|
Davis Pepper Spray Clear Case Of Brutality
NOV. 21, 2011 By STEVEN GREENHUT If you want to know which of your friends or neighbors believe in a free and humane society and which ones believe in a police state, show them the now gone viral video of a riot-gear-clad University of California-Davis police officer dousing a peaceful group of Occupy protesters with pepper spray as they sat, arms linked, in the campus quad. Most of us react in horror at what we saw, and at the absurdly dishonest explanations from the campus police chief. But some people think the protesters got what they deserved and even called for heavier-handed tactics. Police officials – and these days, campus security guards have gained the power of full-fledged police officers, complete with those massive pensions and all the usual protections from accountability – claimed that the officer felt that his life was in danger when he methodically walked down the line of protesters and assaulted them with the spray. “If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad,” said Chief Annette Spicuzza, who was placed on leave (i.e., additional paid vacation) Monday after backlash against the brutality. “Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.” That’s what police always say no matter the situation. But in this age of video, we can see for ourselves that the officers were in no danger. Multiple officers effortlessly moved in and around the protesters. The burly officer who sprayed the kids strutted slowly in front of them in a way that belies any sort of danger, real or perceived. He, too, was put on administrative leave after the video went viral, along with another officer. Without the video, you know what would have happened – nothing. The lies would have become the official record. This is why police officers have become zealous in their confiscation of video cameras and arrest of people who record them doing their jobs. Such brutality is par for the course for today’s militarized police and campus security departments. What’s really disgusting is the natural instinct of so many conservatives to stick up for the police. They don’t like the Occupy protesters, so they willingly back brutality against them, without considering the possibility that conservatives at some point might be on the receiving end of this aggression. Then again, this common, vulgar form of modern conservatism almost always sides with the state, even as it champions the empty words of limited government. A blog called Extreme Conservatives wrote the following, “Sorry libs… You can quit your squawking and take your leftie-indoctrinated butts back to class. The UC Davis pepper spray incident was standard police procedure. On Friday a group of UC Davis students blocked the campus walkway with arms linked and started chanting, ‘From Davis to Greece, F*ck the police!’ Moments later the little darlings were doused with pepper spray. This was only after several attempts by campus police to get them to move. Of course, the liberal media only played the part where the students were sprayed down. But after two days of leftist outrage we find out that this was standard police procedure.” The idea that this is “standard police procedure” is exactly what makes the video so horrifying. It doesn’t make it acceptable behavior. That’s why so many viewers were offended by it. The cop struts in front of the students and sprays them with massive amounts of pepper spray. He’s not in any danger. This is just standard procedure, ma’am. We treat everyone that way! According to Rick Hahn from Accuracy in Media, the problem here was, of course, the liberal media, which failed to provide proper context. Hahn, who is identified as having worked for the FBI for 32 years, made the usual law-enforcement case that the cops were really in danger: “Many of the protesters were seated with arms interlocked. This means police would have had to physically engage them. The fact that the protesters were seated leaves police trying to disengage them from one another at a balance disadvantage. The cops have to bend over or crouch down to try to physically disengage any one individual, bring him or her to their feet and affect the arrest. The fact that the protesters had interlocked their arms was surely an effort to avoid any one individual being removed for arrest. There’s no way of knowing how strongly the protesters would have fought disengagement, but the fact is, they were inducing, baiting if you will, physical confrontation from the police.” Scott Spiegel, writing in Conservative Outpost, joined a growing chorus of conservatives who seemed to want the police to behave even more brutally toward these “animals” and who have a rather authoritarian view of the world: “When cops say move, you move – even if you’re curled in a fetal position on the ground with flowers in your hair listening to Cat Stevens and nursing orphaned kittens. The UC Davis police could have acted a lot more brutally, including prodding or beating protesters with batons. The occupiers should consider themselves warned: Trust fund brat refuses to move, trust fund brat gets spray tanned. Protesters in the UC Davis videos can be heard chanting ‘Shame on you!’ at police after the incident. Actually, shame