In Case You Haven't Seen It: The Barbarism By Cops At UC Davis
A cop pepper-sprays peacefully seated, still Occupy Wall Street protesters. Casually enacted brutality. Simply, utterly vile:
Pepper spray on non-violent protesters was deemed excessive use of force by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Lt. Pike meme here, per Xeni Jardin.
I know these kids are kind of annoying, but casual sadism like this reflects really poorly on the cops. The occupy movement is incoherent and doesn't seem to have a real agenda. But it may have an effect simply by revealing the tendency of our local law enforcement to resort to the tactics of police states.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 12:23 AM
I totally agree, but I hate it when you use the word "vile", it makes me imagine you clutching your pearls in horror.
NicoleK at November 20, 2011 12:39 AM
1) We have no way of knowing what else was tried before - or what these assholes were blocking, or what court orders they'd already ignored.
2) It was not at all arbitrary - it was deployed immediately before police began physically removing the "activists", to soften them up.
3) Compared with what I've witnessed in Israel and other parts of the world - this is nothing: if anything, it shows that in this case the American system worked to restrain the police.
Sorry - when you go all anarcho-nihilistic, this is what The Rest of Us do to protect ourselves an our property. Boo-f*cking hoo.
The self-esteem generation needs a lot more than pepper spray.
And finally:
4) Amy should keep using perfectly good English words - and someone should buy her a string of pearls if it bothers them.
Ben David at November 20, 2011 12:53 AM
OH MY FUCKING GOD! That is just brutal. Ok I would understand if the protestors where pushing back or trying to cross a barrier or even being rowdy. Just the whole spraying of people in the sitting way. Jesus.
John Paulson at November 20, 2011 12:55 AM
News reports now saying they were warned beforehand that if they didn't clear out they'd be sprayed.
Ben David at November 20, 2011 1:38 AM
I can't say I actually support the 'Occupy' group, but I certainly don't oppose their right to protest (and if they break the law, I don't oppose their right to be arrested, either), but if this is an accurate, in context, event, that's pretty crappy, also.
It's starting to look like we have complete idiots on both sides of this scenario.
We've got a bunch of spoiled children, wishing for a life of free stuff, and in the other corner, we have a bunch of power mad thugs, drunk with the power of the state on their side.
I swear, if I could, I'd send the whole lot, on both sides to an isolated spot in Antarctica, where they could live out their remaining 8 to 10 minutes getting acquainted with wind and snow.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at November 20, 2011 1:42 AM
Look the question here is whether the authorities even had the authority to remove them.
It is the right of the people to assemble...etc.
If they were on PRIVATE PROPERTY, pepper spray away. They have no right to be on property belonging to others.
If they were on PUBLIC property, they have every RIGHT to protest there.
Robert at November 20, 2011 5:24 AM
So, Ben David, these actions are suddenly OK if you are warned beforehand?
How about if the protesters spray the cops back with pepper spray (of course after they warn them)?
We don't have enough context, yes, but illegal and lazy/cruel/sadistic can't really be defended, can it?
DrCos at November 20, 2011 5:32 AM
Obviously the wrong weapon; children throwing tantrums should be spanked with paddles.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at November 20, 2011 6:27 AM
I did some basic googling. For having the name University of California, Davis it still is a private organization.
Chancellor Katehi ordered the OWS to dismantle the tent city and off the campus for health and safety reasons 24 hours before this. As this is private property, she could have done this on day one.
She called the police to handle this after they refused to leave.
Law enforcement has a subset of options to deal with crowds. In no particular order:
If I missed any please let me know.
Working from my list above I'm sure they used the verbal requests.
So then the police escalated to pepper spray. In the video one of the protesters got up and left. Then they were dragging away the others.
While I don't like it -- I don't see any other good options.
But the other question is what would have happened if the protesters had complied with the order to leave the private property they were occupying?
I bet they could have just walked away.
This make the authorities look bad; garners sympathy for the protesters. But the OWS still doesn't have a coherent, sensible message.
These are useful idiots.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 6:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779555">comment from Jim P.Whether their message is coherent or not is immaterial. Whether they were told they'd be pepper sprayed is immaterial (and that's not what I heard on videos last night). It is excessive use of force and has been judged so by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And it's obviously excessive use of force. These people are no danger to the officers, sitting peacefully there, blocking the way. Arresting them for refusing to move is one thing. This is like billy clubbing somebody who is not violent.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 7:06 AM
I see what Nic's getting at, and admire the "pearl-clutcher" thing anyway. It's like when people talk about "vitriol" in blog comments. We get the sense that it's a rhetorical theater which they don't visit very often.
I go back and forth... Five minutes hating the cops, five minutes hating the kids.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 7:39 AM
> Whether their message is coherent or not is
> immaterial.
Strongly disagree.
Getting maced isn't the same as having a worthwhile complaint.
Amy, this is teenage bullshit. If they'd actually had a coherent message, they'd have said it and gone home. They're children, trying to prove to the neighbors that Daddy's being mean....
But I'm not their Dad.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 8:03 AM
Okay, fire hoses next time. That'll be OK, right?
I've really wondered this: how is it that such a mob is allowed to do what one person would be arrested for immediately?
How is it OK to arrest one person for protesting, then pardon a mob?
By extension, how does anyone allow a two-faced advocate of actual anarchy, like Maxine Waters, guide anything?
And don't try to tell me that if somebody was occupying your property for no reason - what has been expressed is simple evidence that these people have been cheated of an education - you'd say, "well, OK then".
This case, UC-Davis isn't public. But if it was, and in other cases such protests do occur on public property, do you actually think this nonsense should interfere with your access, your and your neighbors' right to use that property for its lawful purpose? If so for how long? That venue isn't even responsible for any condition these people protest.
This is evidence of public schizophrenia.
There are a couple of things to be learned here. Can somebody count for me the number of Tea Party people who have been Maced by police - or assaulted, even killed by so-called members of their own movement?
Radwaste at November 20, 2011 8:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779631">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]Whether their message is coherent (it's not) IS immaterial to use of unreasonable force.
I have friends who live in hell on Liberty Street in New York and I personally find it awful that OWS protesters are running small businesses out of business and drumming where people who have done nothing wrong are living and trying to do business.
But, pepper-spraying seated protesters instead of just arresting them? Retributive, punitive, and not what America is supposed to be about.
And I find Nicole's issue with "vile" a little weird.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 8:10 AM
Jim the other good option is that you have two officers lift the individual by the feet and shoulders and drag them away. If they physically resist or attempt to assault the officers, then you can go to spray or a tazer. This is how it had been done for decades.
