Just when it seemed that the Occupy movement was about to die out, a confrontation that was brewing all week exploded as police officers used pepper spray and other non-lethal means to expel protesters from an encampment on the campus Quad.
Officials report at least ten protesters arrested.
The protests began on Tuesday afternoon with officials reporting a crowd of about several hundred people on the Quad.
Dozens then marched to Mrak Hall, where about 50 people spent the night. Thursday brought another protest on the Quad, again drawing several hundred people, many of whom marched through the Memorial Union and Wellman Hall before returning to the Quad where, at midafternoon, the tents went up and remained despite warnings that overnight camping was prohibited.
“We have a responsibility to maintain a secure place for our students to learn, and for our faculty and staff to provide the excellent education we are known for,” Chancellor Linda Katehi said.
The tents were, nevertheless, allowed to stay up overnight, and the confrontation began Friday afternoon. Several YouTube videos caught some of the exchange as students sat on Centennial Walk on the Quad and chanted, “Don’t shoot students” as they confronted police in full riot gear.
It is unclear what necessitated the need to use pepper spray on the group that was simply sitting down nonviolently.
The crowd, after the pepper spray was applied, chanted, “Shame on you.” Students and protesters, as well as onlookers, were heard crying. Students and onlookers, dozens filming the incident, continued chants which included “Our University!” and “Leave our Quad!,” while surrounding the police nonviolently and following them as they left the Quad.
Chancellor Katehi has issued a statement, “The group did not respond to requests from administration and campus police to comply with campus rules that exist to protect the health and safety of our campus community. The group was informed in writing this morning that the encampment violated regulations designed to protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty. The group was further informed that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed.”
Her statement continued, “Following our requests, several of the group chose to dismantle their tents this afternoon and we are grateful for their actions. However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.”
“We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used,” she said.
“We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested. We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal,” the Chancellor added.
“We appreciate and strongly defend the rights of all our students, faculty and staff to robust and respectful dialogue as a fundamental tenet of our great academic institution. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe and secure environment,” she added.
Earlier in the week, Chancellor Katehi said that the university understands the frustration of students and faculty over tuition increases and budget cuts.
She added that, while the university respects everyone’s right to free speech, “We also expect our students, faculty and staff to behave with civility and appropriately in keeping with the Principles of Community.”
Nathan Brown, an Assistant Professor in the English Department, sent an open letter to the Chancellor stating, “I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus.”
He added, “You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.”
“Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students,” he said.
For weeks, Occupy Davis protesters have taken to Central Park. For the most part, the City of Davis has allowed them to remain in place. Late last week, a group of city officials approached the Occupiers to express some concerns about health and safety, including the fact that a tarp was a potential fire hazard.
The city also politely told the group that they may need to temporarily move so that mowing and regular maintenance can occur.
The result of the city’s lack of coercion is that Occupy Davis has been a fairly quiet and routine event, without the fireworks that have occurred elsewhere.
The heavy-handed approach of UC Davis officials and police officers will likely spawn more anger and outrage. The movement will likely grow and the level of anger and animosity will increase.
One of the organizers, graduate student Nick Perrone, criticized UC Davis and the police for taking an overly-aggressive stance in their dealing with the protesters.
“The communication between police and our liaison was sparse,” Perrone said. “They were not communicating well with student activists. We had no intention to antagonize the police.”
In all likelihood, this response by UC Davis will backfire. Already the public is recoiling from the images. One commenter on the Davis Enterprise site called the photos “chilling” and asked whether this was an appropriate use of force.
Another called them “horrifying,” stating, “The students were protesting peacefully, in a manner that would have been familiar to civil rights protestors throughout the past decades of American history. The police response, as captured in these images, was utterly extreme.”
Others justified it, saying that the protesters put themselves in danger by failing to comply with UC Davis rules.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Aha, you fixed it.
The students and Occupy people have the right to peacefully protest, but they don’t have the right to squat on property that doesn’t belong to them. They were asked to leave and they refused, the police did their job. End of story.
You are wrong Rusty, it is not the end of story, the story is just beginning because the story is now about how the police chose to do their job and whether it was necessary for them to do it at this point and in this manner. It is a massive mistake.
Chancellor Katehi has issued a statement, “The group did not respond to requests from administration and campus police to comply with campus rules that exist to protect the health and safety of our campus community. The group was informed in writing this morning that the encampment violated regulations designed to protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty.”
So this is how you protect the health and safety of students, by pepper spraying them?
Notice that her statement makes no mention of an investigation as to the decision to use pepper spray, a tacit endorsement of the tactics used by police.
it looks like the cops have gotten tired of doing their job the old fashioned way by carrying passive resistors away. Or maybe the goal was to punish the kids to deter others.
I hope as an act of full disclosure campus tours now mentions when showing the Quad, this is where your parents can expect you to be peppered sprayed sometime before graduation but after you take that mandatory US history requirement. It looks like the guides aren’t the only ones walking backwards it seems the entire university is headed in the wrong direction. I hope U.S. News and World Report sees the video and I doubt U.C. Davis will be climbing much higher in the college rankings while this conduct by campus police goes unchecked.
I call upon Chancellor Katahi, Governor Brown, The Regents of University of California, Darryl Steinberg, Lois Wolk, Mariko Yamada, members of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, Davis City Council and Trustees of the Davis Joint Unified School District to publicly condemn the use of chemical repression of protesters on the U.C. Davis campus when other means of civil control are easily accessible.
rusty49
This may be the end of the story for you. I suspect that David is right and this over zealous approach on the part of the police is very likely to backfire. Did the police have the legal right to proceed in this fashion ? Yes. But the most heavy handed approach is not necessarily the most efficacious. I suspect that in this case, a more prudent approach might have been judicious ignoring of the activity ,which given the weather and the upcoming holidays would likely have been self limited.
This action allows the protestors a certain validity in their claims of “police state” and will provoke sympathy and possibly attract more protestors and supporters to their cause. I doubt that was the intent of the police, but strongly suspect it will be the outcome.
“You are wrong Rusty, it is not the end of story, the story is just beginning because the story is now about how the police chose to do their job and whether it was necessary for them to do it at this point and in this manner. It is a massive mistake.”
Not a mistake, they nipped it in the bud before the students got entrenched in the plaza. The longer they were there the harder it was going to be to remove them. All across the country if the police had stopped the Occupiers from camping in the parks from the beginning we would’ve have the mess we have now. I say to the police, good job.
Should be “wouldn’t”
They didn’t nip it in the bud they turned into headline stories in every regional newspaper and news stories across the country. I got emails from friends on the east coast this morning asking me what the hell are they thinking.
rusty49
Well, it will certainly be interesting to see if you are right and this action “nipped it in the bud” or if this unleashes
a backlash with larger numbers of protestors, the inevitable adverse consequences of bad publicity, and just plain the distraction of this from the usual duties of Chancellor Katehi who heavens knows already has enough on her plate without having to manage damage control from this poorly conceived and executed police action.
So was Katehi just supposed to let them squat in the Quad for who know how long? What laws are supposed to be enforced and which ones are we to ignore? Who picks?
What if I had a house for sale near Central Park and potential buyers see the Occupy mess close by which decreases the resale value of my home?
Why not let them squat there until they get bored and go home?
