for his actions.
 
Secondly, that the pepper spray was used in a manner that violated police use of force guidelines and was quite possibly illegal.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to forcibly open someone's mouth and spray Pepper spray into their mouths. Considering some people were throwing up blood as a result of this, there's a good reason why.
 
First, that the pepper spray was not used correctly. That the minimum distance for use is 15 feet, nearly 5 times the distance used in this instance.
If you can find the make and model of that particular OC/CS spray, then we might be able to get better information, but most of the OC sprays that size have a minimum safe distance of 6 ft, and an effective range of 15 to 20 feet. Here is an example that compares several models with different spray patterns:
http://www.defense-technology.com/pdfs/specs/MK-9_Aerosol Projector Rev 12_10.pdf
That's for a more potent mix (0.7%, vs 0.4%). Keep in mind that "safety" means the people won't get hurt by the force of the spray itself - at any distance this stuff is unpleasant to say the least. The chemical mix nor concentration doesn't change based on distance - only the per-person dosage, which shouldn't be a concern given the product itself has no "lethal" dosage.
Keep in mind, however, that these products are "less lethal" - not non-lethal. Every use of them has to be justified use of force with the inherent risk of death.
Added at: 08:38
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to forcibly open someone's mouth and spray Pepper spray into their mouths. Considering some people were throwing up blood as a result of this, there's a good reason why.
The human mouth can exert a bite pressure of 50kg (110lb). The teeth can take the force of that head on, but in order to "force a person's mouth open" one would need to use tools, and the force on the side of the teeth required to push 100lb of mouth open would result in significant tooth damage.
So, color me skeptical. It's not impossible, merely unlikely.
 
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to forcibly open someone's mouth and spray Pepper spray into their mouths. Considering some people were throwing up blood as a result of this, there's a good reason why.
It might not be illegal in a specific text because I haven't heard of it being used that way before.

But I think even steinman can agree that if that did happen, it was excessive force and entirely unnecessary.
 
If the police were discharging oc spray into the mouth then I would think that is inappropriate. If the suspect is not compliant when oc spray is correctly applied to the face then another method should be used, such as batons.

Of course, this is merely my armchair opinion. I have not been trained to use such products or techniques, never mind learning the procedures and regulations officers are required to follow.

Though my kids are becoming teenagers at an alarming rate, and they do outnumber us, so perhaps I'll have an opportunity soon enough...
 
If your kids circle around you, just close your eyes, ball your firsts, hold your arms out, and start spinning in a circle. If they don't back up then, whatever happens to them is their own fault.
 
Ash: I challenge you to show me where there was an instance here of a protestor having their mouth forced open and OC sprayed into it. Because all that I've seen is an officer utilizing a spray projector of Oleoresin Capsicum (probably at 10% concentration, similar to this) from a distance of approximately 4-6 feet, which would not be enough to cause damage due to deployment.

I would also like to see where you have people throwing up blood. And an actual documented case, not some blogger's hearsay. It's true, the effects of OC can cause people to gag if it gets in their mouth - it's a natural reaction to a foreign irritant. I will stipulate that gagging of a sufficient potency could result in vomiting, and enough vomiting could irritate the stomach enough to cause bleeding. But given what was shown in the video, such an amount was not utilized.

The crowd was not crop-dusted. The only ones who were sprayed were the ones being actively resistant. You will note that when the police came to separate the chain-link of students, they were still actively grabbing at each other, despite the deployment of OC. The alternative at this point would have been to utilize batons as levers, application of pain compliance techniques, or other such levels as force as to run the risk of causing intermediate or permanent injury.

Please, if you're going to come with the belief that the police are ENTIRELY in the wrong, please supply facts and arguments to back them up.
 
B

Biannoshufu

I understand intellectually that the police were using minimum necessary force, but seeing young adults sprayed while sitting on the ground makes me uneasy about these responses...I get these actions for riots, but sit ins?

