On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
The students deserved to be pepper sprayed. After the police arrested the students who refused to move, a crowd of students surrounded the police and began to threaten them. The students who surrounded the police chanted that they would allow the police to leave if they let the students go, and chanted that if the police let them go, they would continue to protest peacefully. This was a mob who was threatening the police and they all deserved a lot more than they got.
The students who were pepper sprayed in the face were part of the circle that was surrounding the police and keeping them contained in the center. You can see from the following video clip that those students were pepper sprayed to clear a path for the surrounded officers to leave.
The Occupiers are desperate to portray themselves as victims in order to accomplish their agenda. And the liberal media is playing right along with it. Which is why the clip you see on TV only shows the actual act of the pepper spraying, and leaves out all of the other context. The angle shown and the portion shown completely exclude the students who are surrounding the police officers, and completely excludes the officers who are surrounded. All that is shown are the officers walking up to these students and pepper spraying them.
This is the art of all liberal attacks on freedom. Emphasize all isolated concretes and drop all context necessary in order to make it look like you're the good guys and the people doing their jobs are the bad guys. Don't show the things you did to cause the disaster, only show the disaster and make it look like it's not your fault.
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
Once the police were called to evict the protesters there was always going to be an escalation. Yes, Pepper Spray was extreme. Keep in mind that some other form of force would have been necessary to remove the students.
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
Once the police were called to evict the protesters there was always going to be an escalation. Yes, Pepper Spray was extreme. Keep in mind that some other form of force would have been necessary to remove the students.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
Once the police were called to evict the protesters there was always going to be an escalation. Yes, Pepper Spray was extreme. Keep in mind that some other form of force would have been necessary to remove the students.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Let's add to the list, shall we ?
I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
30-40 officers grappling would do the trick
Tug of war
We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
But, to answer that question, only if they went to Berkeley.
Also, I'm not sure if it's your own Strawman or failure at reading comprehension, but I never said
throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were
I said:
2) call upon an infinite number of resources
which only implies the existence of infinite resources to draw from, not that they should all be used for that purpose.
Oh, and btw, officers don't "grapple". It's called Officer Safety. If it's a choice between pepper spray to the face of some dumbass and a physical altercation, it's pepper spray every time, unless of course it's the baton.
I feel bad for anyone that got sprayed, because being sprayed does suck (though not nearly as bad as they are making it out to be)
But I also feel like I can understand how the police may have felt they had no choice, and do believe that the proper actions were most likely taken by the OFFICERS in question. That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to say yay or nay. I usually don't support the OWS protestors as a rule, but without all the facts I will reserve my judgement. However, I will say that being pepper-sprayed hurts... but that's all. It hurts a bit and then you get over it. Not THAT big a deal.
This thread is so fucked. Tug of war?! What does that even mean? The fact that cops would need to exert some kind of effort to seperate students in no way justifies pepper-hosing an entire row of sitting non-violent protesters. Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
I am obsolutely mindblown by the mental gymnastics that people like Kaitlyn are going through to try to justify this obviously over-the-line response. I commend you for the effort that combing through this whole thread would have taken, but your post has no real footing to stand on.
The police were not subject to any physical attacks. They could have pepper-sprayed a single student so that there path was cleared. They could have called in more police. They could have tried to leave over the row of sitting students. They could have at least TRIED to seperate the students. They could have used a few police offivers to focus on a single area.
There were a million options, but the one Jon Pike chose was a gartuitously excessive use of force. It is not acceptable. He should be fired.
On December 07 2011 09:15 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I feel bad for anyone that got sprayed, because being sprayed does suck (though not nearly as bad as they are making it out to be)
But I also feel like I can understand how the police may have felt they had no choice, and do believe that the proper actions were most likely taken by the OFFICERS in question. That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to say yay or nay. I usually don't support the OWS protestors as a rule, but without all the facts I will reserve my judgement. However, I will say that being pepper-sprayed hurts... but that's all. It hurts a bit and then you get over it. Not THAT big a deal.
You always have a choice. I take it you've had pepperspray sprayed down your throat and into your eyes from point blank range?
Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
As I already explained, I have no real dog in this hunt, but I'll try to explain this one from my point of view at least:
What if one of those students had been waiting for a cop to grab him, so he could pull a knife out and slash the cop in the face? Sure, we can say "Oh but none of them did!" but how will you feel when you say that and the cop still gets slashed?