The unintended consequence of the introduction of less/non-lethal weapons is that Police are overusing these devices. This fact has been established by the Police themselves. For example, in Philadelphia the PD administration has issued several advisories 'clarifying' the criteria for using spray and tazers. They'd determined that there were many incidents in which they were being deployed maliciously and without due provocation - e.g. against individuals who were talking back or not deemed cooperative enough.
nola at November 20, 2011 8:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779639">comment from nolaNola is exactly right on the appropriate option here, when protesters are not resisting or assaulting officers.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 8:17 AM
> I totally agree, but I hate it when you use the word "vile", it makes me imagine you clutching your pearls in horror.
Funny, that's EXACTLY why I love it! ;-)
TJIC at November 20, 2011 8:27 AM
> Amy, this is teenage bullshit. If they'd actually had a coherent message, they'd have said it and gone home. They're children, trying to prove to the neighbors that Daddy's being mean....
Yep.
...and is it legitimate to respond to teenage bullshit with clubs and choking clouds of pepper spray?
No.
TJIC at November 20, 2011 8:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779656">comment from TJICExactly, TJIC.
Standing up for our rights means standing up for people you may not agree with when their rights are violated.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 8:40 AM
Here be an update of the drama unfurling at UC Davis, between the protesters (who are nonviolent and now silent) and the chancellor of the school.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/standard-police-procedure/248776/
Abersouth at November 20, 2011 8:44 AM
> ...and is it legitimate to respond to teenage
> bullshit with clubs and choking clouds of
> pepper spray?
Are you, like the teenagers, burdened with so much free time that you can involve disinterested adults in your playtime disquisitions on the nature of "legitimacy"?
Yep.
So now you've been wronged. It's a fuckin' shame!
But still, my tears don't fall for you.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 8:46 AM
I'd say police brutality. But to me the hypocracy is that when the one or two guys started shouting, "who do you serve?" Well the obvious answer would be the University, followed by the State government, the police union, and ultimately the Fed gov't. All those people that these protesters, want to at minimum promote?
My question would be to these protesters, so you fully support unions, because they can do no wrong. What about the police union?
Joe J at November 20, 2011 9:01 AM
Nola and Amy,
It probably should have been done that way.
Then the cops would be called brutal for hand-cuffing and dragging them. This is a no win situation for the police.
Yes it is material. The TEA party has a coherent message -- less government. They show up, protest, and leave.
The Civil Rights movement had a coherent message -- equal rights. They showed up, protested, and left.
Even the Vietnam anti-war protests had a coherent message -- get out of Vietnam. They showed up, protested, and left for the most part.
Even the union protesters in Wisconsin had a coherent message. They showed up, protested, and rotated the people in and out. But they were, in general, civil and didn't interfere with the rest of everybody.
The Occupy movement does not have a coherent message. It is everything from we want free college to the bankers and capitalists are evil to we want free money. They show up, protest, stay, and trash the area. If they had a coherent message they could show up, protest, and leave.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 9:05 AM
It's so INFANTILE. It's so personal. They're just so fucking needy.
These people aren't oppressed... They're heirs to more wealth, in every realm, than anyone who ever lived.
(Except that most of them are probably children of divorce.)
This shouldn't have happened, but let's not pretend the occupiers are principled.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 9:10 AM
This case, UC-Davis isn't public.
Not correct. It's part of the state university system.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 9:19 AM
The police, unlike the Army or National Guard, is supposed to have the training, understanding, wisdom, to be able to apply their force appropriately for the situation.
This sitting, non-violent, group of young students did not require pepper-spraying.
The old fashioned method of having 4 cops arrest them, pick them up if needed, lay them down, handcuff them would suffice.
There are times, IIRC, the cops have said this would endanger them, or make them vulnerable to back injuries, etc., but frankly, a) this is why we pay them, and b) this is the price our society seems to prefer than to just go full remote control beat down on anyone just to protect cops from injuries.
So no, I'm no expert in how to remove these kids, but yes, I would probably have sprayed them with a garden hose and let them sit in the water a few more hours.
Perhaps before going for the pepper spray or the LRAD, I would have tried other mechanisms like vacuum cleaner, garden blower, or Lawrence Welk.
jerry at November 20, 2011 9:22 AM
Okay, Christopher. Jim P. Found the wrong info then. Do note that I covered the obstruction of YOUR use of public property by incoherent persons.
Radwaste at November 20, 2011 9:24 AM
Not correct. It's part of the state university system.
Ref:
daviswiki.org/UC_System?action=show&redirect=University+of+California
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 9:26 AM
When you use the ninth circuit to bolster your argument, you lose all credibility with me
ronc at November 20, 2011 9:28 AM
Amy, I appreciate your consistency. I know you don't share these protesters' goals. I've talked with a few people who would think this is vile if it happened to a tea party group but take a "fuck 'em" approach here. Also, I'm clutching my pearls as I write this.
I don't care if these students were protesting a switch from Starbucks to Dunkin' Donuts coffee in the school cafeteria. This was an excessive use of force and the police should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, an interesting fact: The average age of an OWS protester is 33 years old.
And these UC Davis students have a lot to complain about. (http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.php?id=13545)
Agree with the protests or don't, but this isn't a silly bitchfest.
MonicaP at November 20, 2011 9:33 AM
>> Then the cops would be called brutal for hand-cuffing and dragging them.
That's what they did afterwards.
Look I'm not especially sympathetic to OWS, and I have a lot of LEOs in my family so I'm not unaware of the risks they face. But I can also tell you that an armed ( notice the holstered pistol ) officer isn't going to allow himself to get that close to a crowd of people unless they assume that they're going to be non-violent. This is why riot police don't wear a sidearm. It will get taken off of you. If these protesters had been more aggressive they could have had him down, gotten his pistol, killed him, killed some more people and whoever wasn't dead already would have been killed by the return fire. So I think that it's apparent that these guys knew what to expect and that the spray was unnecessary.
nola at November 20, 2011 9:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779782">comment from roncWhen you use the ninth circuit to bolster your argument, you lose all credibility with me
It's an existing court and this means there's legal precedent.
Also, come on -- see Monica above. If you would howl if this happened to Tea Party candidates, you need to also protest when people whose views you do not share have unreasonable force visited on them.
I have problems with the myriad abuses in the 9th Circuit -- problems illustrated to me by Ted Frank, and the reason I'm one of his two lead plaintiffs in the Costco gas case. Let me just say that I LOVE Costco and I drive a tiny hybrid Honda Insight. If they profited untowardly from my gas purchases (from pumping during hot weather) what did they get off me, a penny?
http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/2011/08/ccaf-wins-in-ninth-circuit.html
But, again, I happen to think OWS has an incoherent message and doesn't get the problem -- they are protesting big business abuses and thinking big government will save them (when they aren't demanding that somebody else fund their existence and the $90K in student loads they took out). I think it's obnoxious that they're blocking campus paths to students who have done nothing to them and making life hell for those who live around Zucotti park, and I feel for the small businesses around there that are suffering and maybe going out of business due to OWS.