At some point commonsense has to dictate that the response to an action and the amount of force used is somehow commensurate with the actual threat to public safety.
rusty49
Fair questions. And what about the other side ? When is government so non responsive and it’s policies so egregious as to warrant civil disobedience ? When there is taxation without representation ? When different policies apply based on the color of one’s skin ? When a government policy is clearly directed against a well defined and peaceful group as in the internment of the Japanese in WWII ? When a significant number of the population believe that a war is not morally justifiable as in the Viet Nam war ? Who picks ?
I would say that the right to peacefully protest including non violent civil disobedience is well established within our culture as a right of the citizenry.
This is how passive resistance works. Gandhi knew this, and exploited it fully. Civil laws must be broken if corrupt systems are to be broken. If it weren’t for Gandhi’s non-violent supporters being beaten and killed by police and soldiers while peacefully protesting, the movement to overcome British colonialism would never have succeeded. The police have played right into the Occupy movement’s hands. Ultimately, David is right. This is only the beginning.
“Why not let them squat there until they get bored and go home?”
What, 3,4, 5 months from now? Who knows how big the camp gets. Best to stop it before it gets legs.
I’ve read that many of the protesters weren’t even students, just rabble- rousers.
“What if I had a house for sale near Central Park and potential buyers see the Occupy mess close by which decreases the resale value of my home? “
Come on, that’s nonsense.
“What, 3,4, 5 months from now? Who knows how big the camp gets.”
The camps were shrinking around the country before the crackdowns.
“Best to stop it before it gets legs.”
They just gave it more legs than it would have ever had alone.
“I’ve read that many of the protesters weren’t even students, just rabble- rousers. “
Most of them were students from what I understand. A few were not. What difference does it make?
For rusty, who has (obviously) suffered a brain fart:
[i]AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or [b]the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/b][/i]
Medwoman, Crilly, David:
Oh so it’s okay to break laws as long as the protest favors a cause that you happen to agree with. As has been pointed out many times on this blog, what if the Tea Party was breaking laws to try and further their views? You liberals would be crying foul and you know it.
rusty49
“I’ve read that many of the protesters weren;t even students, just rabble-rousers,”
Two questions about this :
1) What is the source of your information ?
2) What is the relevance ? The university is a public institution and the quad is a public space. Non students have a right to be there, and non students have the same rights of freedom of speech and peaceful protest as do students.
Can rusty49 remember how the 1968 Democratic convention riots focused the nation on the abuse of police power and fueled future anti-draft and anti-war demonstrations ? The images of armored police pepper spraying kids plays much better for the demonstrators than it does for the Police .
Rusty:
I’m the guy who believes that the KKK has the right to march down mainstreet. I have criticized and even mocked the Tea Party, but I challenge you to find even one time when I argued against their right to free speech.
BTW, I look forward to your response to the first amendment post above.
[quote]The city also politely told the group that they may need to temporarily move so that mowing and regular maintenance can occur.[/quote]David (et al.), this IS, in my mind, an issue. If they don’t periodically move tents, allow for normal maintenance, etc., the City will be faced with the alternative of spending additional GenFund resources to repair the damage, or letting the damage remain. I guess there is a third alternative, which would be to exact even more concessions in salaries/benefits, etc., to pay for the additional costs.
@rusty49: The argument is not over whether the protestors camping on the quad should have been arrested or not, the argument is over whether the UCDPD used excessive force in their reaction to the protestors. Whether or not you agree with the protestors’ cause or their arrest is entirely outside the point. I recall from my own training as a adjunct to a CSU police department, a peace officer or police associate may only use a level of force appropriate to the threat presented. These students may have been in violation of the law and may have been a nuisance, but their nonviolent behavior certainly did not present a physical threat to the officers in question and certainly nowhere near a threat sufficient to motivate the use of riot control chemicals. The casual hosing-down of protestors was an abuse of force. As seen in the video, the protestors were not cooperating, but they were clearly not resisting. The police could have simply removed, arrested and cuffed each of the individuals sitting in a line, because the mere presence of riot-armed police was already clearly serving as a sufficient deterrent.
It is the increasingly casual attitude toward the use of violence by peace officers and other law enforcement representatives that disturbs me. This whole incident recalls abuse of tasers by UCLAPD to remove nonviolent (but uncooperative) protestors at the UCLA library a few years ago. Individuals had taser wires affixed to them and were instructed to “comply or you will be tased again,” basically being tortured by the UCLAPD into compliance. The similar abuse of force by the UCDPD officer depicted in the video could also be described as torture. The officer who engaged in that casual display of excessive force is a disgrace to his department, a disgrace to California peace officers, and I fervently hope he, and those who enabled him, will be dismissed in shame.
The photograph is far more powerful than any of your words, David. It speaks volumes.
Aggrieved students have the right to file citizen complaints with UCD, and UCD is legally required to investigate them. This is apart from, and in addition to, their right to civilly litigate the incident.
Many police agencies in California prohibit the use of chemical agents against passively resisting ‘suspects’ and for good reason. Passive civil disobedience is an intentional challenge to authority to overreact to the provocation. Authority, in our society and under our laws, has the obligation to respond in direct proportion to the degree of the actual threat posed. This can be very tricky for law enforcement agencies in practice, but it’s part of the reason why being a peace officer is such a difficult job.
I’ve already received some emails from students complaining about what occurred yesterday. Some of the students were under the misapprehension that is was City of Davis police officers who did this. I was not there, but my understanding is that it was solely UCDPD.
I am willing to provide procedural information to any affected UCD students, employees and staff.
Aaronson(at)sonic.net
David
I actually think that rusty49 makes a valid point. There is no doubt that protestors can have adverse effects on people living nearby their encampments. I listened to some of the comments of people with apartments and businesses near Zucotti park and clearly there were inconveniences and the potential for economic adverse consequences. However, this is a matter of values. Does the economic value of a given property for a limited amount of time trump the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? We live in a democracy which is frequently a messy process with conflicts of interests and values. Would any of us have it any other way ?
Rusty–it has nothing to do with “it’s okay to break laws”. Of course it’s not okay in the sense you describe. That’s exactly why it must be done by the Occupy protesters. The point isn’t to break laws for the sake of breaking laws, it’s to focus attention. It’s a tactic. It works. And the more violently Katehi and her riot police overreact, the more focus there is. And as for the property value of your hypothetical house, that’s EXACTLY the attitude that’s being protested against: that somehow a few thousand dollars of your equity appreciation is more important than hunger, jobs, education, fighting corporate corruption, reducing income disparity, and preserving the democracy that we so cherish. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of people LOST their homes completely because of Wall Street greed?
For rusty, who has (obviously) suffered a brain fart:
****Where are you on that one Don Shor?*****
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
For Neutral who obviously didn’t read my post:
I said peaceful protests are fine with me, they just can’t create a camp on property that’s not theirs.
“What if I had a house for sale near Central Park and potential buyers see the Occupy mess close by which decreases the resale value of my home?
Come on, that’s nonsense.”
Not nonsense at all. I wouldn’t buy a house with that in view. Who knows how long the city let’s them stay?
[quote]the quad is a public space[/quote]This is an untrue statement. University property belongs to the University of California. The “right” to be on the campus grounds is revocable at any time.
There are/were plaques to this effect on many entrys to the campus. Among other reasons, is to give campus authorities to remove people who might pose a threat to students, faculty, and/or staff.
