Thread: An interesting twist in the UC Davis pepper spray incident

Originally Posted by lutherf

MHP, with all due respect, the last thing the cops want to be involved with is having to manhandle a crowd. When you get hands on like that the potential for injury goes up exponentially for both protester and cop.

ahoy Lutherf,

matey, pickin' up individual protesters is not "manhandlin'", fer goodness sakes. 'tis part 'o thar job description.

since when did the police force become so dainty and fragile?

- MeadHallPirate

They disobeyed the authorities my Pirate friend. They can be lucky they didn't get the electroshock treatment.

Civil disobediance seems to be a violent crime today, eventhough it's the duty of a free citizens when fighting conditions that seem unjust and dialogue doesn't work.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

They disobeyed the authorities my Pirate friend. They can be lucky they didn't get the electroshock treatment.

Civil disobediance seems to be a violent crime today, eventhough it's the duty of a free citizens when fighting conditions that seem unjust and dialogue doesn't work.

haha, avast ye El_Zoido!

as the OP suggests, them officers were just protectin' themselves, as they were ringed by an impenetrable blockade 'o students who were seated and armed with textbooks and ipads. lord knows that if not fer them cans 'o mace and the assault they perpetrated, they'd have never been able to cut a clear path to escape from the dangerous force they were beset upon by.

YARRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

*laughs and muses to himself*

matey, i can kinda see why certain folk be enjoyin' this physical assault upon americans, and as i said earlier, i'd have been approvin' 'o seein' folk that imma not inclined to agree with gettin' maced down, but i'd be honest enough to admit that such an act also be barbaric and inappropriate. the UOF fer them police in no way dictated that this was the proper and right course to pursue.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Jefe

Well, why not just shoot them dead then?

Because pepper spraying them comes above "shooting them dead" on the "standard" police "Use of Force" continuum.

Originally Posted by Jefe

What the cops should have done is grabbed the protesters one by one, cuffed them, and arrested them. If any of them resisted arrest or lashed out, THEN you spray them.

I still don't understand the logic behind incapacitating someone who you want to move. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. If you want someone to move, use a cattle prod, lol.

Here's a "standard" police "Use of Force" continuum. I got this one from Wikipedia but you can call your local police department and ask them what theirs is and it will likely be exactly the same if not very similar. Some may include the use of a K9 down with batons and tasers, others may list tasers up with pepper spray. In all cases they'll list pepper spray above "hard hands" (which essentially is strong-arming a subject into compliance) and above "shooting them dead".

The reason for this is that pepper spray is painful but it doesn't present the potential to cause lasting pain or serious physical injury to the officer or the subject and it has the additional benefit of "taking the fight out of" the subject. If you've ever been gassed or pepper sprayed you'll know what I mean.

Pepper spray washes off with soap and water. Putting a joint lock on a non-compliant subject can result in permanent physical injury and/or disability.

1. Physical Presence
2. Soft Hands
3. Mace or Pepper Spray (A K-9 unit would fall here)
4. Hard Hands
5. Police Baton, Taser, etc.
6. Threat of Deadly Force
7. Deadly Force
Use of force continuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your question, "Why didn't the police physically engage them first?", is answered by, "Because the rules society has developed to govern a police officer's use of force indicate that (s)he is to resort to pepper spray before getting physical with a subject if such a step can be reasonably taken".

Last thing:

Pepper spray is for subduing violent attackers.

No, it isn't.

It's for subduing non-compliant subjects.

Originally Posted by soot

Because pepper spraying them comes above "shooting them dead" on the "standard" police "Use of Force" continuum.

I never cease to be amazed that crap like this has to be explained to so many people. Thank you for posting this.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Lutherf,

i think the correct response was just fer them police to use thar mighty muscles and start haulin' away them protesters one by one into thar paddy wagon and hurl'm into the brig. if such labor be too taxin' fer the police, then i'd suggest they get off the taxpayer teat and go seek other employment.

I'd also suggest fewer donuts & more excercise.