Officer safety is extremely important and no police officer should ever just "trust" a perp. Even if they have no reason to believe that they are in danger, they should always act as if they are in danger, and as if every person they may have to touch or grab is a deadly threat. It's the same reason why they are rough with people who have already laid down and given up. Because officers HAVE gotten stabbed, slashed, shot and hurt before while attempting to arrest someone who was being "peaceful".
edit: I have had some experience with pepper spray. As have many people I know. The general consensus is that it hurts, but is pretty harmless and more of a nuisance than an actual threat.
Bull shit MasterBlasterCaster, police are trained to be cautious but they are not trained to use excessive force without recognizing proper threat, prove to me that the police officer felt personal danger getting close to the protesters and handling them, because if you watch the videos he gets up very close to them and talks to them he even touches them even so don't pull that shit.Yes it's pretty harmless that's why 2 people were hospitalized from the pepper spray during that event. You maybe had experience of 1 2 seconds of exposure but not being drenched in the substance to which not all pepper sprays are equal.
On December 07 2011 09:24 Ripps wrote: This thread is so fucked. Tug of war?! What does that even mean? The fact that cops would need to exert some kind of effort to seperate students in no way justifies pepper-hosing an entire row of sitting non-violent protesters. Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
I am obsolutely mindblown by the mental gymnastics that people like Kaitlyn are going through to try to justify this obviously over-the-line response. I commend you for the effort that combing through this whole thread would have taken, but your post has no real footing to stand on.
The police were not subject to any physical attacks. They could have pepper-sprayed a single student so that there path was cleared. They could have called in more police. They could have tried to leave over the row of sitting students. They could have at least TRIED to seperate the students. They could have used a few police offivers to focus on a single area.
There were a million options, but the one Jon Pike chose was a gartuitously excessive use of force. It is not acceptable. He should be fired.
Trying to separate the students physically - if they resist you're either pushed to use more force when trying to separate the students (potentially resulting in police brutality lawsuits, or similar - this must be avoided at all costs). They aren't going to separate just by pushing them apart, you have to overpower them and pry their arms apart.
You can't just physically separate two people who are linking arms and actively trying to avoid being separated. It just doesn't work unless you overwhelm the people with force. Pepper spray was the only near peaceful option.
The students were warned of what was going to happen if they continued to resist, then they were warned again. They still refused to separate and hence the only appropriate course of action was taken.
- The police were not subject to any physical attacks as far as I'm aware, but they were being threatened with such and they were also surrounded and unable to remove themselves from the situation without some use of force. Either physically prying the protesters apart or via pepper spray. They chose the less violent method.
As for the second bolded part: They can't just call in more police, there aren't an infinite number of police standing by waiting to be called if they are needed. And if more police were called, how would that have alleviated the situation without use of force? That is Kaitlin's point that people like you are failing to recognize the situation and the limited resources available.
Explain to me why trying to seperate the students (which is apparently a tug of war) was a worse option than dousing an entire line of sitting students in chemicals. Then you may have an argument.
As I already explained, I have no real dog in this hunt, but I'll try to explain this one from my point of view at least:
What if one of those students had been waiting for a cop to grab him, so he could pull a knife out and slash the cop in the face? Sure, we can say "Oh but none of them did!" but how will you feel when you say that and the cop still gets slashed?
Officer safety is extremely important and no police officer should ever just "trust" a perp. Even if they have no reason to believe that they are in danger, they should always act as if they are in danger, and as if every person they may have to touch or grab is a deadly threat. It's the same reason why they are rough with people who have already laid down and given up. Because officers HAVE gotten stabbed, slashed, shot and hurt before while attempting to arrest someone who was being "peaceful".
edit: I have had some experience with pepper spray. As have many people I know. The general consensus is that it hurts, but is pretty harmless and more of a nuisance than an actual threat.
Really? Is that really the scenario you're giving to defend the police? Should police pepper spray EVERY person they arrest JUST IN CASE they have a knife? Just step back and think about how stupid this is.
I'm not even a liberal guy. I'm just dumbfounded by the intellectual lengths people are going to try to defend this really clear-cut case of excessive force. Maybe you all need to watch the video and read the scenario again. It's really really really simple.