But more to the point, if the police felt threatened by the encircling crowd, why did they deploy the spray on the students sitting down, and not the crowd? It seems tactically that they essentially kicked a hornets nest by spraying those percieved as the most passive.
 
Because the sitters were the ones egging on the crowd - inciting a riot, if you will. The report stated that when the police came onscene, the sitters called out to fellow students for assistance.

Also, frankly, the officers would not have had enough cuffs and spray for the entire crowd. Remove the head of the protest - target those who are firing up everyone else, and the will to continue on peters out.
 
Protesters today... what a bunch of weenies.

You're going up against the status quo and calling them out on their hypocrisy, why do these protesters honestly believe they'll get away unscathe? You can't force change without first meeting TONS of resistance to that change.

I believe in their cause, but they really shouldn't be so surprised when they're arrested and maced. One of the major ideologies behind holding a peaceful protest IS to become victimized by the opposing side. Gandhi knew this so did MLK, and Nelson Mandela. Being met with violence is something that promotes your cause further. Point being is that you should go into a protest like this EXPECTING to be met with violence, and using that to your advantage. These kids are a bunch of joiners it seems. I bet half the dudes in that line did it only for all the hippie chick poon tang.
 
B

Biannoshufu

Remove the head of the protest - target those who are firing up everyone else, and the will to continue on peters out.
Except that there wasn't any rioting on tape, and as upset as the crowd was they were considerably moreso after the decision.
_____________________

California campus police on leave after pepper-spraying


UC-Davis Chancellor responds
Are you there? Send photos to Open Story

(CNN) -- The University of California at Davis has placed two police officers on administrative leave after video of them pepper-spraying non-violent protesters at point-blank range sparked outrage at school officials.

Friday's incident has led to calls for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who announced the action in a written statement Sunday. Katehi said she shares the "outrage" of students and was "deeply saddened" by the use of the chemical irritant by campus police.

"I am deeply saddened that this happened on our campus, and as chancellor, I take full responsibility for the incident," she said. "However, I pledge to take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again."

And Annette Spicuzza, the campus police chief, told CNN that putting the officers on leave "is the right thing to do at this time." They will be sidelined until an investigation is complete, and "hopefully that won't take too long," she said.

Katehi said that investigation, initially announced Saturday, would be sped up. Katehi said the task force established to conduct the probe will now report in 30 days, instead of 90. And she said she will hold talks with students, faculty and staff "to listen to their concerns and hear their ideas for restoring civil discourse to the campus."

A group of about a dozen protesters sat on a path with their arms interlocked as police moved in to clear out a protest encampment affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement Friday. Most of the protesters had their heads down as a campus police officer walked down the line, spraying them in their faces in a sweeping motion.

"I was shocked," Sophia Kamran, one of the protesters subjected to the spray, said Saturday. "When students are sitting on the ground and no way of moving to be violent, being totally peaceful, I don't understand the use of pepper spray against them."

The school said 10 protesters arrested were given misdemeanor citations for unlawful assembly and failure to disperse. Eleven were treated for the effects of pepper spray, which burns the eyes and nose, causing coughing, gagging and shortness of breath.

Occupy roundup: A fallout, a silent protest and a new encampment

Earlier, UC Davis spokeswoman Claudia Morain said police used pepper spray after protesters encircled them and blocked them from leaving. Cut off from backup, the officers determined the situation was not safe and asked people several times to make room, Morain said.

But Spicuzza said the officers were put on leave after "discussion and reviews and time to contact these officers."

"We're going to continue to do our jobs here on campus, which is to keep this campus and community safe," she said. "And the officers will be given their due process."

The the incident set off a flood of comments on the school's Facebook page, most of them critical of police and the administration. The Davis Faculty Association, citing incidents at other campuses, demanded "that the chancellors of the University of California cease using police violence to repress nonviolent political protests."

It called for greater attention to cuts in state funding to education and rising tuition. Its board demanded Katehi resign, saying she exhibited "gross failure of leadership."