on patsy mayors like Michael Bloomberg and Jean Quan for not empowering police to clear out these animals ages ago.” For insight into the modern conservative rabble, one ought to read FreeRepublic. It’s beyond irony. One commenter expressed disbelief at the sight of police backing away rather than engaging the protesters: “Do you get a chill up your spine like I do when you see the police slowly back away as if they are backing down from an impending violent stand-off?” Others seemed eager to see violence: “A billy-club to the ribs would have been just as effective at removing the bums and we would be hearing all this crying about pepper-spray!” Granted, these are anonymous commenters, but they reflect widespread sentiment. I disagree with most of what the Occupy protesters are saying, quite obviously, but when I see lines of riot-gear-clad officials standing in front of these unbathed wretches, my heart goes out to the wretches. They need a lesson in economics and politics. The policies they advocate – to the degree that many of them have any well-defined grievances – range from the silly to the disastrous. They are inconsistent, foolish and hypocritical. Many of them are lazy freeloaders. Such is life. They do create filth and chaos in public parks, but if one cannot protest in a public park, there are not many places to have a protest. It’s in everyone’s best interest for the authorities to provide as much latitude as possible for protesters of any political persuasion. We still do pretend to live in a free society, right? Whatever the bigger picture, this was a clear case of abusive and heavy handed behavior by the campus police. The president of the university was right to call for an investigation and the officer and the chief need to be removed from their positions, not just given meaningless and indefinite paid leave. And now it’s time for Californians to take a closer look at issues of police conduct and secrecy. In recent years, Democrats and Republicans have made those issues off limits thanks to their close association with the police unions. Maybe the Occupiers can become productive and lead a real movement for civil libertarian reform. I know it won’t happen, but who can live in California without embracing a little wishful thinking?
Tags: Davis, pepper spray, Steven Greenhut, University of California Comments(33) |
May 23, 2012
A YouTube video of the moments before the pepper spray was used has the OWS folks chanting that they will give the police a “moment of peace” to withdraw. It appears that there are 3 or 4 times the protesters as there are police.
I’m sorry, but if I was one of the police, and I was given a “moment” to withdraw, I’m sure I would feel that I was in some level of danger. Perhaps the pepper spray was the wrong tool, but what is the right tool? Do we have to wait until someone gets hurt (demonstrator or police officer), or can we use non-leathal force to prevent violence?
This case reminds me EXACTLY of the Headwater tree hugger case in Nor Cal about 15 years ago where local sheriffs used pepper spray or tear gas to break up a group of non violent protesters who had formed a circle in one of the lumber offices (as i recall) and they dabbed it on their eyes-the police did NOT do it malciously, but they did want them to leave.
Long story short the protesters sued the police and they won, and that is what will happen here, EXACT SAME FACT PATTERN…….hold on while I google the case;
Pepper Spray and Police Abuse
California Civil Rights Lawyers
In 1997, four kindred spirits locked themselves together to protest logging of ancient redwood trees. Northern California cops responded by searing their eyes with pepper spray.
The protesters did not give up. Not on trees and not on constitutional rights. They persevered through the pain and then they sued the cops that made them endure it.
http://www.shouselaw.com/pepperspray.html
Still hunting for the case name……
Hers is the case;
HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html
The Chancellor should have come out and expelled them for disrupting the school. Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble can be limited for time, place and manner. They can say anything, they cannot disrupt.
In Berkeley, the cops beat them with clubs. Same in Portland, Boston, etc. All liberals.
All police academies teach their recruit pressure points on the body that could disengage two arm locked individuals in a microsecond. Pepper spray or mace is to be used only when there is an immediate threat of personal bodily injury. If there was someone seated on my front yard and he refused to leave upon my request and I sprayed him with a caustic chemical in the face when there was no immediate threat to my safety – I would be charged with a felony. So why would the police be held to any lesser of that same standard? We know how the routine goes though, don’t we. They will remain on paid leave for a month or two until the fervor blows over – silently exonnerated and put back on the job. If there is any discipline at all I predict each will get docked a week or so of their leave time. Nothing more than that. No chance of losing their jobs and no chance of being held to the SAME standard as an ordinary citizen IMO.