Results of a Google search 10 minutes ago for “Occupy UC Davis”: [i]About 856,000 results[/i]
Katehi made a very serious error. The acts of the protesters are protected:
[i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or [b]the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/b][/i]
[Whew, I think I managed to get this one past the censors. Safe as milk, that’s the ticket.]
Medwoman: The problem with the value argument is that it is a temporary protest, property values are not going to be contingent on that. If it becomes an issue, hold onto your property an extra few months. Now isn’t the best time to sell anyway.
rusty49
“What if it were the Tea Party ….”
No, Rusty, I do not know that I would be crying foul. Would I agree with their point of view, no. Would I agree with their right to express it in a non violent manner ? Absolutely. I even agreed with the Supreme Court decision favoring the Westboro Baptist Church right to hold up signs reading ” God hates faggots” , “God hates Jews”,
“Thank God for 9/11”. For me, freedom of speech applies to all, not just those whose messages I find in agreement with my philosophy.
I would appreciate it if you would address issues, not tell me what I do and do not know about my own thought processes.
Medwoman:
“Does the economic value of a given property for a limited amount of time trump the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? We live in a democracy which is frequently a messy process with conflicts of interests and values. Would any of us have it any other way ?”
Medwoman, would you feel that way if you had an encampment of urinating and defecating protesters living in front of your medical offices causing you to lose much of your business?
@Bob Aaronson: Thanks for informative post, and thank you for reinforcing my point.
@Medwoman & everyone else reacting to Rusty49: You’re rising to flamebait. Rusty’s trying to drag the topic of UCD brutality off into his personal realm of slagging the 99% movement. That’s not what this thread’s about. I must remind you all not to feed the trolls.
“I must remind you all not to feed the trolls.”
So Ethan, if you have a different opinion and don’t agree with you then you must be a troll. How condescending.
Condescending? Nah. FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(internet)
I don’t think rusty is a troll. Please be civil, everyone.
“Medwoman, would you feel that way if you had an encampment of urinating and defecating protesters living in front of your medical offices causing you to lose much of your business? “
So is it OK with you if Planned Parenthood’s security guards pepper spray the demonstrators blocking their door with 24″X32″ photos of aborted fetuses and harassing their patients ?
The picture says it all.
I think if that picture goes viral, the protesters will get enormous support.
No matter how people rationalize what was done. The picture speaks volumes.
Ethan
I agree with you in spirit, but do not think that name calling ( troll ) produces any positive results.
rusty49
I empathize with Ethan’s sentiment because it is frustrating when you post ever more extreme situations to justify your point. I don’t believe that I ever have posted anything that would support public urination and defecation.
Nor did any of the pictures indicate that any of the protestors at UCD were urinating and defecating in public.
What I have defended is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the tradition of non violent civil disobedience. I am more than happy to respond to any reasoned arguments against this stand. I think it is counter productive to post obvious straw man arguments against positions that no one is advocating.
[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
I didn’t know Congress has gotten involved in this Davis incident. Are they planning to pass some restriction on these rights, to add to their past restrictions in defiance of this amendment (campaign finance laws, lobbyist restrictions etc)?
” the quad is a public space
This is an untrue statement. University property belongs to the University of California.”
… but who/what is the University but the people of California. Reclaiming and sharpening the definition of the people’s open space and in doing so, their POWER is what the occupy movement is all about. Non-violent direct action is increasing becoming the order of the day, something that our Council should consider very seriously if they attempt to deny Davis voters their rights(power) at the ballot box concerning the water rate hike.
Correction… redefining and sharpening the definition of the peoples PUBLIC space…….
The goal of the occupiers is to provoke a violent reaction from the police so that they can play at being victims. For this reason they scored a win in the event that happened yesterday.
The university should not respond violently. Rather it should take students that break the law and send them to student judicial affairs, the same way they do for cheating and other violations of university regulations. Violations should result in suspension, fines or expulsion depending on circumstance.
Rusty, the cops are supposed to dispassionately enforce the law not mete out punishment. They should have simply arrested the students for failing to disperse. Spraying them was the error the cops made, defending the indefensible action of the cops is a foolish errand.
It is one thing to go for a “Kodak moment”… a heroic act would have been to attempt to interfere with the officer to prevent the spraying… we need more heroes…
JR: as you likely know the courts have connected most government entities with the 1st amendment through the 14th. As such, the Davis City Council could not violate the 1st Amendment either.
I would note that since UC is a public university system, the California constitution states in Section 3 of Article 1: “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” And Section 2 states, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.”
davisite2… I’m saying what the law IS, not what you, I, or others think it [b]should[/b] be. Your response to me was perceived as indicating I had no right to share a ‘fact’. A ‘civil’ response would have been “thanks for the info… we should change the law”, or, “thanks for the info, and that’s another act of civil disobedience we should take.
When I was a young teenager growing up across the street from UCSD, there was an anti-war protest. Students occupied the main administration building with a sit-down protest, and refused to leave. The San Diego police had formed a massive phalanx just on the edge of the university property. The campus provost ordered the police to stay off campus property, and then shut off the power and water to the building and campus police refused to allow any provisions to be brought to the protesters. They ate all the candy in the vending machines, used the toilets until the water ran out, and eventually gave up and left the building peacefully.
You just seal them off and wait them out.
“…a heroic act would have been to attempt to interfere with the officer to prevent the spraying… we need more heroes…” Did that once, about 40 years ago and vertebra L5 has never been the same . The most disturbing thing I have seen in news coverage is the robot-like motions of the UC Police spraying protesters like they were working the line at Ford . The canned statement from the Chief was also lacking in affect . As both a parent and Californian, this behavior is of great concern to me .
J.R.
Agreed. Protestors need to be aware of and willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions. What one should not be expected to anticipate or endure is unprovoked violence. This is what the video clearly documents.
If my son or daughter had been one of these protestors, I would have been proud of their choice to act on their moral principles and exercise their right to freedom of speech and assembly, fully supportive of their actions, and supportive of what ever “suspension, fines, or expulsion depending on circumstances” that the university would legally impose. I would support their being gently but firmly picked up and removed. What I could not support is their being subjected to physical violence in the form of a chemical irritant.
I do not believe that anyone is arguing the right of the police to remove people encamped illegally. It is the tactics used that are under dispute here.
Speaking of the police blowing it by pepper spraying peaceful passive resisters, it appears from my viewing of lengthy you tube video, that they also blew it tactically, allowing themselves to become surrounded by protesters who backed them up and eventually [i]allowed the cops to leave[/i].
One panicky looking officer was seen raising his weapon to a firing position, while standing less than 10 feet from protesters. A fellow officer restrained him by pulling him back by his shirt. I’m told the paint ball type weapons used by these cops shoot rubber projectiles. That’s a far cry from the live rounds used at Kent State, but a rubber projectile from 10 feet could easily kill a protester.
Looks like the UCDPD came imperiously close to turning a peaceful demonstration into a full blown riot!
I also noted in my viewing that there appear to be a few Davis cops in the mix. Can we hear comments from folks who were there?
I am impressed that a woman had the “gonadal fortitude” to do what many men would not have had the “courage” to do.