Saturday, Katehi called the officers' actions "chilling" and said the video "raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this." But she refused calls from faculty members and others for her to step down, saying she did not violate campus policies.

Saturday evening, as Katehi left campus, dozens of students sat cross-legged and with their arms linked in a silent protest.

A reporter asked Katehi, "Do you still feel threatened by the students?"

"No," she replied. "No."

Time: Watch video of police pepper-spraying and arresting students

Morain told CNN that 25 tents were in place Friday afternoon despite fliers explaining the campus prohibits overnight camping. It does so for security and health reasons, Katehi said.

After written and verbal warnings, officers reminded the protesters they would be subject to arrest if they did not move their tents from the quad, Morain said. Many protesters did decide to remove their tents and equipment, officials said.

Critics took issue with the college's account, saying the seated protesters did not pose a threat to the officers.

"Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students," wrote Nathan Brown, an assistant professor in the college's English Department, in an open letter to the chancellor. He said that police then used batons to separate the students, kneeled on their bodies and pushed their heads to the ground.

"When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats," Brown wrote.

He called on Katehi to resign.

"I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis."
 
B

Biannoshufu

Thanks for posting that, It's hard to post videos from within the iPhone browser.
 
Feel bad for the government, the institutions, and the police who are put in a position where they must be the force these students need. They don't volunteer to tear gas students - it's their job. It would be nice if they had a choice.
While I will certainly grant that we, as observers, do not necessarily have the whole story into this particular incident, this statement is genuinely frightening to me. That we have folks here putting all the agency involved into the hands of protesters, and apparently none into the hands of the government/school/police really bothers me on a fundamental level.

Steinman, to avoid putting words in your mouth, could you add some clarity, please.
 
Of course they became more upset when the officers responded: they were being faced with the consequences of their actions, and they didn't like it.

The administration told the police that they wanted the camp removed, as overnight camping was not permitted. The students were actively resisting the breakup of the camp, per the officer's original instructions. As a result of their actions, the officers responded with a level of force that was both reasonable and necessary. The officers did not dogpile the students as they were OC'd - they sent in ONE officer with ONE 16oz canister.

I also noted the presence of pepperball guns, which are utilized to disperse large crowds as an area-denial munition. It is to the officer's credit that they did not deploy this - pepperballs impact like paintballs when they hit skin, and can result in injury.
 
B

Biannoshufu

So your essentially saying it was an appropriate use of force to have one man pepper spray kids like a gardener waters azelias in response to a perceived threat of violence by the crowd of two hundred, even though the cops knew before hand this would rile students up more?
 
So your essentially saying it was an appropriate use of force to have one man pepper spray kids like a gardener waters azelias in response to a perceived threat of violence by the crowd of two hundred, even though the cops knew before hand this would rile students up more?
The police were right because they're the police.[/steinman or Charlie, depending on how you read it]
 
I won't, however, blame the police for performing their duty. If they go beyond reasonable means, then sure - but these police aren't going beyond the force the students are requiring them to take.
Yeah yeah yeah... they're just doing their jobs...

SO WERE THE NAZI SS!
 
While I will certainly grant that we, as observers, do not necessarily have the whole story into this particular incident, this statement is genuinely frightening to me. That we have folks here putting all the agency involved into the hands of protesters, and apparently none into the hands of the government/school/police really bothers me on a fundamental level.

Steinman, to avoid putting words in your mouth, could you add some clarity, please.
Tell me, then, what is the right thing for the school administration to do? Do they let the encampment grow to the level the other university experienced? To the point where it severely impacted other students and the school? To the point where they had to muster many more police and use much harsher force in order to remove it?

Do they let it grow to the point of Oakland or new York, attracting people who are mostly not students but are merely interested in finding a place they can protest with less intereference?

This thread is full of people saying, "just let them be" and "too much force" but they don't seem to be concerned about the rapes, deaths, and other "side effects" of a truly successful long term encampment.