I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
On December 07 2011 09:35 semantics wrote: Bull shit MasterBlasterCaster, police are trained to be cautious but they are not trained to use excessive force without recognizing proper threat, prove to me that the police officer felt personal danger getting close to the protesters and handling them, because if you watch the videos he gets up very close to them and talks to them he even touches them even so don't pull that shit.Yes it's pretty harmless that's why 2 people were hospitalized from the pepper spray during that event. You maybe had experience of 1 2 seconds of exposure but not being drenched in the substance to which not all pepper sprays are equal.
But he didn't try to pull them apart when their arms were interlocked, did he ? I'm of the position that their training is such that interlocked arms are demonstrated resistance of such measure. Why the fuck else would the protestors interlock their arms ? If arms weren't interlocked, cops could have made efforts to pick them up. Protestors themselves escalated the response with the locking.
On December 07 2011 09:36 Kaitlin wrote: I have to leave for a few hours, but I'm interested in this era of Youtube if we could get some links in this thread of examples where protestors sat with arms interlocked and the police were successful in doing nothing more than pulling them apart. If anyone could post some videos that I could watch when I get home, perhaps I could be educated. My belief is that cops don't engage in such "tug-of-war" matches, but I'm certainly open to being shown evidence to the contrary.
On December 06 2011 16:46 HULKAMANIA wrote: So you actually would expect federal treasury agents to have the same use-of-force guidelines as campus police officers? Wow. I just don't know where to go from there. I guess it's your personal opinion that they would versus my personal opinion that they wouldn't until some actual information filters its way into the discussion.
Well, if a local police department is sued for excessive force, it's easier to stand behind the policy used by the Federal Government that one they made up on their own. Same type of issue with decisions on whether to continue a high speed chase. If they pursue and somebody gets hurt, they get sued. If they don't, then they also run the risk of a) having that person commit a crime after the escape, or b) being ineffective in enforcing the law if they are too lax. As for the use of force, a local department could be more restrictive in their usage of force, which helps protect them in Court, but it sacrifices officer safety. Of course, if they are less restrictive, then it's the opposite, and they can't point to other guidelines to demonstrate they are in line.
So, no, I'm not claiming that UC Davis uses the same model, but it's not unreasonable, in the absence of their actual policy, to consider other relevant policies as a basis for deciding whether we believe the officers in this case used unreasonable force.
You understand that a police department's policies are not laws? Police department policy is just an additional liability over the police officers than if they had no such policy (a liability to the department they work for, not so much a legal liability out side of demonstrating criminal negligence). Unreasonable force in the eyes of the law doesn't care what the policy of the police department is, it cares more about if there were realistic and obvious solutions to the scenario that require less force.
You're now trying to argue that 3 is greater than 2, but no one is disputing that, we're disputing your assertions about how limited the options of the police officers were, since many of us see clear solutions to this that required much less force. Last time this was brought to your attention you went off on some sort of hyperbolic tangent about calling in the national guard, as if that were at all necessary. by the way that was a pretty distasteful comment in it's own right... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Actually the "clear solutions" that I've seen presented in this thread were either 1) play tug of war with the protestors or 2) call upon an infinite number of resources, neither of which are applicable to the real world.
Please site the person and quote in this thread that suggests spending an infinite amount of resources is a clear or reasonable solution. I'm pretty sure no one has suggested that and you've just made it up. Or concede that once again you find your position so weak at this point that you have no choice but to rely on hyperbole and straw man attacks like this to try and make your case.
Ok... Here are some from just the last few pages. I've copy and pasted the quotes, linked to the post itself, and even categorized it into either 1) tug of war or 2) failure to acknowledge limited resources. In doing so, I was unable to find any actual suggestions that don't fall into one of these two categories, Perhaps you could ...
Oh, and as luck would have it, a number of these quotes were yours ...
So why not get a police presence to monitor the situation? That is what campus police are supposed to do. Look after the campus. Yes that is a nuisance and has costs associated with it, but the only other option is to put the protesters safety at a higher risk.
I figure about 10 officers dedicated to separating a single file line of sitting, arm linked protesters would be successful at breaking that line up in less than 10 minutes without having to squirt acid all over the place. To be honest I think they already have enough there to get it done, but obviously they disagreed.