I reiterate: using chemical weapons on nonviolent noncooperative protestors constituted a use of excessive force. I plan on petitioning UCDPD about the officer who perpetrated this abuse, Lt. John Pike, and demand they dismiss him in disgrace. I encourage the protestors, and their families, to press civil and criminal charges for the abuse they suffered.
Many of us are old enough to remember that we have all been here before, the ‘law and order” folks vs those who would challenge the growing violence and the union of corporate and state power,both of which are fundamental to the definition of fascism. Is the growing “Occupy” movement the first wave of an ocean of direct action that will lead us once again from the edge of the political abyss?
The Sacramento Bee account of the police action yesterday quotes Annette Spicuzza, UC Davis police chief, as saying that officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them. Further:
“‘There was no way out of that circle,’ Spicuzza said. ‘They were cutting the officers off from their support. It’s a very volatile situation.'”
I wasn’t there, and have only watched the video posted here, but that account makes it sound like the students were actively surrounding the police in a threatening manner, and not simply sitting peacefully on the ground.
If this video is a true reflection of what happened, the pepper spray seems to be overkill, and UCD is engaging in a CYA maneuver.
While it is true people have the right to freedom of assembly, there are limitations to that right – reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. College campuses can create free speech zones, but many colleges/universities actually restrict freedom of speech.
From californiawatch.org:
“A new report from a national free speech advocacy organization found most of the four-year universities it surveyed had speech codes that substantially limit students’ freedom of speech, including dozens of colleges in California.
In its annual report, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education surveyed speech code policies at the top 100 national universities and top 50 liberal arts colleges from U.S. News and World Report, along with 237 colleges the organization labeled as “major public universities.”
The “Spotlight on Speech Codes 2011″ report gave colleges a red-, yellow- or green-light rating based on how much their policies restrict free speech.”
UC Davis is rated as a red light site.
Since Davis is one of the campuses that apparently restrict freedom of speech, the quad is probably not a “free speech zone” as is being assumed here. That means the university had every legal right to remove the students from the quad if they saw fit. However, it is not clear to me or anyone else why the use of pepper spray was “necessary”. The police could have simply cuffed the students, put them under arrest, and removed them gently. There did not seem to be any violence on the part of the students, and the use of pepper spray can be dangerous if the person is allergic (there have been deaths attributed to pepper spray). To me the use of pepper spray in the circumstances seems extremely unreasonable. These are students, most away from home for the first time, young and inexperienced. Kids are not always sensible to the dangers they face… and they don’t necessarily expect law enforcement to be the source of that danger…
Ah it’s mostly UC WASP-humanities students. Spray ’em, cowboy!
J-k. It’s wrong. The cops should be charged with excessive force,etc (it washes away after 6 hours or so, ese). But the …UC student-bourgeois are not exactly…workers are they (one reason some unions have chosen not to back the Occupy movement).
Ethan
A question. What standing do you have to petition UCDPD ? Are you a lawyer ? Do we “regular folks” have a n effective mechanism for protesting this action ? I would not go so far as to call for this officer’s dismissal. People can make mistakes. I would prefer that this action were judged with respect to the totality of his career and whether he was implementing orders from higher up, no matter how odious they are in my eyes. However, I would be very interested in hearing what you feel is the most effective means for regular citizens to express their concerns about this matter. I believe it is very important for those of us who strongly object to this action to voice our concerns.
medwoman
[quote]If my son or daughter had been one of these protestors, I would have been proud of their choice to act on their moral principles and exercise their right to freedom of speech and assembly, fully supportive of their actions, and supportive of what ever “suspension, fines, or expulsion depending on circumstances” that the university would legally impose.[/quote]
Fair enough, but if it was my son or daughter I would be embarrassed. I would see it as a sign of bad parenting on my part. I see the demonstrators as having a mixture of motivations, some idealistic but ignorant, and some manipulative and having hidden motivations, motivations which few of us would support if they were open about them. You all know some of the extremist groups that gravitate to these events and try to manipulate them in certain directions.
On another point, it seems to me that part of the reason these events constantly blow up is that the demonstrators are not generally paying a real price for civil disobedience. They are given slaps on the wrist and told how wonderful they are by university administrators and local officials, not to mention their admirers in the press. Then when the cycle eventually escalates they try to get the city or university to overreact and become violent.
The tea party protests showed that it is possible to protest without breaking the law and to follow up the process with political action that has real consequences. I’m somewhat baffled by the attitude that several posters here have that breaking the law (civil disobedience) is required to make a political point.
” I’m somewhat baffled by the attitude that several posters here have that breaking the law (civil disobedience) is required to make a political point.”
Yeah who do they think they are trying to emulate Ghandi, MLK, Caesar Chavez and the like. How embarrassing.
“The tea party protests showed that it is possible to protest without breaking the law and to follow up the process with political action that has real consequences. I’m somewhat baffled by the attitude that several posters here have that breaking the law (civil disobedience) is required to make a political point. “
While I have not followed Tea Party protests enough to give specifics, I do seem to recall Tea Party advocates at
town hall meetings shouting down speakers with whom they did not agree. While this may not constitute illegal activity such as was seen by these “occupiers”, I believe that it is reprehensible to effectively take away someone else’s freedom of speech.
With regard to civil disobedience, I do not believe that it is “required to make a political point” however, as in the examples cited by David, I do believe that it has frequently been the only available and most effective means to achieve necessary societal change by those who have otherwise been effectively disenfranchised.
[quote]Yeah who do they think they are trying to emulate Ghandi, MLK, Caesar Chavez and the like. How embarrassing.[/quote]
You left out Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, the Westboro Baptist Church and the Klu Klux Klan.
I tend to doubt these kids have those figures in mind, but the last two are good examples of organizations that have the right to assemble and march when we may disagree with their message.
The bottom line at least for me, is whether you agree or disagree with the message, when you believe they have the right to assemble on the quad, the response by authority was over the top to the threat they represented and counterproductive to the interests of those in power.
[quote]Yeah who do they think they are trying to emulate Ghandi, MLK, Caesar Chavez and the like. How embarrassing. [/quote]Such a paradigm of civility.
One of my former employees was sprayed while sitting on the ground and arrested. I’m proud of him.
J.R. is clearly just another Troll on this list. I find it preposterous that he can’t understand the distinction between Ghandi, MLK, and Caesar Chavez and the Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-ils of the world. That leads me to believe that he’s either trying to be purposely provocative, or he’s unbelievably ignorant.
Also, please remember that of the three figures David mentioned, at least two of whom were, as I understand it, inspired by another from the mid-east ~ 2100 years ago, and were prepared to subject themselves, non-violently,to imprisonment, and all four were prepared to lay their lives down for what they believed. Three of the four had their lives taken from them by those who thought they were a threat to the status quo.
J.R.
“You left out Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, the Westboro Baptist Church and the Klu Klux Klan. “
I fail to see your point in stating that these individuals and groups were “left out”. With the exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, all of the others listed resorted to violence. You seem to not be acknowledging the difference between peacefully and non violently protesting and individuals willing to resort to mass murder, lynchings and the like to impose their will on others. Was this purely rhetorical, or do you honestly not see a difference ? I have not noticed any posters today defending violent protest. What I object to is the use of needless force in the form of an irritative and potentially dangerous chemical substance against peaceful, albeit non cooperative protestors.