As far as the Occupy demonstrators are concerned – those kids have every right to protest a sick, corrupted system made up of bought off politicians and crooked Wall Street criminals. We have a Federal debt of over $15T and by the time those kids enter the work world it will problaby be north of $20T. The boomers accumulated a significant portion of that debt and those kids are going to end up getting caught holding the empty bag. I have been to a couple Occupy events and I didn’t see any ‘unbathed wretches’ at all. I saw a bunch of concerned citizens who are tired of getting shined on by a system that rewards criminality and punishes productivity. Do libertarians approve of such a system? The ones who perpetrate such abuse on the citizens laugh out loud when a few protesters show up during the day and go back home at night. But when the protesters stick around in a peaceful manner and exercise their constitutional protected rights 24/7 – it gets on their nerves. And that’s a good thing. The civil rights movement would have petered out in a major way had Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus or if MLK would have not employed forms of civil disobedience. There’s a good chance that blacks would stil be drinking from separate water fountains in the South. So it burns me up when I see the same dehumanization tactics used against the Occupy protesters who have every right to be livid with the manner in which this nation is currently being run.
It really cracks me up when people try to divert attention away from Wall Street.
Anybody who stays up on the financial news knows now that bankrupted MF Global run by Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former governor of New Jersey, stole customer deposits and used it in a ploy to fill financial holes within the company. It is ILLEGAL for these Wall Street investment firms to co-mingle customer deposits with their company coffers. ILLEGAL! The funds are ALWAYS supposed to remain SEPARATE! Now it has been revealed that the amount was not $600M – now estimates go as high as $1.2 BILLION, involving 150,000 investors. And if this happened at MF Global it could happen at ANY INVESTMENT FIRM THAT HOLDS INVESTOR FUNDS! Brokerages, banks, investment banks, etc… Seasoned investors were spooked by this today and there are indications that it caused a mini-run on some financial institutions that was partly responsible for the stock market downturn today. Jon Corzine and all his cronies at MF Global are still free tonight. Not one has been arrested, indicted or is in the process of being prosecuted. Yet if an ordinary citizen walked into a 7-Eleven and grabbed a handful of $20′s from the register and ran out the door – when caught he would do state time up the river.
This is the crap that the “unbathed wretches” are protesting against at the Occupy events. To me it is absolutely unfathomable that people who purport to be fiscal conservatives and justice oriented would refuse to see the blatant corruption and acts of financial rape perpetrated on the Main Street folks by these wretched Wall Street scum.
If there is any discipline at all I predict each will get docked a week or so of their leave time. Nothing more than that. No chance of losing their jobs and no chance of being held to the SAME standard as an ordinary citizen IMO
No, what will happen is the two cops will be promoted.
Have you forgotten the two OC social workers that lost a $5 million lawsuit, $12 million after the appeals ended and interest and lawyer fees were tacked on
One Social Worker retired and the other was promoted.
You know that when an employee ends up costing a firm (IE taxpayers) $12 million and then they are promoted that the entire organization is as incompetent as it can get.
Rex wrote, “Hers is the case;HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT”.
Yep, the protesters in that case won and were awarded the grand sum of $1.00 in damages. The jury in that case being well aware the protesters deliberately occupied then- Congressman Frank Riggs office to create an incident and hopefully get the police to over react.
Living just up the street from where that incident took place, I don’t think the Sheriff’s Office did over react. If you watch the entire video of that incident (and I have) you would have seen the deputies do everything they could to talk the girls into giving up and leaving the office without further physical force. They refused, as they’d already planned to, even after they were warned that pepper spray would be used.
Once the spray was swabbed on the girls, one of them got up and left immediately. I believe she was the 16 year old girl that was involved. The rest held tight. That shows that the idea of pepper spray “pain compliance” does have some merit, but it didn’t work on the seasoned protesters so maybe they shouldn’t have bothered as they eventually had to physically pull the girls apart, anyway. There was more physical danger to the girls possible from the pulling apart (as was true at U.C. Davis) than the pepper spray.
As far as the U.C. Davis incident goes, I don’t know I’d refer to that so much as brutality. It’s more an example of just how cavalier the police have become in their use of pepper spray (and tasers). No lasting physical harm to the protesters and you can bet the police got it on themselves as well.
The troubling part of this to me- and where I would call it brutality- is that police increasingly use tasers and pepper spray who in no way have asked for a confrontation with police, as Radley Balko reports often on over at his blog, The Agitator:http://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/22/mayor-is-upset-that-citizens-have-been-informed-of-possible-police-abuse/
The troubling part of this to me- and where I would call it brutality- is that police increasingly use tasers and pepper spray who in no way have asked for a confrontation with police, as Radley Balko reports often on over at his blog, The Agitator:http://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/22/mayor-is-upset-that-citizens-have-been-informed-of-possible-police-abuse/
“60 Minutes” did a profile on the two brothers that built up TASER last Sunday-and they admit this very problem, that the “force conituim” is not being properly applied.
You start with 1) words, then 2) hands, then 3) batons, THEN 4) a TASER, then 5) the firearm.
What we see today are very poorly trained police going from step 1 to step 4, skipping step 2 and 3. And then the lawsuits fly and then taxpayers get stuck with $12 million judgments.
As for damages in the Headwater case, the law was not clearly established at the time-a requirement for guilt and damages-in that case, and I think that may have been the reason for the “vindication” award of $1, it says the police acted wrong and vidicates the rights of the protesters but limits damages.
I think that may have been the reason for the “vindication” award of $1, it says the police acted wrong and vidicates the rights of the protesters but limits damages.
Possibly, but remember that just because a judge or jury rules one way, that doesn’t necessarily make it right, it just makes it law.
I’d like to think the jury gave them only a dollar because they realized the protesters deliberately tried to provoke the confrontation but also felt the police had other options.
Summary of Mr. Greenhut’s argument: “Since the protesters were not blocking Mr. Greenhut’s freedom to access his property, they had an absolute right to unlawful assembly, an absolute right to disobey lawful orders of the police, and an absolute right to infringe the rights of others without any consequence.”
Meanwhile, Pastor Hoye is jailed for standing outside an abortion clinic in Oakland telling women “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help.” Oakland requested a five year sentence for this. He blocked no one’s movement and touched no one. He was sentenced to one month which he served. Later a federal court tossed his conviction.
“As far as the U.C. Davis incident goes, I don’t know I’d refer to that so much as brutality. It’s more an example of just how cavalier the police have become in their use of pepper spray (and tasers). No lasting physical harm to the protesters and you can bet the police got it on themselves as well”
Fred Mangels, we either have one consistent rule of law in this country that applied to ALL CITIZENS or we don’t. Which do you prefer? Two separate and distinct books of law – one for ordinary folks and another for the cops? Or do you want EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW as supported by the US Constitution?
As I noted in my previous post, if a stranger was laying on my front lawn and refused to leave – and I took the liberty of dousing him in the face with a caustic chemical – I would be subject to felony charges that could result in over a year in jail. And they would NOT put me in a state of limbo (ie. paid administrative leave)while they investigated. I would IMMEDIATELY go to jail and unless I could post bail – I would stay there.
One of primary advantages of being an American citizen was knowing that no one is above the law and that all of us are entitled to EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, as set forth in our sacred governing documents. So apparently you cavalierly dismiss that tenet of American citizenship as poppycock and unimportant. You get what you tolerate, Fred. And as we continue to slide down that slippery slope don’t ask “why?” since it’s attitudes like yours that opened up Pandora’s box.
Using pepper spray on PEACEFUL demonstrators in the United States of America has NEVER been an accepted practice in modern America, Fred. Never. It is, in fact, a crime in itself. So when they start tazering or rubber bulleting PEACEFUL demonstrators are you going to condone that too by stating “there’s no lasting physicial harm” too?
This country is really going to hell in a handbasket.
I understand [and actually agree in part with] your concerns. I disagree with your analysis of use of force. The disagreement might be more common than you think.
Assuming a protest has been deemed illegal, peaceful or not (Yes, you can have illegal peaceful protests), otherwise peaceful people might have to be removed from an area. Let’s say an otherwise peaceful protest takes over the main street in Davis. Most would agree in such an instance, assuming they didn’t get prior permission to block the street, that the protesters should be removed. What do you do if they refuse to leave?
You’ll have to physically remove them. I’d say a good option would be to use relatively harmless chemical agents (pepper, CN or CS) to try to get the crowd to disperse. We’d hope the threat alone of using chemicals would get them to disperse. If the threat didn’t work, the discomfort of the chemicals might get them to leave without having to lay a hand on them. Anything else would be much more likely to cause harm to either the police or protesters.
In the end they might well have to get physical and grapple with the protesters, anyway, but nothing wrong with trying the second least harmful option- the first option being trying to talk them into dispersing).