More police officers on the site will increase their ability to safely transport the arrested, police departments are generally well disciplined enough that they get great returns on their efficacy when increasing their numbers.
We already have, you're just not bothered to read the rest of the discussion in this thread, and instead keep suggesting the same false dichotomy over and over that the only two choices were to be trapped indefinitely, or distribute chemical burns to the crowd.
More reasonable solutions in ascending order of required force:
#1) Step over the people sitting down. As all the videos show they easily did this without incident multiple times before deploying pepper spray.
#2) Push through the standing crowd, again the videos clearly show the officers are able to push through the crowd with minimal contact, a few bumps and scrapes are preferable to chemical burns.
#3) Wait 15 minutes for more back up to be deployed, and then disperse the crowd without needing chemical weapons.
Jackpot on this one. #1) Tug of war #2) Tug of war #3) Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
If they do not show up with enough men to get by with some old fashioned manhandling, the officers should just give up and phone their superiors instead of using chemicals or other toys that are not justified to use against anyone who is not violent.
They're getting paid and the protestors are not. In addition, they'll have to go to the washroom or eat eventually. I really see no reason why they couldn't wait them out and just arrest them when they have to leave.
They were sitting on the ground, unless we have police officers so physically uncoordinated they cant step over them I dont see that as an excuse. You want a red carpet laid out for them?
Once the police were called to evict the protesters there was always going to be an escalation. Yes, Pepper Spray was extreme. Keep in mind that some other form of force would have been necessary to remove the students.
Tug of war
I don't see a single person in this list suggesting that throwing unlimited amounts of resources is a reasonable idea like you claimed they were., I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone, and inferring that it would be well worth the cost, do you understand the distinction here?
You see, weapons are a force multiplier, for example if BPD sent a single officer there, he would need a tank to get through that crowd, if they sent 5 officers, they would need rifles or shotguns to get through there, 10 officers, pepper spray, 20 officers, pushing and maybe baton work, 30-40 officers grappling would do the trick.
You keep asserting that no additional forces were available, but obviously that's not true, that small collection of officers there was a very small part of the berkley police department, and neighboring precincts always work together when disruptions become large enough. We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers, something that probably happens every day in every dispatch center in the country.
But again, you probably already know this, the question is how many additional officers do you think it would have taken to make a path through that crowd? 10? 50? 100? I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
If nothing else you really need to step back and understand this whole attitude that the only options were to be indefinitely trapped or escalate to pepper spray is a false dichotomy. I've accused you this fallacy already, here's some reading on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
I see many people suggesting that spending some tangible amount of additional resources would probably have prevented the need of pepper spraying everyone
We're not even talking about large enough numbers to cause overtime. we're talking about redirecting officers currently on the clock to assist the already deployed officers
I don't think there are more than 200 people in that crowd, are you suggesting that berkley police department is so incompetent that they would need more than a 1:1 ratio with the crowd in order to pull apart a single file line of unarmed protesters?
Failure to acknowledge limited resources.
But, to answer that question, only if they went to Berkeley.
Also, I'm not sure if it's your own Strawman or failure at reading comprehension, but I never said
which only implies the existence of infinite resources to draw from, not that they should all be used for that purpose.
Oh, and btw, officers don't "grapple". It's called Officer Safety. If it's a choice between pepper spray to the face of some dumbass and a physical altercation, it's pepper spray every time, unless of course it's the baton.
I don't see much of a distinction in the choice of wording used, but if you actually think that's a straw man, my statement can be revised with your exact wording and I'm fine standing behind that for now. That said if it makes you feel better I'll revise that statement to:
I don't see a single person in this list that is suggesting to "call upon an infinite number of resources" as a reasonable solution like you claimed they were.
Also "failure to acknowledge limited resources" doesn't actually invalidate any claim by the way, these statements fail to acknowledge many things. I believe you're trying to suggest that by not explicitly stating something about resources being finite (which no one has disputed) then the statement assumes that resources are infinite. Why you would make this assumption is beyond me. If you're suggesting that by labeling those suggestions with that statement invalidates them then you are once again denying the antecedent, another formal fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Also also, labeling suggestions as "tug-of-war" some cute term you use to describe using physical force to separate protesters and clear a path for the officers does not invalidate them. It's not uncommon for police officers to separate protesters with their hands, in fact most of the time that's how they go about breaking up human chains like that.