In several of the videos on YouTube, a City of Davis police officer, unadorned by riot gear, can be seen smiling and chuckling while calmly speaking to camera people, UC cops and students . He doesn’t seem threatened by the protesters .
@medwoman: I am not a lawyer. I am not a policeman. I have had some police training with regard to levels of force and their appropriate application. However, I have family who are police. My grandmother was a police officer, and my mother was a police chaplain. I have seen the policies regarding application of force used by police departments statewide, and I am familiar with the policies on the application of force delineated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both of these say rather clearly that one can legally only respond with a level of force appropriate to the level of threat presented. For example, it is not appropriate to respond with lethal force (i.e. shoot to kill) to someone 100 yards away who is threatening to punch you. Lethal force is appropriate only to a lethal threat, disabling force is appropriate only to a threat of injury, and so on.
Here is what I recommend for average folks (myself included): First, research the topic. Obtain the police training manuals for the police departments in concern (UCDPD) and become familiar with them. If this requires a FOIA request, make a FOIA request. In your research, read and become familiar with state and federal laws governing the application of force and the penalties for its misapplication. Get informed so you know what the hell you’re talking about.
Second, once informed on the topic, begin writing letters to all appropriate legal authorities who have the ability to investigate and/or punish (e.g., UCDPD Chief, County DA, State Attorney General, State & Federal congresscritters), stating your concern and citing the research you’ve conducted.
Third, organize. Share your research with others and get them to do the same thing. Contact legal organizations who can back you up, such as the ACLU. File class actions if necessary.
[quote] the response by authority was over the top to the threat they represented and counterproductive to the interests of those in power.[/quote]
While I’m not going to jump to conclusions about what happened yesterday, unlike many of the posters here, I agree that the above statement by DG appears to be correct.
medwoman. What I meant by
[quote]I fail to see your point in stating that these individuals and groups were “left out”[/quote]
is that when one starts listing other groups that were in completely different situations to justify breaking the law in the current occupations, it makes no more sense than it does to list an odious collection of groups. Namely it’s an example of uncritical thinking.
Sorry Crilly if that went over your head.
To quote my wife, a UCD Alumna: I’m utterly ashamed of my alma mater today. Lt. Pike hosing down nonviolent students with pepper spray on campus is going to be the face of UCD in my mind for a long time. Whether or not you agree with the various “Occupy” protests, this is not an appropriate level of force for sitting on the ground quietly and not moving a tent fast enough, any more so than a meter maid tasing you for not moving your vehicle out of 15-minute parking fast enough is an appropriate level of force.
Apparently, JR, you need to read up on the history of civil disobedience. Just like the Occupy movement, Ghandi, MLK, and Caesar Chavez used civil disobedience to effect political change and create social justice. If that’s what you think Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-il were about, then it’s easy to see why this entire discussion has gone over your head.
Mike Harrington: “One of my former employees was sprayed while sitting on the ground and arrested. I’m proud of him.”
I’m proud of the cop that sprayed your former employee and sent him to the paddy wagon.
Yeah who do they think they are trying to emulate Ghandi, MLK, Caesar Chavez and the like. How embarrassing.
sorry but the oakland protests turned violent, or did you miss that! They had deaths already in these camps. what you also miss is people have the right to free speech so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. There is also something called disturbing the peace.
Sigh. Please be civil, everyone. (I recognize the irony of using that term.)
91 Octane
What are you doing, now they’re going to label you a troll. How dare you post a dissenting thought in the midst of this liberal love fest?
91 Octane
“I’m proud of the cop that sprayed your former employee and sent him to the paddy wagon.”
And are you also proud that one of these completely nonviolent protestors sustained sufficient injury from chemical burns to end up not in the “paddy wagon” but at a hospital for medial treatment.
If what the police were really doing was an attempt to “protect and defend” then why, in the face of non violent protestors did they feel the need to use a chemical capable of the following ? Severe burns to mucous membranes including injuries to the eyes, respiratory tract ( potentially extremely dangerous to those with respiratory illnesses such as the very common asthma), potential for triggering arrhythmias. From the footage shot, I do not believe that any effort was made to ensure that excessive injury did not occur.
Again, the issue is not the legality of the actions of the protestors. Nor is the issue that of the right of the police to clear the protestors and their encampment, or to make arrests. What is at issue here is the excessive use of force.
also, note how the group calls itself “occupy.” in other words, take something over. Sorry, but that stated goal has nothing to do with free speech or assembly. so let us cut the crap.
[quote]DMG: …when you believe they have the right to assemble on the quad…[/quote]
This premise, based on my research, is completely incorrect. I would suggest you go back and reread my post…
“..would you feel that way if you had an encampment of urinating and defecating protesters living in front of your medical offices causing you to lose much of your business? “
In case you missed it the first time, is it OK with you if Planned Parenthood’s security guards pepper spray the demonstrators blocking their door with 24″X32″ photos of aborted fetuses and harassing their patients ?
[quote]sorry but the oakland protests turned violent, or did you miss that! They had deaths already in these camps. what you also miss is people have the right to free speech so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. There is also something called disturbing the peace.[/quote]
There is an important point here: the quad was not likely a “free speech zone”, so the university had every right to eject the students. It is the manner in which they did it that troubles me. Nevertheless, even if the quad were a designated “free speech zone”, it would not be a designated “free CAMP zone”…
David – is there a way to get the Use of Force manual/policy of the UC Davis police? Has anyone seen it?
From The Bee, “‘There was no way out of that circle,’ Spicuzza said. ‘They were cutting the officers off from their support. It’s a very volatile situation.'”
If being encircled by protesters, onlookers and whoever else was the concern, in which ways does spraying the linked-armed and seeming peaceful protesters lessen the threat to the officers regarding said situation? To show to the circled masses that they too could be pepper sprayed next?
And… “She said officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them. They used a sweeping motion on the group, per procedure, to avoid injury, she said.”
This statement (as reported in The Bee) seems to suggest the officer was spraying the circled individuals, not the protesters who were on the ground w/their arms linked.
A student is said to have stated that the “students then [after the pepper spraying] circled the police and tried to hold their ground. The police eventually left.”
So, according to this protester, the use of pepper spray resulted in the encircling of the officers, following which no one else was apparently pepper sprayed, according to the article.
The Bee says this re: officers’ departments: “Shortly before 4 p.m., about 35 officers from UC Davis and other UC campuses as well as the city of Davis responded to the protest, said Annette Spicuzza, UC Davis police chief.”
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/19/4066159/10-occupy-protesters-arrested.html#ixzz1eBOSaGPZ
Come on, who are you liberals trying to kid here. You know full well that if the police had handcuffed the protesters and had to drag them away you would all still be on here this morning complaining about police brutality.
medwoman: And are you also proud that one of these completely nonviolent protestors sustained sufficient injury from chemical burns to end up not in the “paddy wagon” but at a hospital for medial treatment.
he assumed the risk before breaking the law. that was his choice.
“Again, the issue is not the legality of the actions of the protestors. Nor is the issue that of the right of the police to clear the protestors and their encampment, or to make arrests. What is at issue here is the excessive use of force.”
no, we would want to adress the legality of the actions of the protestors, now would we? let us just sweep that under the rug because it is not convenient.
Question: excessive force as defined by whom? you? the vanguard?
“Question: excessive force as defined by whom? you? the vanguard?”
91 octane, pepper spray sure beats the hell out of a baton to the side of the head.
@91 Octane: You may have also missed the part where a nonviolent protestor/Iraq war veteran was shot in the face with an Oakland PD tear gas grenade. He was almost instantly put into a coma. And maybe you also missed it when other nonviolent protestors converged on the stricken vet to render first aid, how an officer of OPD casually tossed a concussion grenade over the barricades and into the group. The violence in the Occupy camps that Hannity and the other right-wing media pundits have been ranting about is neither widespread nor common. An Occupy protester has FAR more to fear from inappropriate application of force by the various law enforcement agencies than from others within their own camps. Feel however you want about the Occupy movement, but the issue continues to be about inappropriate police response to nonviolent noncooperation.
@Rusty49: If the shoe fits… Look, rational discussion’s one thing. Trolling’s another. You keep consistently evading and disregarding points you don’t like and then pitching out little smokebombs to try to derail the discussion onto a topic you (think you) can win on emotional grounds. This is the definition of trolling. So now you back into a corner and deride folks as being “liberals”. How classic. I don’t think I’ve said anything that can be construed as “liberal”, because I recall the Tea Party was concerned about police violence — hysterical, in fact– though they were never really victims of it. Excessive force by police officers is an issue that transcends the political spectrum and political parties. Please consider my reference to you as a “troll” as a check on sloppy argumentation, not an invitation to martyrdom.
Second, with regard to your question about excessive force: have you bothered to actually *read* any of those posts I made about that very topic??
“You know full well that if the police had handcuffed the protesters and had to drag them away you would all still be on here this morning complaining about police brutality.”
There’s a difference re: the issues…lawfully detaining or arresting someone vs. the level of force used by officers given the threat they are faced w/in a situation, such as this one. There’s also a parallel discussion re: what rights do students/citizens with respect to free speech/assembly taking place at a public university. But, then again, I suppose it’s always about “liberals” and all that, right?
It’s Saturday. I think I am going to see if I can buy lunch for some of those student Occupiers and thank them for their service.
Ethan, your posts could just as easily be considered trollish, it all depends on what side of the issue you’re on. You said earlier I was just flamebaiting and to ignore me but yet here you are responding. Can’t help yourself I guess.
Dear Chancellor Katehi: I am a 1984 graduate from UCD. I just want you to know how ashamed I am of your decision to pepper spray those peaceful protesters who were seated on the ground and not threatening anyone. I also want you to know that I just doubled the check I was going to send to the ACLU for annual renewal. I hope the ACLU uses my extra funds to sue the heck out of all of you for what those copes did. Best, Michael Harrington, former member, Davis CC.
Ethan: [quote]Third, organize. Share your research with others and get them to do the same thing.[/quote]
Didn’t you get the memo from SM? Posters on this particular forum need no such substantiation, if they don’t ‘feel’ like it.
Also, very briefly your suggested standard re: use of force is not legally correct.
ERM – Once again thank you for citing pertinent facts & constitutional principles. The question continues to be – will henceforth, our fellow posters comprehend the law, rather than rely more on personal/lay opinion?
medwoman wrote: [quote]Again, the issue is not the legality of the actions of the protestors. Nor is the issue that of the right of the police to clear the protestors and their encampment, or to make arrests. What is at issue here is the excessive use of force.[/quote]
Sorry, but all of the above is most certainly at issue…
Ireland: @91 Octane: You may have also missed the part where a nonviolent protestor/Iraq war veteran was shot in the face with an Oakland PD tear gas grenade. He was almost instantly put into a coma. And maybe you also missed it when other nonviolent protestors converged on the stricken vet to render first aid, how an officer of OPD casually tossed a concussion grenade over the barricades and into the group. The violence in the Occupy camps that Hannity and the other right-wing media pundits have been ranting about is neither widespread nor common. An Occupy protester has FAR more to fear from inappropriate application of force by the various law enforcement agencies than from others within their own camps. police response to nonviolent noncooperation.
Feel however you want about the Occupy movement, but the issue continues to be about inappropriate police.
I saw the video where they tried to shut down burger king (of all things!) disrupting a group of poor people simply trying to serve meals to their customers. Disrupting the customers simply trying to order food. They tried to use force to shut down wall street. They take over parks. They are infringing on the rights of others. That is not non-violent.
“Feel however you want about the Occupy movement, but the issue continues to be about inappropriate police…”
no, the issue is when protests go too far – and become a threat to public health and safety. When they infringe on the rights of others as in the above examples. They take over the UC Davis Quad, thus the quad area cannot be used by others. Then they are upset when they are dealt with. They also disrupt local economies, preventing us from getting back on track economically.
Ireland: though they were never really victims of it.
because the tea party never took their protests to the same level the occupiers did.
For what it’s worth there is a petition to request that Chancellor Katehi resign her position.
http://www.change.org/petitions/police-pepper-spray-peaceful-uc-davis-students-ask-chancellor-katehi-to-resign
Chancellor Katehi has announced she is forming a task force to examine these questions:
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/uc-davis-chancellor-pepper-spraying-task-force.html?track=latiphoneapp[/url]
Her statement from the UCD website:
[url]http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/messages/2011/taskforce_111911.html[/url]
Trouble in the Davis Valley PTA! Shocking.
Sedate the cops and protesters, and UC apparatchiks as well.
“no, the issue is when protests go too far – and become a threat to public health and safety. When they infringe on the rights of others as in the above examples. They take over the UC Davis Quad, thus the quad area cannot be used by others. Then they are upset when they are dealt with.”
Were the protesters not allowing the quad to be used by others? Was there a previously scheduled activity that they were interfering with?
“They also disrupt local economies, preventing us from getting back on track economically.”
I think you could apply this to the police. There were several other alternatives the police could have done that would have produced a lower profile result. Don Shor cited a protest in San Diego in the 1960’s as one example.
They attempted to remove the protesters on a Friday afternoon when plenty of folks were awake. They could have dispensed with the pepper spray and physically removed them after midnight on Saturday or Sunday. They could have physically removed tents but left the protesters to hang out, turned on all the sprinklers at night. They could have waited out the protesters through to Friday after Thanksgiving, then removed them when hardly anyone was around to watch or care.
The result is that UCD now has a heightened negative reputation. This affects alumni and corporate donations, student applications, parent perceptions, hiring of new faculty (if any is going on), and a negative view of the administration by the employees. There is an economic cost to the impaired judgement of a police officer who was itching to try out the pepper spray. Maybe you think, “so what”, but it is a certainty that the administration is now doing more damage control than would have been otherwise necessary. Somewhere along the way, that means inefficient use of tax dollars.
It’s interesting that you normally take pleasure in scorching institutions, such as UCD, on this blog, but can’t seem to recognize that the police here behaved with gross incompetence. Why is that?
From the Chancellor’s lastest: “To this effect, I am forming a task force made of faculty, students and staff to review the events and provide to me a thorough report within 90 days. As part of this, a process will be designed that allows members of the community to express their views on this matter. This report will help inform our policies and processes within the university administration and the Police Department to help us avoid similar outcomes in the future. While the university is trying to ensure the safety and health of all members of our community, we must ensure our strategies to gain compliance are fair and reasonable and do not lead to mistreatment.”
What about discipline for the officer? What about a moratorium on the use of pepper spray?