I’m not saying the students in this instance needed to be removed. I don’t know, but somebody in a position of power obviously did.
“Summary of Mr. Greenhut’s argument: “Since the protesters were not blocking Mr. Greenhut’s freedom to access his property, they had an absolute right to unlawful assembly, an absolute right to disobey lawful orders of the police, and an absolute right to infringe the rights of others without any consequence.”
hey russell, if a cop pulled you over and accused you of a traffic violation that you think you did not commit – and you refused to sign the citation out of principle – and the cop suddenly pulled out his can of mace and sprayed you in the eyes – would you approve of his actions?
After all, you were disobeying a lawful order and you were infringing on his rights by resisting.
Is that the world you want to live in, Russell?
“Let’s say an otherwise peaceful protest takes over the main street in Davis”
Ok, Fred. Now you are changing the scenario completely. First, you should fully acknowledge that the UC Davis students were no threat to anyone and that spraying mace in their faces under those circumstances was tantamount to a crime and that the UC cops should have been arrested as soon as the evidence (video) was publicly displayed. We need to address this SPECIFIC scenario first prior to going to other concocted stories.
Can we do that, Fred? Or not?
“…you should fully acknowledge that the UC Davis students were no threat to anyone and that spraying mace in their faces under those circumstances was tantamount to a crime and that the UC cops should have been arrested…”.
Nope. I’ll acknowledge they appeared to be no threat to anyone. They don’t have to be an actual threat for police to use force to enforce the law. Apparently someone (not just the cops. they take orders from elsewhere) thought the students were in violation of the law and needed to be removed. It was the cops job to remove them.
And again, when the cops decided to move them, they could have handled it different ways. They could have gone right ahead and started wrestling the students to remove and arrest them. They also could have tried talking with them first, which they did, to try and get them to leave on their own. The talk obviously didn’t work.
So, they threaten to make them real uncomfortable by using pepper spray hoping that would end the problem. That doesn’t work so they spray them hoping they’ll get up and leave. That doesn’t work so they end up having to wrestle them, anyway.
I think that could be an appropriate escalation of the use of force to enforce the law, especially when you consider that the protesters could have gotten up and left on their own at any point up to the spraying. Police are allowed to use force to enforce the law and maintain order. Whether the level of force used was appropriate will be argued forever.
“Apparently someone (not just the cops. they take orders from elsewhere) thought the students were in violation of the law and needed to be removed. It was the cops job to remove them”
Sorry. Fail. Following orders to break the law is no legitimate excuse to be exonnerated. Otherwise the nazi prison guards in WW2 would not have been sentenced to long jail sentences in the Nurnberg Trials. If others, in fact, ordered them (your assumption) the cops to spray demonstrators in the face with mace then they too should be charged criminally and held accountable for their actions.
All police academies teach their recruits where the pressure points are on the human body to achieve physical compliance. By exerting limited force on these pressure point one can literally bring a person down to his knees and get him to comply with practically any order. The use of mace in the UC Davis matter was completely inappropriate and those who employed it need to answer for their actions in criminal court, IMO.
Show me one other circumstance where police have sprayed NON-VIOLENT but uncooperative demonstators in the face with mace, Fred. You can’t. And why can’t you? Because police departments do not teach their personnel to behave in such a fashion. PD’s understand that spraying NON-VIOLENT demonstrators in the face with mace is a violation of the law. That is why it is NOT used in the practical world. And for you to insinuate that it is is totally disingenuous. Either that or you are communicating from raw ignorance in which case I urge you to educate yourself.
As I asked russell – is it appropriate for a police officer to mace a NON-VIOLENT yet disobedient motorist who REFUSES a lawful order to sign a traffic citation and grips the steering wheel and refuses to exit his car?
of course not. There are other means of gaining compliance. You know that, Fred. So do I.
Following orders to break the law is no legitimate excuse to be exonnerated.
They were following orders to enforce the law. Not following illegal orders.
And don’t tell me about pressure points and such. I’ve been through a police academy, albeit 24 years ago (no, I’m not a cop). If they used these supposed painful pressure points you’re referring to, you’d be complaining that was excessive force, too, because it hurt so much.
That would be inflicting pain for compliance, wouldn’t it? Sounds to me like what chemical agents are used for. And it’s more likely to actually hurt someone when you’re touching him as opposed to spraying him with a relatively harmless chemical.
There are other means of gaining compliance. You know that, Fred. So do I.
I believe I’ve already wrote that more than once. They had numerous options. Talking and the threat of chemicals didn’t work. They used the least harmful alternatives first, including pepper. When that didn’t work, they had to get physical.
And, yes, a police officer might well be justified in using pepper spray removing a motorist from a car after going through his progression of use of force, depending on what the motorist was being detained for.
As an aside, I believe if a motorist doesn’t sign a traffic citation the officer can simply write “refused to sign” on the ticket and let him go on his way, which is another option. Depends what the offense was in how far the officer wants to take it and what level of force might be appropriate.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re one of those to whom it wouldn’t matter what the police did in this instance. You’d be claiming brutality simply because you think the Occupy folks should be able to do whatever they want simply by calling it “free speech”. There’s a lot of your type I’ve been hearing from lately.
“They were following orders to enforce the law. Not following illegal orders”
First off, you have no knowledge that the cops were following orders to USE MACE when they sprayed it directly in the faces of those demonstators, do you, Fred? If you do – then post your proof source.
Next, if I were ordered by my employer to commit an unlawful act – and carried that act out – the fact that my employer told me to do it would have no bearing on the personal legal consequences of my act.
“I’ve been through a police academy, albeit 24 years ago (no, I’m not a cop). If they used these supposed painful pressure points you’re referring to, you’d be complaining that was excessive force, too, because it hurt so much”
That is a complete untruth. I know that police use pressure points all the damn time in their work to gain compliance of uncooperative people. A slight amount of pressure applied to a pressure point garners immediate compliance and that has ALWAYS been accepted as a legitimate means for a cop to gain physical compliance. Spraying a caustic chemical in the face of a NON-VIOLENT but uncooperatove person has NEVER been an accepted or legitimate practice taught by any police department that is concerned with complying with State statutes. And you cannot show me even one incident where such bahavior has been condoned by the police or by the general public. I asked you for a proof source. You failed to produce it.
“And, yes, a police officer might well be justified in using pepper spray removing a motorist from a car after going through his progression of use of force, depending on what the motorist was being detained for”
Don’t change the scenario on me again. You have a bad habit of doing that. I specifically said that a motorist was pulled over on a routine traffic stop for a traffic violation (speeding, rolling stop, etc…)and disputed the stop and refused to sign the citation or get out of the car with hands firmly grasping the steering wheel. Slight manipulations to the pressure points would immediately remove that motorist’s hands from the steering wheel. Anyone who knows anything about pressure points understands that. And it is MUCH LESS harmful or invasive than spraying someone in the face with a caustic chemical. To say otherwise is incredibly disingenuous.
“As an aside, I believe if a motorist doesn’t sign a traffic citation the officer can simply write “refused to sign” on the ticket and let him go on his way, which is another option”
I have known people who were taken to jail for refusing to sign a ticket. But we aren’t arguing that here. We are arguing what level of force is justified under the law for law enforcement to use to gain compliance of a NON-VIOLENT – NON-THEATENING uncooperative person involved in a protest. Your claim that mace was appropriate, particularly in the UC Davis incident, is terribly misinformed.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re one of those to whom it wouldn’t matter what the police did in this instance”
Then your conclusion is, again, faulty.
If the University requested that the police remove protesters acting in an unlawful manner – had they accomplished that with NORMAL methods to gain compliance – I would never second guess them. Once they elevated the means to gain compliance that essentially would result in felony charges for you or me had we done it – they stepped over the line and need to be held accountable for their actions.
That’s the way a civilized nation that is supposed to be governed under a set of rules we call the ‘Constitution’ is supposed to work, Fred.
‘Equality under the law’ is one of those rules – whether you like it or not.
First off, you have no knowledge that the cops were following orders to USE MACE when they sprayed it directly in the faces of those demonstators,.
Nope, but neither do you. I’m sure it’s most likely they were simply told to remove the protesters. How they did it was up to the command of police at the scene as that’s their area of expertise. They were following a legal directive by the U.C. staff to enforce the law. The use of force used is certainly up for debate.