If this was the first protest, then they might actually have left them alone for a time. But they have seen and know the most likely outcome if they allow it to grow for more than a few days.

To answer your explicit question, I don't feel that a govt which is unable or unwilling to enforce the law is worth supporting. As I discussed much earlier in this thread, a government that can pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is corrupt. The government has the ability to choose options within a very narrow range that is set by law.

Add all of that together, and it does appear that what I'm saying will bother you on a fundamental level, assuming I understand your post correctly. It appears to me that you're saying that the govt should ignore the law for some people or groups some of the time.

If the protestors engage in criminal acts, they should be, and must be prosecuted. If they are caught in the act, they should be stopped. If they resist arrest, some force may be required in order to carry out the law.

You should understand that I'm an engineer, working with deterministic machines. I figure out the rules, I figure out the consequences for disobeying the rules, and when I solve a problem I take that all into account. If I choose to break a rule, which is sometimes an acceptable choice depending on the project, I simultaneously choose to accept the consequence.

I can't make subjective choices when designing something. My designs have to work exactly the same way every time they are used, and they have to work the same way even when they are abused.

So part of the issue here is very likely the fact that I have a strong preference for a largely predictable rule based universe.

I do believe the administrators have very few choices. They don't get to choose to look the other way, unless they want to suffer the consequences, such as losing their job. They don't get to pick favorites and enforce the law against random homeless who try to sleep overnight on the campus then look the other way when it's a group of clean cut students from wealthy families who can afford to educate their children beyond primary school.

Your suggestion that the govt should play favorites when it comes to enforcing the law should be, by my poor measure, more fundamentally disturbing than my insistence that they either enforce the law, or change it.

All that said, there is room to worry about the actual procedures where the rubber hits the road. Once we've agreed to enforce the law, how best can we carry it out? If we wait, the protesters will grow, requiring more police, more force, and increasing the likelihood of significant injury. The remaining protesters are breaking the law and they aren't going to go away, if they were then they would have when the notices were posted. We know this to be the case as we've experienced it at other protest sites.
 
B

Biannoshufu

This thread is full of people saying, "just let them be" and "too much force" but they don't seem to be concerned about the rapes, deaths, and other "side effects" of a truly successful long term encampment.
What evidence is their that this protest would have evolved into the Oakland model? Every protest always ends the same?

Also, saying that because no one's mentioned the rapes and deaths at the Occupy camps they simply aren't concerned with it is an insulting assumption. Do you really think we are all that inhumane here?
 
What evidence is their that this protest would have evolved into the Oakland model? Every protest always ends the same?
There were such events at both Oakland and NY. What's worse is that reports suggest the protesters sought to hide many such crimes so they didn't receive bad press.

Not every protest ends the same, but so far they've all progressed in a similar manner, and there's nothing about this protest that suggests it will evolve into a different, better, result.


Also, saying that because no one's mentioned the rapes and deaths at the Occupy camps they simply aren't concerned with it is an insulting assumption. Do you really think we are all that inhumane here?
I don't think anyone here is inhumane.

We tried "Let the campout, don't evict them using force" for very long periods of time at NY and Oakland. That turned out badly.

People who continue to say, "Let them campout, don't evict them using force" appear to expect a different result when the same thing is happening.

I feel it's an unrealistic expectation, is all.

But the protesters got what they wanted - national media exposure. What they should do now is go to the school, tell them they are willing to sit down with the school and decide which salaries are too high, which services are unnecessary, and chop the budget down so they can reduce tuition and meet their goals. If the school doesn't meet with them or doesn't enact the changes the students propose then the students merely need to say that they have another group of protesters who are willing and able to be recorded and broadcast while the police remove them again.

I hope they get some action out of it - other than a "probe" and a few "officer on paid leave". If they don't act on it, they'll have done this for nothing - and that would be a shame.
 
Top