That said, I don't care what you are protesting and whether I agree with an iota of it. I am absolutely positively against the unreasonable us of force, which is absolutely in evidence here.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 9:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779792">comment from Amy AlkonMonicaP is right on.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 9:55 AM
If you want to provide a special tier of police support to give these children, whatever their ages, a weeks-long experience of socially-nurturing, individual-worth-affirming law enforcement, you're probably (and apparently) going to have to set aside some money in the California budget.
Good luck with that.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 10:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779840">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]Again, not a fan of their methods, but I'm still against what went down here: Excessive use of force. Aren't you?
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 11:00 AM
Look if they're dispersing these idiots from private property, pepper spray away.
Bottom line to me though is that y'all are a bunch of softies.
Pepper spray has never scarred someone emotionally for life. And I've never heard of anyone actually suffering any debilitating injuries even temporarily.
It just hurts like the dickens until it gets removed.
So what?
Look people aren't made of fucking porcelain, they'll wash out their eyes and go on with their lives.
Pain as they say, is a great teacher.
Robert at November 20, 2011 11:06 AM
I think their expression of infantilism is having precisely the effect on you that such a force is designed to have... They're making you feel smug in your own decency. Babies know this: Job one is to flatter.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 11:11 AM
When you use the ninth circuit to bolster your argument, you lose all credibility with me
Well, the 9th circuit is the relevant appellate court for California; their holding is the law here.
--
It's crazy that anyone can see this video as other than calculated brutality by police in riot gear against unarmed peaceful protestors. The protestors were calm, quiet and the cops just went up and methodically pepper sprayed them. A proud day for law enforcement in the U.S. This is the stuff of banana republics and totalitarian states. When the Syrian government does it, it's horrible, but when our government does it, it's dandy?
I think people are letting their contempt for the protestors cloud their judgment in this matter.
Moreover, if you want the OWS movement to go away, you really don't want this kind of thing to happen. The more scenes like this occur and are publicized, the more the protestors get the moral high ground.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/the-moral-power-of-an-image-uc-davis-reactions/248778/
Christopher at November 20, 2011 11:26 AM
So, it's okay for the Occupy crowd to appropriate and despoil public space for an in determinant length of time, bringing the attendant noise, health, and public safety issues? Bringing the attendant clean up costs?
That said, the UC-D police handled this badly. Having an officer announce loudly to the protesters immediately beforehand that pepper spray was imminent and allowing any who wanted to avoid it to leave could have made a difference in the public perception of this action.
From the look of things and the news stories I've read, the police weren't being threatened and the protesters were not escalating things.
I'm getting a bit weary of these protests about nothing and people camping out in public (and private) parks, expecting the rest of us to put up with them and clean up after them.
So, like Crid, I'm half on the side of the cops and half on the side of the peaceful protesters.
Still, the pepper spray seemed excessive.
=========================
The Occupiers have so far been granted exemptions from the law and have had civic leaders begging them to negotiate (like a parent asking a child to negotiate his bedtime).
The police have been held back and asked to do nothing about the open lawlessness, crime, and drug use in the camps. So, the rubber band snaps and these same civic officials act shocked when pent up frustrations come out.
If those civic "leaders" had taken charge of the situation from the beginning, we wouldn't be watching videos of police pepper spraying protesters.
It's time to start electing adults to public office.
Conan the Grammarian at November 20, 2011 11:27 AM
Ok -- fine I'll give you the police brutality.
Will you at least admit that if they had stood up and walked away it would never have happened? If you declare the OWS innocent, then you are supporting their position.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 11:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2779886">comment from ChristopherIt's crazy that anyone can see this video as other than calculated brutality by police in riot gear against unarmed peaceful protestors.
Exactly.
And I think they're shitting for taking over these spaces day and night, but again, that doesn't mean it's right to brutalize them unnecessarily.
And the standard for reasonable use of force isn't this rather sick idea that there will be no "lasting scars."
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 11:38 AM
> Still, the pepper spray seemed excessive.
Certainly.
But please again I beg you, let's remember that These people have no complaint.
This ain't Selma. They're not fighting on behalf of blacks on buses, or women in the workplace, or gays in the foodservice industry or the retarded or the crippled or any other deserving group.
A four year old stands in front of the refridgerator.
"What do you want?"
"Nuthin'."
Two hours later, a big brother gets tired of walking around him to get at the lemonade, so he pops him in the ear.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 11:41 AM
> the standard for reasonable use of force
They're playing you like a fiddle.
EVEN NOW, even now, they couldn't tell you what their complaint is, except that Officer Moustache was MEAN to me....
So a cop went nuts.
Do you seriously, seriously contend that idiots like this are going to carry our nation to a better understanding of the rights to public expression and comity?
Puh-leeeeze
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 11:48 AM
It's true, y'know... Our is the kind of planet where, if you just pick a spot and stand there, expressing no coherent personage, need, service or utility, someone will eventually come over and slap you upside the head, just for the fun or it. Or pepper-spray you with theatrical disregard.
And by golly, that's bad!
But it's not what I hate most about human nature. It's not even in the top twenty.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 12:03 PM
The reality is, and has been, bad shit can happen to you if you are on the opposite side of police officers. If you came to protest and the bad police man did something to you that you, or others, don't like, I have to wonder - what did you expect? It may, or may not, have been necessary, but it wasn't your decision to make. Your decision was to follow their orders, or not. It only matters if their superiors think it was unnecessary or not. You still got yours.
Dave B at November 20, 2011 12:17 PM
It only matters if their superiors think it was unnecessary or not.
Looks like not. These cops should be fired. Sadists with self-control issues have no place in law enforcement.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 12:46 PM
The jury awarded only nominal damages.
I will give the protesters $1 each if they admit trespassing and violating a Lawful Order.
The judge awarded attorney fees, though, which kept some lawyers in briefs for a while.
Harry Bergeron at November 20, 2011 12:54 PM
> Sadists with self-control issues have no place
> in law enforcement.
See? This that flattery thing I was talking about with Amy. You want to be loved for resenting an act of aggression.
Here's an unpleasant truth about constabulary personalities: They like to hurt people sometimes.
Maybe in our fantasies, everyone is a perfectly-balanced, sweetly-forged spirit aspiring only to share nurturing feelings of compassion and warmth with others, who are themselves similarly kindhearted.
But our fantasies —by which I mean your fantasies— don't correspond with reality.
There are cops out there who are every bit as polite as you want them to be, yet still capable of perfectly-bounded aggression.
Those guys are working in the private sector, and we can't afford them. When communities hire cops, we have to see the world (and human nature) as it is.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 1:02 PM
Robert,
Effects of OC vary. You might google pepperspray asthma then go down to Health Hazards of Pepperspray. Some effects can last up to a week; for some having COPD or asthma, the effects can be permanent. None of the weapons in a LEOs arsenal is non-lethal, only less lethal.