Spraying a caustic chemical in the face of a NON-VIOLENT but uncooperatove person has NEVER been an accepted or legitimate practice taught by any police department that is concerned with complying with State statutes.
Seems to me it’s been used umpteen times over the years to get compliance from uncooperative subjects, although I’d have to look to find examples. I think we all know tear agents were, and still are regularly used to try and break up large crowds. You’d be hard pressed to deny that.
‘Equality under the law’ is one of those rules – whether you like it or not.
They were doing what they were supposed to do and removing them was totally legal. You may argue with their methods. I might argue their methods, under a different scenario. This time I disagree with you, although probably not as much as you think.
I think our biggest disagreement is over what level of force pepper spray should be considered. You consider it akin to pouring acid on a person’s face. I consider it more along the line of farting in that guy’s face. I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this issue.
“How they did it was up to the command of police at the scene as that’s their area of expertise”
Yep. And those are the ones (to include the ones who carried it out) who should be held accountable for their actions. One cannot break the law to enforce the law. One must abide by the rules that are in place. Spraying non-violent, non-threatening yet uncooperative protesters in the face with a caustic chemical is over the line. AGAIN, YOU CANNOT PRODUCE EVEN ONE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT CONDONES THIS ACTION OR ONE EXAMPLE OF SUCH FORCE BEING USED IN THE UNITED STATES THAT WAS CONDONED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE STATE OR THE GENERAL POPULATION, can you, Fred? There is a reason you can’t, Fred. It is not allowed.
“Seems to me it’s been used umpteen times over the years to get compliance from uncooperative subjects, although I’d have to look to find examples”
Talk is cheap, Fred. Show me where it has been condoned for police to spray a caustic chemical in the individual faces of NON-VIOLENT, NON-THREATENING YET UNCOOPERATIVE protesters. A cop in NYC was recently lambasted for it when he sprayed that crap in the face of an NON-VIOLENT, NON-THREATENING female protester. It went viral on the net. It’s wrong, Fred. I think you know it. You just won’t acknowledge it.
“You may argue with their methods”
I would always argue the use of illegal methods by the police. We are not supposed to live in a police state. Why do you think the 2 cops and the chief were put on involuntary leave? Because they did the right thing, Fred?
“I think our biggest disagreement is over what level of force pepper spray should be considered. You consider it akin to pouring acid on a person’s face. I consider it more along the line of farting in that guy’s face”
Mace or pepper spray is an extremely caustic chemical that can have short or medium term adverse side effects. In some people who are highly sensitive it could cause permanent damage. The law says that it is NOT to be used unless the user is under immediate danger or physical attack or bodily injury. If you don’t believe me – call up your local PD and ask them. If a person uses mace or pepper spray inappropriately by spraying someone who has not perpetrated an immediate threat or attack – the sprayer is subject to charged of felonious assault.
Go look it up, Fred.
You are incredibly misinformed.
Just as you have an incredibly ambitious agenda.
Why do you think the 2 cops and the chief were put on involuntary leave? Because they did the right thing, Fred?.
Probably all or part of two reasons: First, the chancellor wasn’t happy with how things went down. Second, she wanted to distance herself from it and didn’t want any accusations pointed her way. That’s the way it happens most the time.
The chancellor did what every liberal would do, throw the cops under the bus. Settle a million dollar lawsuit out of court with taxpayer money. That protects her $200k job.
“Probably all or part of two reasons: First, the chancellor wasn’t happy with how things went down. Second, she wanted to distance herself from it and didn’t want any accusations pointed her way. That’s the way it happens most the time”
That’s a good story, Fred.
So it’s everyone else’s fault except for those who actually did it, eh?
Sounds like a typical American alibi.
Steven, you simply can’t be serious …
The chancellor did what every liberal would do, throw the cops under the bus. Settle a million dollar lawsuit out of court with taxpayer money. That protects her $200k job.
Joe-the cops are the ones making $200K per year, the Chancellor is making triple-AT LEAST- that with benefits.
Heck the new San Diego State President is making $400K in salary alone, and that is a CSU school, not UC Davis. UC Davis is the #3 UC school behind Berkeley and UCLA.
“Probably all or part of two reasons: First, the chancellor wasn’t happy with how things went down. Second, she wanted to distance herself from it and didn’t want any accusations pointed her way. That’s the way it happens most the time”
That’s a good story, Fred.
And that is just a story, doyou recall what Chancellor Katehi said 4 days ago when the story first went viral. Her first statement was that she was “proud of the officers”.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
[...] Greenhut is the Editor-in-Chief for CalWatchdog, where this article was first posted. Greenhut was deputy editor and columnist for The Orange County Register for 11 [...]
Did you read that a ‘competitive shopper’ at a WalMart store in Los Angeles used pepper spray to ward off other competing shoppers as the Black Friday shopping rush began?
As many as 15 people were injured after being sprayed! She should apply for a job with the Davis Police Department!
There were many other reports of violence on the first night of shopping by all the capitalists!
Dirty greed bags. Maybe we should outlaw shopping!
More violence than in the 10 weeks of Occupy events!!!
Here, read for yourself!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/25/9012057-black-friday-violence-2-shot-in-armed-robberies-15-others-pepper-sprayed
That women is also going to be charged with felony battery, the Sgt. they interviewed on TV said so, but those UC Davis cops are not getting charged with felony battery for much worse conduct.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, Rex.
‘Equality under the law’ really no longer exists in our system.
Wall Street can bilk the nation out of trillions of dollars or launder billions in drug money – not one of them is prosecuted.
If a common man grabbed a wad of $20′s from a 7-eleven store and got caught -he would do 3 years.
If a common man sold marijuana cigarettes for a living and laundered the funds through a personal business – his entire business would be seized along with any assets he purchased with proceeds from that business.
So it only makes perfect sense that if a common woman sprayed a caustic chemical at people who posed no threat of bodily injury to the sprayer that she would be subject to hard time in the big house.
But if a cop did the same thing – he would get paid administrative leave – with no arrest or prosecution whatsoever.
That’s where we stand in America today. That’s reality.
Clear case of brutality as UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau police baton jab students protesting increases in tuition. University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau hijack’s all our kids’ futures. I love University of California (UC) having been a student & lecturer. But today I am concerned that at times I do not recognize the UC I love. Like so many I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failures of Regent Chairwoman Lansing, President Yudof, Chancellor Birgeneau from holding the line on rising costs & tuition increases
Chancellor Birgeneau has molded Cal. into the most expensive public university. Paying more is not a better education.
Californians are reeling from 19% unemployment (includes: those forced to work part time; those no longer searching), mortgage defaults, loss of unemployment benefits. And those who still have jobs are working longer for less. Faculty wages must reflect California’s ability to pay, not what others are paid.
Current pay increases for generously paid University of California Faculty is arrogance. Instate tuition consumes 14% of Ca. Median Family Income!
Paying more is not a better education. UC Berkeley(# 70 Forbes) tuition increases exceed the national average rate of increases.
UC President Yudof, Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau($450,000 salary) dismissed many much needed cost-cutting options. They did not consider freezing vacant faculty positions, increasing class size, requiring faculty to teach more classes, doubling the time between sabbaticals, cutting & freezing pay & benefits for chancellors & reforming pensions & the health benefits.
They said such faculty reforms “would not be healthy for UC”. Exodus of faculty, administrators? Who can afford them and where would they go?
We agree it is far from the ideal situation, but it is in the best interests of the university system & the state to stop cost increases. UC cannot expect to do business as usual: raising tuition; granting pay raises & huge bonuses during a weak economy that has sapped state revenues & individual Californians’ income.
There is no question the necessary realignments with economic reality are painful. Regent Chairwoman Lansing can bridge the public trust gap with reassurances that salaries & costs reflect California’s ability to pay. The sky above UC will not fall when Chancellor Birgeneau is ousted.
Opinions? Email the UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu
.How is it possible that in this century the 21st you still see the same police brutality of the fifties and sixties of the 20th century. Why is it that the Human Right Watch doesn’t say anything? How dare Americans talk or write on some police brutality in Latin America as if they at home doesn’t have these human right violations. Our police and military copied this kind of inhuman display of a savage behaving of US police. Urinating US military on corpses, in the invaded countries is something the mind of people with some moral, struggles with to understand. What’s really disgusting is the natural instinct of so many conservatives to stick up for the police. They don’t like the Occupy protesters, so they willingly back brutality against them.