Originally Posted by Wagner

The protesters created a dangerous situation and the police were obligated to protect themselves, the protesters, and onlookers.

By huddling together on the ground?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

as the OP suggests, them officers were just protectin' themselves, as they were ringed by an impenetrable blockade 'o students who were seated and armed with textbooks and ipads. lord knows that if not fer them cans 'o mace and the assault they perpetrated, they'd have never been able to cut a clear path to escape from the dangerous force they were beset upon by.

You're probably right that these officers were in little real danger about being beaten to death by a 90 lbs Gender Studies major but the actions of these protesters still created a dangerous situation for the officers, onlookers and themselves. Fortunately these law enforcement officials made a far better assessment of the situation than you and avoided more serious injuries to everyone involved.

Originally Posted by soot

No, it isn't.

It's for subduing non-compliant subjects.

Soot, you can go ahead and list all the wiki definitions and standard police procedures you want, but pepper spray should only be used to subdue violent offenders, IMO.

As a sidenote, I'm a bit surprised at how subservient to police and the state we've become. Just because a cop tells me to move, doesn't necessarily mean I'm moving, especially if I know I'm within my rights. And if I'm not acting violently, I wouldn't expect to be maced. That's bullshit, and it tells me that we've handed over too much power to the police.

They seem not to be used to such situations. Got the riot gear, then reason goes down the drain.
The problem is the classic "Who watches the watchmen" dilema and a lack of representation on the protests side.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Soot, you can go ahead and list all the wiki definitions and standard police procedures you want, but pepper spray should only be used to subdue violent offenders, IMO.

Absolutely.

We're all entitled to our opinions and I respect your's as much as the next guy's.

It just seems as though this discussion has drifted into the realm of the cop having done something wrong here according to "the rules", not just according to personal opinions.

As a sidenote, I'm a bit surprised at how subservient to police and the state we've become. Just because a cop tells me to move, doesn't necessarily mean I'm moving, especially if I know I'm within my rights. And if I'm not acting violently, I wouldn't expect to be maced. That's bullshit, and it tells me that we've handed over too much power to the police.

In my opinion, you're wrong.

The cop was within his rights to ask those kids to move off. And the cops did ask them to move off.

From there it was up to the kids how far things were going to escalate.

If it were my kid I'd prefer that the cop mace him before he put him in a headlock and drag him off.

It's safer for the kid and safer for the cop.

And that's if it even comes to that.

My real preference would be that my kid does what the cop asks him. If I feel strongly enough that his rights have been violated I'll pursue legal action.

And if anything, that's what it's going to come down to in this case as well, isn't it?

What did those kids really gain by "standing up to the cops"?

Their day in court?

They could have had that anyway if they felt strongly enough.

Maybe not against the cops if they'd done immediately as they were asked, but at least against "the man" (being, the school official who ordered the cops to go out and clear the mob).

And that's really who we've become subservient to, isn't it? "The man."

The cops are just "the man's" trained attack dog (or whatever). "The man" is really the one keeping "the little guy" under his boot heel.

And in the case of this incident "the man" was the, probably very liberal, school administration that wanted the pack of idiots removed from their quad.

And this is coming from a guy who personally has ben in a full-on fist fight with cops and been pistol whiped and arrested at gunpoint because I'm not necessarially the subservient sort.

It was my decision to take that as far as I did. I made my "show of protest" because it was important to me at the time. But I recognize that the cops were within their rights to ask me to stop doing what I was doing, to get physical when I refused, and to escalate the violence when I resisted. I don't blame them and I'm not asking for anyone to take up for me against the "evil gestapo pigs".

A 200+ lb person laying on a 100lb college student with an elbow in the students eye wouldn't make for good press either. There's always going to be complaints (both legitimate and unreasonable) when force is used.

Originally Posted by Wagner

You're probably right that these officers were in little real danger about being beaten to death by a 90 lbs Gender Studies major but the actions of these protesters still created a dangerous situation for the officers, onlookers and themselves.

ahoy Wagner,

incorrect.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate