Comments
Brian Nguyen, a photojournalism student at UC Davis and a photographer from the campus newspaper has a Flickr account with a series of shots from yesterday’s events: click.
The key photo is here which is a 1000 words that utterly undercuts police claims that the pepper spraying was an act of necessary self-defense on the part of the officer.
h/t: Fallows.
Categories
Tags
@Ben Wolf: Indeed. It is sad and disturbing.
A law enforcement official who watched the clip called the use of force “fairly standard police procedure.”
Story: Occupy protests spread to college campuses
The protest was held in support of the overall Occupy Wall Street movement and in solidarity with protesters at the University of California, Berkeley who were jabbed by police with batons on Nov. 9.
Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department’s use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a “compliance tool” that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.
“When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”
After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of “active resistance” from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.
Also, your link NEVER mentions “self-defense”. I call BULLSH!T.
A law enforcement official who watched the clip called the use of force “fairly standard police procedure.”
Indeed. And this is part of the problem. I would recommend James Joyner’s post on this, as well as that by former police officer Peter Moskos
Also, your link NEVER mentions “self-defense”.
From the linked piece:
UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said officers used force out of concern for their own safety after they were surrounded by students.
“If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad,” said Chief Spicuzza. “Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.”
You are correct that the words “self-defense” aren’t used. However, that is the basic defense being offered.
.
@Steven L. Taylor: MORE bs. Your cop advocates ignoring his training and departmental UOF guidelines. Impressive. Pure opinion from him, and little wonder he is a “former” cop.
All-in-all, you are just an apologist for people who…confronted with a lawful order to move out of a public place they were obstructing…got a very measured response from the police.
Spraying them had two tactical purposes; one, mark them for arrest with dye, and, two, give them a really good reason to comply with future orders. This was for their safety, as well as the police.
@Ragspierre: You do realized that “calling bs” is not an argument, yes/
And, you are an apologist for using violence against peaceful protesters.
@Steven L. Taylor: You conceded my points.
So, yeah, I DO recognize that calling BS is not an argument…and that my actual argument prevailed.
IF you want to torture the language (and I KNOW you do) by calling pepper-spaying defiant, resisting fools “violence”…cool with me.
You, of course, invite responses by the police that are much LESS deliberate…though fully justified. Again, fine with me as to the use of force in the face of concerted lawlessness.
@Ragspierre: Steven schooled you. Accept it and slink away.
No,@Ben Wolf: Uh…no, Ben. Slinking is just not in me.
I walk upright.
And I NEVER confuse “being schooled” with someone employing the fallacy of resort to authority (Taylor’s cop’s rank opinion) or resort to another piece by another like-minded boob.
The cops NEVER evoked “self-defense” (Taylor’s quote cites the OPINION of the writer), as he admitted.
The police used a measured, deliberate tactic they were trained to use…largely developed to provide them something short of using riot batons.
1. The clear inference from the quotation provided above is that there was a safety concern.
2. All you are really doing is capitalizing words and “calling bs”.
3. This is less about an argument, per se, than it is about delineating positions. You believe it is justified to use violence against peaceful protesters and I do not. This, is seems to me, is the crystallization of the disagreement between us. Further, I think that it was a mistake to send the campus police in in the first place, especially after they had used batons on peaceful protesters earlier in the week. The UC Davis Chancellor would have been better off letting the protest die of inertia (it is, for example, Thanksgiving break next week).
Note the walk-back…
1. The clear inference from the quotation provided above is that there was a safety concern.
Yep. Which is why they were clearing the public byways.
“You believe it is justified to use violence against peaceful protesters and I do not.”
That is a lie. My position is that 1) pepper-spray is not “violence”, and 2) defiance in the face of a lawful order…and RESISTANCE (omg…capital letters…!!! Run away…!!!) is not “peaceful”.
If your highly altered…recent…position was what you meant, you should have written that.
My position is that 1) pepper-spray is not “violence”,
And here we disagree. I think it is especially definable as violence when the protest is peaceful.
Look: we quite clearly disagree. Why you feel it is necessary to assume you are winning is beyond me. If it make you feel better, more power to you.
A nation of laws or not? I think it interesting to note that the children pepper sprayed were the ones sitting with arms linked, blocking the sidewalk. They were hoping for a confrontation and provoked the incident. Pepper spray was the safest way from police viewpoint (the safety of the officers that is) for police to enforce the law.
If I get a mob of friends and peacefully block a highway….do I get to cry, “But I was peaceful!” when the police rightfully haul my stupid butt off?