As noted earlier, the use of OC on non-violent, or peaceful, protestors has been deemed "excessive force" by the Ninth Circuit, so good luck on this one. The reason is obvious, they pose no physical threat to the officers other than in the sometimes paranoid, authoritarian minds of the officers.
Finally, google "officer safety" and you'll see where the culture has been going. This is leading to an insular mindset where only they should determine the level of force, only they understand the why of their procedures, and no one outside of them should be able to judge the validity of their procedures. It leads to moments, as the Lt.'s face shows, of the "banality of evil".
Ariel at November 20, 2011 1:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2780094">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]Crid, it's not about wanting "to be loved"; it's about being consistent. Here:
"How to Lose the Sympathy of Reasonable People: A Short Primer," by Jason Kuznicki:
http://networkedblogs.com/qhcIs
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2011 1:16 PM
You want to be loved for resenting an act of aggression.
??? This isn't about me.
Maybe in our fantasies, everyone is a perfectly-balanced, sweetly-forged spirit aspiring only to share nurturing feelings of compassion and warmth with others...But our fantasies —by which I mean your fantasies— don't correspond with reality.
I don't have any illusions that everyone is warm and nice, or that all police will behave themselves when given the opportunity to abuse their power. However, the special power they are granted comes with special responsibility. Those without self control and discipline need to find other employment.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 1:26 PM
Yeah, I saw that. Did you see this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/why-i-feel-bad-for-the-pepper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/
Did you see any of the letters published by the Oakland PD, asking people to go home so that they could, y'know, get on with the business of being policemen to the community they were sworn to serve?
Did you seriously believe the foolishness of these protestors-without-a-complaint would have no cost to the rest of us?
And again, can you seriously regard them as champions of principle just because they were pepper-sprayed?
No. Society has mo... Well, ADULT society has moved beyond their silliness, and did so long ago.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 1:26 PM
Last comment was for Amy.
> Those without self control and discipline need
> to find other employment.
And you'll need to hire their replacements. You'll have no more room in the budget than you have right now...
And I fear you'll have no greater insight about human nature, either.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 1:28 PM
"They like to hurt people sometimes." Which for the rest of us leads to jail time. So the Police are actually above the law?
"Perfectly-bounded aggression" is what they are supposed to do, un-perfectly-bounded aggression not so much.
Real world arguments are fine because we incarcerate for real world behavior. Too much the everyday citizen, too little for government employees with qualified immunity, near-absolute immunity, and sovereign immunity. Yeah that was really the Founding Fathers intent, the King and his crew are immune.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 1:33 PM
I have not heard of lessor force the police could have used other than just physically trying to pull them apart which would likely get them labelled equally as brutal. The only other opinion is to let them continue to commit the crime. The photo I saw, they weren't spraying in the protesters faces so were not even using the fully nastiness of the spray. I hardly seems excessive. Neither to the protesters seem all that bothered by it. Note I am assuming the reports they were asked to leave before hand and given warning of what was to come.
when some of my friends became police officers, before they were allowed to care/use mace or pepper spray they had to get the item shot in their face at full force - all of them said it was pretty nasty but if you didn't get it directly in the face it was annoying but not that big of a deal.
The Former Banker at November 20, 2011 1:51 PM
> So the Police are actually above the law?
Christopher has room on his team. Maybe I'm wrong!
I mean, I think about the pictures I saw earlier this year from Libya (via Carvin's Twitter feed)... Explicit shots of young men's bodies, their handsome heads and spines shorn from their shoulders by anti-aircraft fire on the streets, with entrails streaming down the sidewalk. And I think of how those pictures reminded me mostly of the frog dissections of seventh-grade.
Yeah, man; law enforcement in the 'States, Dood... Nightmare! Oppression! A world that doesn't care!
So, like, take a seat on Christopher's committee, and go out there and hire the new cops who can involve themselves in the typical ugliness of an American community yet not fall to pieces when time comes to take control of a rowdy college student, or of a factory laborer beating his wife in their mobile home or some other drunken figure.
Please, I beg you: FIND these docile, adoring personalities who meet your standards, and put them on our payroll.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 1:51 PM
And you'll need to hire their replacements. You'll have no more room in the budget than you have right now.
And I fear you'll have no greater insight about human nature, either.
I don't think the budget is the issue. People respond to incentives. If cops know they will be fired for brutality, they'll stop. Right now, they get away scott-free for behavior that would have anyone else in society jailed.
Plenty of people need work right now, and want decent salaries and good benefits and intangibles. Police who cross the line could be fired and replaced readily. A few of these and the cops would get themselves under control.
That was a good piece by Madrigal.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 1:52 PM
> Right now, they get away scott-free for behavior
> that would have anyone else in society jailed.
No, look at the video again. This guy was doing what he was supposed to be doing... What his team expected him to do.
Fire the administration if you want to. But don't tell me this event taught anyone anything about the meaning of violence... Especially the cops.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 2:05 PM
Look, one of the lessons from the 60's was: Don't use dogs on Americans.
Obvious, maybe, but a good rule! Good!
Is anything that useful going to come from this? Do Occupiers have anywhere near as much righteousness on their side?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 2:33 PM
OWS recommends protesters link arms to make it hard for the cops to move them.
occupywallst.org/media/pdf/practicalprotest.pdf
Does this count as resisting arrest? How should the police respond to this tactic when executing an order to disperse?
Philip Ngai at November 20, 2011 2:37 PM
And this whole conversation is still focused on the brutality of the cops.
Will no one place any blame on the OWS Protesters?
The protesters are not victims in the normal sense of the word. If a group of adult, competent people were to be hit walking down the center of I-405 south at 5:00 AM in the morning on Monday by a Freight Liner truck would you blame the truck driver?
This is different from standing off to the side and watching or recording the police in action and being assaulted for it. The LEO's were directing their attention specifically at the protesters. These protesters were warned, asked, and cajoled to leave.
I have at least a minimum level of respect for an LEO uniform if not it's content. If you are validly the subject of the scrutiny you give the minimum needed answers per the Fifth. If they have a valid reason to ask you to depart the area and you don't comply you are escalating the situation.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Crid,
Police who go beyond acceptable standards (we have three sets: that of the PDs, that of the courts, and that of the Public) cost. They cost in public trust and they cost in absolute dollars; just because insurance pays doesn't mean it's free, just look at Maywood, CA. Hell, look at Maricopa County (I'm a Republican but Arpaio needs to go).
Neither police unions nor fellow police are willing to identify and remove bad LEOs to any significant degree. Officers are individuals and should be judged accordingly by their acts, just as I am; no matter how much good I do, I will be judged by the one wrong act. Whatever your prejudices against the OWS protesters, and I share them, the act of the officer stands alone.
The protesters were practicing peaceful civil disobedience, ala Thoreau, Ghandi, and King. We no longer need machine gunning of protestors (Ghandi) or dogs and batons (Bull Conner) to see this behavior as wrong. Thoreau is a favorite essayist of mine and he has helped me to understand my authoritarian tendencies are shameful in a society based on the rule of law, where the spirit is as important as the letter (think sexting).
Non-violent disobedience does not justify violence. BTW, two or three policemen per person could have broken the chain and made arrests; back injuries to the LEOs notwithstanding because that's part of the job. Pressure points work well.
And, no, this wouldn't have created the same outrage. It isn't a no-win for Police, that's just an irrational justification for what they do. Kind of a soc-con "the Police are heroes so all police are heroes", while soc-cons go on and on about personal responsibility.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 2:56 PM
No cops lost control or acted in anger. Lt. Pike looked about as brutal as a gardener watering some flowers. Sulking, obstinate flowers.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at November 20, 2011 2:58 PM
No, look at the video again. This guy was doing what he was supposed to be doing... What his team expected him to do.
What he was expected to do was wrong.
Again, what I wrote is that cops get away with doing stuff that would put anyone else in jail. If you or I pepper sprayed someone who was, e.g., sitting in one of our yards and refused to leave, we'd be be jailed for battery. You can't just fuck people up because they're being a bit difficult.
Lt. Pike looked about as brutal as a gardener watering some flowers. Sulking, obstinate flowers.
As long as he was pepper spraying the passive, nonviolent, unarmed protesters calmly and methodically, it's OK then. Gently pepper spraying people who is not wrong, it's only when you really get aggro about it.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 3:23 PM
"Lt. Pike looked about as brutal as a gardener watering some flowers. Sulking, obstinate flowers."
The face of the "banality of evil". People aren't flowers that need some sprinkling of pesticide. If you want to try an applicable experiment: rub your hands on the guts of the habenero (needs a tilde on the "n"), then rub your most sensitive skin (you know where), similar to any of your mucous membranes. Enjoy.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 3:24 PM
"You can't just fuck people up because they're being a bit difficult."
In one sentence you have summed up every video on Youtube about our police that has drawn outrage in the USA and around the Western world. As well, every question regarding USA police procedures.
Europeans see our police as barbaric, violent authoritarians. And trust me, I'm no fan of Europeans, like our Founders.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 3:41 PM
Now please tell me how the "victims" have no fault in any of this?
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 3:46 PM
Crid,
"No, look at the video again. This guy was doing what he was supposed to be doing... What his team expected him to do."
Do I really need to say it? Do I?
Again, the banality of evil.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 3:52 PM
Now please tell me how the "victims" have no fault in any of this?
Not much fault. The victims in this case were petulant and annoying, but harmless. The level of force used against them was entirely unnecessary.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 4:02 PM
> They cost in public trust and they cost in
> absolute dollars
Absolutely!
> The protesters were practicing peaceful civil
> disobedience, ala Thoreau, Ghandi, and King.
Disagree, pretty strongly. Gandhi and King were spotlessly, perfectly clear about what they wanted.
I've never read anything from American history as moving as tales of King's visits to the Oval Office in the early 60's, when the Kennedy brothers begged him to call off the protests, stumbling over their words and each other in flopping mass of Massachusetts neediness, and MLK watched patiently from a comfortably upholstered chair. King was gently, unmistakably direct about what would be necessary to make that happen. Gandhi was similarly eloquent.
The Occupiers seem to have wanted nothing more or less than a little bit of violent media-sex, and to touch the florid souls of folks like you and Amy and Christopher.
Jim's temperament is conservative yet admirable...
> If they have a valid reason to ask you to
> depart the area and you don't comply you are
> escalating the situation.
...but Saxon is more fun!
> Pike looked about as brutal as a gardener
> watering some flowers. Sulking, obstinate
> flowers.
I'm explicitly glad to Jim for explicitly noting that the photogs and observers were perfectly safe throughout... When watching the video, that was apparent to my heart but not my head.
Now, I've never cuffed anybody, so... Well, you know what I mean, never done it in anger... So for all I know, these cops talked it over and decided that everyone involved, especially these punky nebbishes with no experience of how a forcible detainment goes down, would be safer if the protestors were distracted while their bodies were being manhandled. And from what I've heard, there were zero injures except for two "hospitalizations" for the spray itself. (Good rinses, we can presume.)
Basically, Ariel, I think we ought not invoke Gandhi and King without powerfully similar instances of both principle and courage.
And in the year of tremendous civil violence across a huge swath of our globe, neither of those virtues can be seen in Davis.
Yeah, maybe the cops got a little carried away.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 4:07 PM
Jim P.,
Because the police are constrained by their powers, when they exceed them they are responsible for their violence. I'm really trying to avoid Godwin's Law here.
We are a nation of laws where when police exceed their powers they have broken the the law. The Ninth Circuit has defined this as "excessive" well before this incident so this Lt. has broken the law.
No special pleading please. If his department considers this allowable, then the department needs to be brought into line, and he as an individual needs to be punished. If law is by group, then heaven help us.
Either the rule of law or the rule of man. Soc-cons have a problem with understanding that principles are principles, no matter the uniform. I am disheartened by people that can't hold to the ideals they profess because they fear for their safety first and their liberties second.
And, damn, I agree with Christopher: annoying yes, violent so that the police need to frightened for their lives, no. That circle really meant a lot of LEO's were going to die.
Hey, I can take it as far to the absurd as they.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 4:11 PM
It ate my reply. I sent an email to Amy. When you finally read it, your arguments will vanish and you will collapse on the floor in a pool of moonlight and enlightenment.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 4:21 PM
Not much fault. The victims in this case were petulant and annoying, but harmless.
And they stayed where they were. There are some things you don't do.
You don't play Russian roulette with a semi-auto.
You don't use a hair dryer in the shower.
You don't spit into the wind
You don't lay down in the street.
These people refused to comply with the authorities. Yes petulant and annoying and need to accept some of the fault and responsibilities for their actions.
If you absolve them of their responsibilities and actions then you are saying they are no more competent than a 4 year old starting a fire in a house. Then they need to be treated as a four year old all the time. Put them in an institution until they grow up and can prove themselves capable to live in the real world.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 4:26 PM
It is going to play out. Ninth notwithstanding, we are not yet sure how. Me, I tend to move when the man with a gun says move, but protesting was never my bag.
Dave B at November 20, 2011 4:30 PM
But meanwhile... Your comment about the "banality of evil" is wholly disproportionate, as is all the silliness from the Occupiers. They distract our law enforcement and others from more important needs and squander the attention on their own undercooked, incomprehensible personalities. Their behavior is truly The evil of banality.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 4:31 PM
Seriously... When you see what's going down in Tahrir, TONIGHT, AGAIN, don't you think you need to do a little recalibration?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 4:50 PM
There goes Crid with relativity again. Setting off the female hormones - you know people aren't flowers Crid.
Dave B at November 20, 2011 4:58 PM
Not sure what you mean. These Davis kids are some of the safest, fattest, brightest-future humanoids our Cosmos has ever known. Cairo's protesters, now in struggle with the last social institution they thought they could trust, are NOT so safe.
Isn't it clarifying to think about that?
Are the Davis Pepperkids worried about how this arrest will affect their job applications?
Or are they worried about how best to crop the red-eyed photos from their friend's camera phones for clearest display on Facebook?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 5:04 PM
Gandhi? Really?
King?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 5:05 PM
When you see what's going down in Tahrir, TONIGHT, AGAIN, don't you think you need to do a little recalibration?
American police brutalizing Americans is a big deal. Egyptian authorities brutalizing Egyptians is the norm.
Too cynical?
Yeah, too cynical. OK, let's try again:
One can be outraged by the Egyptians returning to Mubarak-era form and brutalizing people in Tahrir and also be outraged by cops brutalizing Americans in Davis. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Though it's certainly more sad that the promise of the so-called Arab spring is fading and turning to same old.
If you absolve them of their responsibilities and actions then you are saying they are no more competent than a 4 year old starting a fire in a house.
I hold cops to a higher standard. The cops had lots of other options that would have served their cause better. They opted not to take them.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 5:09 PM
Amy did rescue, see 4:07pm
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 5:14 PM
Just being silly - you are riling the women. Ariel thinks the Europeans think our police are barbaric and violent. The families and friends of the dead at Tahrir wish our police were in charge.
Pepperkids - so cool - will go down in history with baton shampoos.
Dave B at November 20, 2011 5:15 PM
I blame old TV shows: People always have weird ideas about how cops have options handle things: 'Why didn't he shoot the gun out of his hand they way Don Johnson did on Miami Vice?'
There weren't so many cops that they could struggle theatrically with each protestor.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 20, 2011 5:18 PM
That's fine. I hold LEO to a higher standard as well. But I hold every competent adult to a minimum standard that they are responsible for their actions and the ensuing consequences.
Are you saying that these people aren't responsible for paying there college loans? Are you saying that these people aren't responsible for paying their housing? Are you saying these people aren't responsible for job search with a degree in Russian women's poetry? Are you saying if they came and defecated on your lawn, they aren't responsible for it?
So why are they not responsible for refusing to move under police orders?
If they are not responsible at all for any of the above then they need to be deemed incompetent, and treated as such.
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 5:29 PM
Crid,
I would shrink from your comment if I considered the banality of evil as having anything to do with these protesters. Stupid, ignorant of how economics works (something of which they are supremely ignorant), but attributing the banality of evil to, no.
The banality of evil is how people do violence to others, with no remorse or shame or guilt. It is justified so unrightly by interpretation of law, ideology, or religion (I consider the last two as the same). Disproportionality in terms of citizens and government actors is just a rationale, it only means they made us do it because they wouldn't follow our orders. After all, it's okay because we are righteous; or its legal by how we interpret the law; or it just makes uncomfortable for X reason. How did this "great experiment" of natural law, where individuals had unalienable rights, so easily lose it's way?
I went through this with my guardians, my grandparents, who railed against the civil rights movement. It wasn't against civil rights, they certainly believed in it, but it was against disorder. Yet, they taught me principles were important. So my beloved grandparents, like so many of us, suffered from cognitive dissonance, where principles fall to order.
Crid, it's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of principle. Without the principle, there is no matter of degree. Welcome to our revolution...one unlike no other. Shame we have lost sight to the spirit of it.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 5:38 PM
I dislike these protesters, none of whom I've met, none of whom I know. Therefore, I approve of their suffering assault.
Andre Friedman at November 20, 2011 5:44 PM
Crid,
Coherence isn't important regarding the OWS. The OWS protesters are silly, by my estimation. Do you remember the Bonus Marchers? They weren't silly, in fact they were right, but the response was the same. We do not have a good history of living up to our ideals. I still hold our ideals as important and still see us as capable to living up to those ideals.
Dave B.,
Comparing us to what Tahir is doing today is demeaning and insulting. We did this 235 years ago. We are supposed to be beyond just establishing basic rights, you know, those unalienable thingies.
Ariel at November 20, 2011 6:15 PM
And as for Thoreau, Ghandi, and KIng. Yeah these guys are really troubling, after all, what they had to say only had to do with specific events that are long past. No meaning today whatsoever. Ignore them.
Areil at November 20, 2011 6:20 PM
So now we have we absolve the actors because they wouldn't follow laws? They are occupying private property, have been told to leave, and refused.
You can either have law based on law. Or you can have law based on arbitrary standards. You can't have both. So the law is that when your invitation to be on my property ends, you have to leave. If you refuse to leave then you are in violation of the law -- trespassing.
Were the protesters in violation of the law?
What is the appropriate reaction?
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 6:23 PM
> One can be outraged by the Egyptians returning
> to Mubarak-era form and brutalizing people in
> Tahrir and also be outraged by cops brutalizing
> Americans in Davis. The two aren't mutually
> exclusive.
Absolutely true. But the rhetoric here started with "vile", and soon the traditions of Gandhi and King were invoked. There's no sense of proportion.
And that's what the Occupiers want... A slutty sense of drama and participation in meaningful events. I don't think they've earned it, even though an unremarkable police force responded to an unremarkably bad assembly with, um, only moderately-markable clumsiness. (Again: No observers endangered; no hiding badge numbers behind electrician's tape; no gunfire.)
> The banality of evil is how people do violence
> to others, with no remorse or shame or guilt.
Evil takes many forms and violence is only one of them. I would describe taking money from earnest wage-earners and taxpayers and giving it to bankers as evil, not violent. I would describe the popular depictions of urban, uneducated black life as less meaningful than suburban schoolboy life as evil, not violent.
I'll agree that (many of) these protestors have been cheated in some sense: Most prominently by sellers of the fantasy that their lives could be successful through rote, heartless study and 9-to-5 effort. But the thing is, they're complicit in that evil... Some of it was in their own hearts. They WANTED to believe. Just as they want now to believe that they're kicking the ball forward by being pepper-sprayed. 'Just like Tahrir!', they will say.
No. The Occupiers took things from us, things that weren't theirs. They took the attention of our law enforcement for illegal camps, and nonetheless demanded constabulary support. (Women raped in these places were, we note, pissed off about it.) They took attention from the righteous dispensation of our dwindling common resources in Washington and elsewhere. And they stole currency from the common understanding that life has no guarantees, and that we really have to bust ass on an individual level, no matter what.