Should police pepper spray EVERY person they arrest JUST IN CASE they have a knife?
I believe that no police officer should EVER put himself in danger. If someone is resisting arrest or a lawful order I want the police officer to treat them as they would treat a rabid dog. Use ALL caution and necessary force to force IMMEDIATE compliance.
As I said, I don't know the specifics of this situation, and so I don't want to comment on it specifically. I am not even trying to excuse or justify what was done, just trying to explain that it is not so cut and dry, black and white, as some would have us believe. If I am going to be expected to think about the protestor's point of view (and I am honestly trying to do so) than I think it is not too much to ask for you to think about the police officer's point of view.
edit: I feel rather strongly about this particular subject (the one of "proper force") as I personally know a kid whose dad was killed by a "peaceful" perp during an arrest. He assumed the guy, who was apparently being calm and rational and even joking with the cop, was gonna be fine, and the guy shot him in the head. So, yeah, you could say that I err on the side of caution for police officers.
On December 07 2011 09:35 Tektos wrote: Trying to separate the students physically - if they resist you're either pushed to use more force when trying to separate the students (potentially resulting in police brutality lawsuits, or similar - this must be avoided at all costs). They aren't going to separate just by pushing them apart, you have to overpower them and pry their arms apart.
They were seperated anyway. Watch the video. I'm sure the pepper-spray only strengthened their resolve. Even if it weakened them, it wasn't neccessary.
You can't just physically separate two people who are linking arms and actively trying to avoid being separated. It just doesn't work unless you overwhelm the people with force. Pepper spray was the only near peaceful option.
Peaceful? They were coughing up blood for three quarters of an hour.
The students were warned of what was going to happen if they continued to resist, then they were warned again. They still refused to separate and hence the only appropriate course of action was taken.
The only approriate course of action?!? I gave many other scenarios which were less violent and more appropriate.
- The police were not subject to any physical attacks as far as I'm aware, but they were being threatened with such and they were also surrounded and unable to remove themselves from the situation without some use of force. Either physically prying the protesters apart or via pepper spray. They chose the less violent method.
They were not being threatend. They were told they could leave.
As for the second bolded part: They can't just call in more police, there aren't an infinite number of police standing by waiting to be called if they are needed. And if more police were called, how would that have alleviated the situation without use of force? That is Kaitlin's point that people like you are failing to recognize the situation and the limited resources available.
Why do people keep making this argument?!!? Who needs an infinite number? There wasn't an infinite number of protesters.
What are the factors that complicate this scenario? Its so simple to me. There was a line of protesters. The cop had to deal with the line. He dealt with it using excessive force.
On December 07 2011 09:35 semantics wrote: Bull shit MasterBlasterCaster, police are trained to be cautious but they are not trained to use excessive force without recognizing proper threat, prove to me that the police officer felt personal danger getting close to the protesters and handling them, because if you watch the videos he gets up very close to them and talks to them he even touches them even so don't pull that shit.Yes it's pretty harmless that's why 2 people were hospitalized from the pepper spray during that event. You maybe had experience of 1 2 seconds of exposure but not being drenched in the substance to which not all pepper sprays are equal.
But he didn't try to pull them apart when their arms were interlocked, did he ? I'm of the position that their training is such that interlocked arms are demonstrated resistance of such measure. Why the fuck else would the protestors interlock their arms ? If arms weren't interlocked, cops could have made efforts to pick them up. Protestors themselves escalated the response with the locking.
I haven't seen a video of them doing that, i do see video of them trying to break them apart after spraying them with pepper spray, you can also see people trying to help those people cover their faces as the officer goes back and forth spraying the protesters, a good video would be a continuous shot of when the protesters linked arms till the point where the officer decided to use pepper spray
haven't watched the whole thing yet just skimming though to see if i can find them trying to break them up but i would hope this is continuous footage you can also see how long the "from davis? to greece? fuck the police" lasts for about 10 seconds before people silence those from chanting that - I didn't see them try to break them up before the use of pepper spray, if anything the use of pepper spray was used as if to break them up from linking arms. I do notice them like talking to people over the radio alot.
EPT