That understanding is, or was, arguably America's finest treasure. Immigrants flooded this country –over your lifetime, more than all the other nations of the world put together– because they knew they'd be permitted to keep the fruits of their own labor. Their own American labor.
So if some tiny percentage of the Occupiers got pepper-sprayed, well, I feel bad about it. But if you seriously believe this is a righteous "revolution", you are pathetically deluded. And wretchedly smug besides. The word "principle" deserves a better handler.
> Ariel thinks the Europeans think our police
> are barbaric and violent.
United States armed muscle is indisputably the strongest constabulary force in Europe, and has been since long before anyone reading these words was born.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 20, 2011 6:31 PM
But I hold every competent adult to a minimum standard that they are responsible for their actions and the ensuing consequences.
Me too. But in this case, these should simply not have been the consequences of their actions. There is never a justification for pepper spraying people who are harmless.
Christopher at November 20, 2011 7:07 PM
"Europeans see our police as barbaric, violent authoritarians."
Oh, my. When I walked through the train station in Montparnasse years ago, the police carried MP-5 submachine guns. There's no 1st Amendment. There's no 5th Amendment. Wow, huh?
But I don't think they use excessive force because their public doesn't usually demand it. In argument about the 2nd Amendment, I found a large number of self-identified liberal Americans who denied any personal responsibility for their own defense, yet saw no problem with calling armed men to shoot criminals on their behalf.
This is not reality talking.
Note to the fluffy-headed: you must reach the courthouse to argue about excessive force. Arguing with any officer will get you hurt, and his buddies will side with him because he is usually right (yes, he is).
And - europeans? Really? Who got into WW1 because somebody killed a useless twit? Who decided hope and change was fine coming from the lips of that guy blaming the Jews and their control of the financial structure?
Who just had riots and is having huge problems with immigrant Muslims?
Gee. Everybody is better than us!
Radwaste at November 20, 2011 7:36 PM
So you are absolving them the responsibility of the results?
You can not be consistent and hold the LEO to a higher standard at the same time release the protestors from any responsibility.
Once you do that you relieve me from any responsibility to my community.
If a protester sat there and tasered the LEO would he/she not be responsible? Maybe there was an over response. Why was it an over response?
Jim P. at November 20, 2011 7:44 PM
I looked for the 9th circuit court ruling...while I was not able to get he actual text I found a few commentaries on it. The decision was that just because pepper spray is considered non-lethal that does not mean its use cannot be excessive force. Not that it automatically was excessive force. Key to the decision (according to two of commentaries) was that they pulled back the eyelids of the protesters and applied the pepper spray directly to the inside of the eyelids using cotton swabs and prevented the protesters from getting medical treatment afterwards.
Seems like quite a different scenario.
The Former Banker at November 20, 2011 8:39 PM
You can not be consistent and hold the LEO to a higher standard at the same time release the protestors from any responsibility.
Sure I can. Law enforcement officers chose, without provocation, to harm passive protestors who posed no threat to anyone. They did not have to do it, they chose to simply because these obnoxious little douchebags wouldn't listen. That is not sufficient cause to assault people. If the cops calmly handcuffed the protestors, and took them off, fine. If the protestors threatened the cops, fine. But as I wrote, this is all on the cops: there is never a reason to pepper spray people who are harmless.
If a protester sat there and tasered the LEO would he/she not be responsible.
That's a totally different scenario. The protestor is attempting to harm a cop.
What you seem to be justifying is equivalent to the abusive husband who is like, "If my wife would have quit mouthing off, I wouldn't have needed to hit her. Sheesh, when will that woman learn what it takes not to get beaten."
Christopher at November 20, 2011 9:29 PM
Jim P: These people refused to comply with the authorities.
Hence the "disobedience" in "civil disobedience."
The issue isn't whether authorities have a right to take action against people who are engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. They do. The issue is whether the action they take is reasonable and necessary or excessive and unnecessary. Amy and some others (including myself) find the force used in the instance excessive and unnecessary. Others on this thread appear to find it reasonable and necessary.
From the link Amy had in her original post...
Jim at November 20, 2011 9:29 PM
> there is never a reason to pepper spray people
> who are harmless.
You're having too much fun with the word "never".
It's like those smarmy bumper stickers that appeared on all the cop cars in Los Angeles during the OJ Trial Years... "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence." This aphorism is too clucky by half, and it ignored what we see time and time again in those relationships; [A] that these couples find each other and [B] these people aren't looking to us, and certainly not to the police, with "excuses". They want what they want. (And if memory serves, the LAPD has played a tawdry role in some of OJ's extra-marital conduct.)
Who knows what a cop would call "harmless"? Maybe a goofy white kid (age 36) being arrested for the first time is 74% less trouble when he's been pepper sprayed. Are you really sure this cop knew that he wasn't going to be facing violent resistance that afternoon? Are cops paid to make every arrestee feel like he's in a spa?
"Never", you say. OK, so now the cop did it, and what are you going to do? What threshold and/or sanction have you held for greater police offenses?
"Never" reminds me of the kind of Mommy commenter who turns up here sometimes, a gentle soul who found Amy in an Alt-weekly during that one lunch she had to herself that year, maybe when she was downtown for an annual pap smear or something. So the kids were with the sitter, and she had an afternoon to enjoy a burrito and Diet Coke like a grownup, first time in years. And she liked the column so she came to the website... But the only language she's been using for a very long time is that fit for children.
"Inside voice!" she'll say, when someone here is commenting on the arithmetic of global warming. "Use your words!" etc.
"There is never a reason", you say, spelling it out. Not so much a contraction for "there's".
Similarly, Ariel— She invokes Gandhi & King for these goofballs, even when Cairo is aflame again.
What words will she have left when someone does some TRULY heroic, flight 93 - style?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 20, 2011 10:43 PM
This shouldn't have happened. However, there is no permanent damage. When a SWAT team breaks into the wrong house and kills someone, there is less outcry. Why?
The answer is to strip the police of any official immunity. I can pretty much guarantee the cop would not have been so quick to spray if he were personally liable for his actions.
MarkD at November 21, 2011 5:00 AM
> When a SWAT team breaks into the wrong house and
> kills someone, there is less outcry. Why?
Dood! Excellent point... Anyone who watching the career of Radley Balko (and everyone should) will learn about ten worse uses of police power every week of the year.
This is like OctoMom, or whoever the mother who murders her children is this week... The thing by which people can flatter themselves by making a clucking noise.
Heard any good Penn State jokes lately?
But--
> I can pretty much guarantee the cop would not
> have been so quick to spray if he were
> personally liable for his actions.
Cops who don't have explicit support from their administrators aren't known for being good or effective or even controllable. (We know all about this in Los Angeles.) I worry that (like Christopher and Ariel) you're being glib about how incentives and loyalties can been blithely reassigned.
Guys, policing is tough. You can't hire a squad of perfectly charming and symmetrically competent superheroes on a budget.
But if you can, then sure... Go ahead. Let us know how it works out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 21, 2011 5:19 AM
Would you feel the same way if they were in the street or sidewalk in front of your home or business?
Yes, they have the right to protest. But the citizens have a reasonable expectation of being able to navigate freely. These people seem to think that their 'cause' is so important that it trumps the rights of everyone else.
We live in a world where pouring water on a terrorists face is considered 'torture' so it is no surprise that some see pepper spray as so heinous.
I respect the Court's earlier decision on the general subject. If the cops violated the law they should be punished. But the protesters have to understand that there is a price to be paid, even though they believe they have a point.
Hub Flyer at November 21, 2011 5:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/20/in_case_you_hav.html#comment-2782124">comment from Hub FlyerWould you feel the same way if they were in the street or sidewalk in front of your home or business? Yes, they have the right to protest. But the citizens have a reasonable expectation of being able to navigate freely.
Yes, and they could have picked the protesters up and arrested them to accomplish that. Again, if you aren't violently resisting, this is retribution, not justice.
Amy Alkon at November 21, 2011 6:26 AM
Also, the cops could have provided a small packet of toiletries for each of the protesters... Hand lotion, conditioner, one of those little micro-tubes of toothpaste, that kind of thing. Y'know, really make 'em feel at home. Maybe one of those matchbook-sized sewing kits with a couple yards each of black and grey thread. A comb, a toothbrush, a modest razor....
But alas, most police departments in the United States just aren't prepared for this kind of thing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 21, 2011 6:37 AM
Sandwiches! A fruit plate, colorfully arranged with all the seasonal treats. An array of pastries and baked goods, with a selection of those gorgeous jams and preserves like you get at that one great restaurant in San Francisco.
A series of meets and cheeses.
Valet service, so the protesters can have their sportcoats sponged and pressed.
A smallish group of musicians to help the mood.
ALCOHOL. The cops could serve drinks, for fuck's sake.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 21, 2011 6:44 AM
Alcohol? Really? Do you not know that these are America's responsible citizens being murdered by police? (poetic license used on term, "murdered")
They would have no use for alcohol. Well, perhaps to clean their spectacles.
Radwaste at November 21, 2011 9:00 AM
After further reflection, I am a mean son of a bitch. I would be upset if the Pepperkids were hand cuffed before being sprayed. That would be barbaric, and Chris then they would have been deemed "harmless." We had a saying when I was a kid, fair warning is fair play.
Oh, and I received much worse after being drafted during training for Viet Nam. We were told it was good training.
Dave B at November 21, 2011 9:05 AM
I'll keep that in mind the next time hordes of immigrants are rampaging through Paris burning cars and attacking people.
==============================
How much of the money the Occupy crowd has collected to this point will be used to reimburse taxpayers for the expense of policing around the camps, providing portable toilets (and emptying them), providing garbage services, and restoring the parks to their pre-occupied condition?
==============================
"The hordes of immigrants were not drawn to America by the misapprehension that this country's millionaires would soon be dissolving their estates and passing out the proceeds to all comers. What lured our ancestors here was the chance to build a better, freer life through their own efforts." -- Louis Rukeyser (What's Ahead for the Economy: Challenge and Chance)
==============================
The Occupy crowd is like those desparate-to-be-relevant-again hippies who keep telling you they "stood for something" even if time has revealed their "revolution" to have been nothing more than a public temper tantrum and orgy of self-indulgence.
Civil rights got passed and enforced by the very system the hippies were protesting against (by Republicans and Democrats).
The war in Vietnam wasn't ended by soap-averse hippies getting stoned and boinking each other at Woodstock. It was ended by a bunch of tough little guys in black pajamas who simply refused to recognize they had been beaten in every battle they had ever fought.
Like the hippies, the Occupiers want the credit for the results without doing any of the actual heavy lifting.
==============================
As for comparisons to the Arab Spring, risking a pepper spraying on the top of the head (not even in the face) is not the same as risking a bullet in the head.
The Occupiers are not on the same level as the folks protesting against a totalitarian regime.
Conan the Grammarian at November 21, 2011 10:20 AM
Pepper spray is today’s version of the 60’s water cannons and police dogs. I’m sure the cop using the chemical weapon on the kids was a bully on the playground. It’s going to get ugly.
Roger at November 21, 2011 11:03 AM
I'm repeating my comment here in case anyone hasn't seen if the future blog item and the accompanying video:
==================================
I refuse to call the protesters victims. They were made aware of the consequences of their refusal to depart. That was in the first 30 seconds of the video. They had at least four minutes to contemplate the consequences of their actions, or inaction.
If my Lamborghini was stranded on a straight flat railroad track and I saw the train coming four four minutes and I still died because I refused the abandon the vehicle, would you blame the train's engineer for my death?
If I'm driving down the highway and pass numerous signs for "Bridge out" for five miles and am doing 60 MPH -- when I drive into the canyon -- would you blame me or the DOT?
I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away."
This is the same scenario.
I have absolutely negative sympathy for the useful idiots.
Jim P. at November 21, 2011 8:52 PM
Amy,
I may have missed it in the hundreds of comments but apparently you and many others consider it brutal to use pepper spray and less brutal to pickup up these people one at a time - which means laying hands on them - and arrest them.
Why is it that pepper spray is more brutal?
Does it do more damage to people?
You realize that picking up and handcuffing people - especially in large groups - contains a lot of risk of injuring or even killing people, right?
How did you decide that pepper spray is worse?
thom at November 23, 2011 4:49 AM
Thom,
Obviously, I'm not Amy. If you go back to all the non-violent demonstrations before chemical agents: as long as the Police kept their cool and the demonstrators remained passive, the Police used the technique of numbers and laying-on-of-hands, and (praise Jesus) no one really got hurt. Bruised and some joint soreness, maybe a cop strained his back (they do now maintain they are not paid to get hurt, search it), but no real injuries. It was not as you describe so long as everyone kept their cool. Watched it on TV in the 60s, and also saw how bad it could go if either the police or the demonstrators went violent.
The problem with chemical agents whether Mace (a form of CS) or pepper spray is that they aren't non-lethal, they are less-lethal. They were really meant to decrease the use of the billy club (police now usually use telescoping batons that are more like whips than clubs, certainly better than the sap, billy club, knobkierre, or Maglite), not to replace the laying-on-of-hands except when "officer safety" is paramount (all occasions other than at home with the kids, a bit of sarcastic snark so sue me).
Ariel at November 25, 2011 10:01 PM
Well I guess I don't have to spend the weekend figuinrg this one out!
Mahalia at November 30, 2011 5:18 PM
Leave a comment