91:”because the tea party never took their protests to the same level the occupiers did. “
No because many of the tea party people were packing guns. Its a different level for sure.
Again, the issue is not the legality of the actions of the protestors. Nor is the issue that of the right of the police to clear the protestors and their encampment, or to make arrests. What is at issue here is the excessive use of force.
Sorry, but all of the above is most certainly at issue…
I apologize for not making my position clear although, I thought perhaps it could have been inferred from the fact that I said I would have fully supported the arrest and gentle removal of my own children from such a protest if they were breaking the law. I did not mean to imply that law breaking was not an issue. I have already stated that I have no problem with the arrest of any of the protestors who are breaking the law. This is why I said I did not consider it an issue. It is, to me not open to contention that lawbreakers can be arrested. That is self evident. What is at issue for me is the use of excessive force. And just as badly, the very weak explanation of the police chief of why being surrounded, and therefore presumably vulnerable, would lead to the need to pepper spray the least intimidating of the protestors, namely those sitting passively on the ground. I can hardly see this particular groups of students, seated with arms linked as an imminent threat to a riot geared group of police. This may be merely opinion, but I think a viewing of the action would support this opinion.
Sorry Mike, giving more to the ACLU doesn’t mean anything to Katahi but giving less to the Alumni Association will certainly get her attention.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the 9th Circuit court decision that came out from a Humboldt case. In that case, some may remember, protestors sitting were treated to pepper spray in the eyes. The ninth circuit ruled that going straight to pepper spray, before arresting the person, was unlawful police force.
Maybe Don Shor can find the court decision. I agree with most on this forum, I believe this was a tactical mistake someone higher up on the UCDPD chain made- they should have referenced the Humboldt case first.
And Rusty, no matter your political persuasion, use of pepper spray on people sitting, without arresting them first, is not proper police work. Doesn’t matter if it the Tea Party or Mad Hatter Party or whatever.
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1178646.html[/url]
I am sure that Chancellor Katehi did not expect that her foolish call to action would put UC Davis as a leading negative story on such national media outlets as the Huffington Post and Yahoo news. Such ham-handed actions by administrators and police now reflect poorly on a fine institution. The students themselves, however, comported themselves well and demonstrated restrained behavior in the light of outrageous tactics.
I watched the video, a few observations…
At the beginning, an officer, who has stripes identical to the officer who used the pepper spray on his left sleeve, exchanges words with one of the protestors. The protestor says something to the effect of “Just making sure, you’re shooting us for sitting here…alright that’s fine…” The officer then responds with what sounds like, “I’m just telling you right now…” and points presumably to the group of officers behind him. I can’t make out what else was said by the officer to the protestor.
At about 2:18, an officer on the right portion of the screen (face-to-face w/sitting protestors) walks over and begins to grab the arm of a female sitting with the protesters. It also appears as though other officers on the right side of the screen were going to assist him or respond similarly to others sitting there. As the officer’s grabbing her arm, it seems like the officer with the pepper spray can (who ultimately sprayed the protestors) says something to the officers and motions with his pepper spray can as if to move back. The officer looks up, releases the female’s arm and walks away along with the other officers. The officer with the pepper spray can then walks over the sitting protestors and proceeds to spray them.
Thanks for the citation, Don. The court’s findings should make it clear to J.R., Rusty49, 91Octane and the others railing against the “law breakers” that it was clearly the police who were violating the law most egregiously, not the protesters. Your respect for the law is clearly not genuine, or you would be as incensed at the behavior of the police as I am.
Written by a UCD professor: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-protest_b_1103039.html
Crilly, thanks for the link.
Prof wrote: “They are top students. In fact, I can report that among the students I know, the higher a student’s grade point average, the more likely it is that they are centrally involved in the protests.”
Correlation vs. causation, professor.
Not another penny in donations until the Chancellor resigns!! Alum, 1988.
Now news of the questionable decision-making of the UCD Chancellor and the infamous tactics of the UCD police have has made its way into the “grey-lady”, as the New York Times and “newspaper of record” often is called. This is not good press for a good university! Sadly, these events demonstrate several unsettling trends in our current society. Universities for centuries have been run successfully as co-operative bodies of faculty and students. Yet, today the totalitarian corporate model has put administrators as the final decision makers instead of the faculty and students, often to the detriment of the latter and of the overall educational mission. At the same time, American society has militarized the police and set up a de facto policy that favors “property rights” over human rights. One has seen this in New York, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, Berkeley, and now Davis. As we all should know by now corporations and corporate models are no panacea, and the militarization of the civilian police often leads to the increased militarization of society in general and often to the brutalization of those whom the police should be protecting. Sadly, the beat of these drums goes on and the powerful get wealthier and more powerful backed by the police, and the rest are left wanting something better.
What do Davis and Cairo have in common? You can’t put tents up in the square.
The use of pepper spray against nonviolent protesters, and the police are not protected by qualified immunity in such cases. THAT is the end of story.
[url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html[/url]
I want to add my outrage towards the UCD Police Department for the use of pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators. I sent an e-mail to Ms. Katehi expressing my disappointment with this behavior, and I hope others do as well.
If City of Davis Police were involved in this incident, I hope that the city council will take steps to clarify that the future use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors by a Davis police officer is cause for dismissal from city employment.
“The court’s findings should make it clear to J.R., Rusty49, 91Octane and the others railing against the “law breakers” that it was clearly the police who were violating the law most egregiously, not the protesters.
the pro occupy people on this blog have called the protestors non-violent a hundred times over. That does not make them any more right than when they said it the first time. they were wrong on the first time and they are wrong now. the protests are not “non-violent.” The title of the group even suggests the opposite of non-violence. Their goal is not the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble or any such thing. They have stated and continue to state their goal is to occupy or shut down whatever the hell they feel like. They have stated they will shut down wall street. That is infringing on others economic freedom, something they cannot do. I also watched the video where they tried to shut down burger king. And now they pitch tents, declaring public property their own private home. They cannot do that, and have no right to do it, and people on this blog can throw out the bs all day long.
And I just really wonder, and I posed this question and got not one damned answer, so I’ll pose it again to all:
How about the TEA PARTY OCCUPIES THE OFFICES OF THE ACLU? GREENPEACE? DEMOCRAT PARTY? THE WHITE HOUSE? get my drift? what if the TEa party “pitches tents” in the middle of every democrat/left wing organizations building and arbitrarily takes it over, preventing their business? Are you gonna call that NON-VIOLENT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY?
what if the Tea Party disrupted all the Democrat/Green Fundraisers, calling it merely a righeous act of civil disobedience?
It is good to see UC Davis students taking a stand and holding firm.
There are linkages between the corruption of the intertwined corporate/financial/political system, the financial debacles in the United States, and the increasing tuition the students must pony-up. From the little I know about Katehi, she is in alignment with internationalist models of corporate governance, with increasing funding from (and inevitably influence by) private and corporate interests; which is shifting the nature of university education and research; justified by the need for revenue that again has its roots in financial debacle and the takeover of the federal government by corporate/financial interests (Obama was installed to put a populist face on all this; consider the populist noises he makes have not been consistent with the policies he has continued and promulgates; he is a Wall Street boy like Georgy-boy before him).
[quote]Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the protestors, we conclude that Philip and Lewis are not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of pepper spray on the protestors’ eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.[/quote]
From 2002 court case: HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html
There are over 40,000 entries about this on the Huffington Post blog (also on Sunday NYT at least online) including info above indicating that at least one court ruled that pepper spray is an unreasonable use of force. I have watched the videos and was appalled. The police have the right to move the protestors but not this way–they were non-violent.
This is classic textbook non-violent behavior and the police were totally unprofessional.
Also why were they asked to leave at 3pm? UC Davis has huge egg on its face and I’m disappointed in our University. OWS is not going away; in fact they are gaining strength every week.
Also
Rusty: still think they nipped this in the bud?
91 Octane
How about the TEA PARTY OCCUPIES THE OFFICES OF THE ACLU? GREENPEACE? DEMOCRAT PARTY? THE WHITE HOUSE? get my drift? what if the TEa party “pitches tents” in the middle of every democrat/left wing organizations building and arbitrarily takes it over, preventing their business? Are you gonna call that NON-VIOLENT PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
Since you believe that no one has addressed this issue, I can only presume that you have not followed the entire thread or perhaps skipped over several posts from David and myself. When I stated that I supported the right of the Westboro Baptist Church with their hated filled messages of “Thank God for 9/11” and “God hates Jews” freedom of speech and assembly, even in close proximity to the funerals of soldiers, I would have thought one could extrapolate that I would support the right of Tea Party members to express themselves in exactly the same way that these students on the quad yesterday were.
I do not support anyone’s right to occupy a private business, or a political office, or the White House. But that is not what was happening on the quad. While I agree with Elaine that the right of free speech is not the same as the right to camp, the police certainly had the option of removing the tents without pepper spraying the students.
Despite what you, and rusty 49 from earlier in the thread seem to think, for me this is not about the political ideology of the protestors. It is about their right to free speech and assembly. I would be just as disturbed be pepper spraying any group of students whether the “occupiers”, members of the Young Republicans, Tea Partiers,
or yes, even the Ku Klux Klan. If we as Americans will not defend the rights of those whose ideas we dislike, how can we expect our own rights ( whether economic or individual )to be respected?
“Rusty: still think they nipped this in the bud?”
David, once again I said they have the right to peacefully protest, they don’t have the right to put up tents and occupy property that is not theirs. The police stopped the takeover of the Quad and removed the tents because the longer they let them stay the harder it would be to remove them. So yes, they did “nip it in the bud”.
rusty49
They may have “nipped in the bud” that particular protest, and removed those particular tents, all of which could have been accomplished without pepper spray. What they have done through their heavy handed approach is to create a much larger problem. If you have not seen the video of Chancellor Katehi’s totally unobstructed walk to her car past lines of students sitting peacefully with linked arms, I suggest watching it. None of this, and none of the
adverse media attention which has gone nation wide if not yet world wide would have been avoided by simply not using the pepper spray.
At a dinner party last night, I became aware that some of the members of our group were unaware of the significance of the choice to sit with arms linked as it applies to protestors. In protests, it is well known that sitting with arms linked is a clear signal that one’s intentions are peaceful and that there is no intent to use physical force and no threat being made beyond being in that particular spot. If the police were unaware of this “peaceful intent”
signal, then their training is inadequate and should be addressed. If the officers were aware of the significance of this action, and chose to spray anyway, they should be legally culpable for their actions and so should their superiors.
You are dodging a lot of issue Rusty. They did not nip it in the bud, because guess what, the students are coming back on Monday and there is not a chance in hell that they can even arrest the kids at this point. It is a complete debacle. The Chancellor will be lucky if she does not have to resign and take the chain of command of the police with her. I simply do not understand your tin ear for the disaster that this is.
How is it that more than 1,000 hard core activist protesters of the Keystone XL Pipeline at the White House, sitting arm in arm, could be arrested by the DC police without a single can of pepper spray, or a single baton being unsheathed, yet a handful of students at UC Davis couldn’t be arrested without being brutalized in the most shameful of manners? The actions at UC Davis were totally outrageous, uncalled for, and absolutely intolerable. Both the Chancellor and the Chief of Police must resign. The officers guilty of unnecessary brutality must also be punished appropriately. – – ’88 UCD Alum in DC
Worth reading: https://www.facebook.com/notes/kristin-stoneking/occupy-uc-davis/10150384898552928
What is hilarious about the music prof’s piece is his utter failure re: the history of Amy Carter’s arrest which was in 1986. Too bad the prof didn’t know that the FBI didn’t officially edorse the use of OC until about 1987.
More importantly, it took about another 4 years before it would be legally accepted by the law enforcement community…
Discredited witness…
MW: [quote]What is at issue here is the excessive use of force.[/quote]
I’m cognizant of your posture. Permit me to better clarify.
However, my comments remain on point. Inter alia, all of the above are pertinent matters with regard to the issue of “excessive force.”
Re: the 9th circuit opinion. It would seem that such force on non-violent protestors was deemed unreasonable. However, there’s an element of the UCD incident which appears to be missing in the incidents referenced in the Humboldt case. There was a crowd, of what I imagine the officers felt were hostile persons, that had encircled or partially surrounded them or were just present when they arrived.
Superfluous: encircling the cops? Mostly to get better footage with cell phone cameras, etc. as far as I could tell. Compare this group of students with the screaming hostile crowd
who were pepper sprayed in Seattle this past week. UC Davis protest is pretty tame in comparison. From watching the videos several times it seems the police could have simply walked over those sitting students (several actually did), and left if they felt so threatened.
Re: the 9th circuit opinion. It would seem that such force on non-violent protestors was deemed unreasonable. However, there’s an element of the UCD incident which appears to be missing in the incidents referenced in the Humboldt case. There was a crowd, of what I imagine the officers felt were hostile persons, that had encircled or partially surrounded them or were just present when they arrived.
As others have commented, if the police felt threatened by the encircling protestors, most of whom by the way
were armed only with their elevated cell phones and cameras as can clearly be seen on multiple views, why would they not have directed their force against the “intimidating” individuals, not those clearly employing the universally recognizable peaceful protest tactic of sitting with linked arms ? Is anyone seriously suggesting that a seated, arm linked student is a credible threat to a riot gear equipped police officer ? I ask because these are the only individuals on whom pepper spray was used.
1r;s posing as occupiers live it up…
http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/20/wall-street-occupiers-stay-at-700-a-night-hotel/
Sm: [quote]However, there’s an element of the UCD incident which appears to be missing in the incidents referenced in the Humboldt case. [/quote]
Yes among other factors.
oops MW (not SM) my bad…
MW – [quote]most of whom by the way were armed only with their elevated cell phones and cameras as can clearly be seen on multiple views, [/quote]
Large crowd situations are unique law enforcement matters.
BTW surely you jest…as old fashion horse sense tells us not all people always display their weapons, all the time.
AdRemmer
1r;s posing as occupiers live it up…
http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/20/wall-street-occupiers-stay-at-700-a-night-hotel/
Please clarify a couple of points about this post.
1) What do the actions of two individuals who happen to be very wealthy and sympathetic to the “occupy” movement have to do with the actions of students at UCD ?
2) Why should the amount of money you happen to have at your disposal preclude you from sympathizing with the plight of others who are not so fortunate ? If you are attempting to demonstrate hypocrisy, would you also say that it is hypocritical of me, with a relatively high compensation, to be sympathetic to the point of view of the
protesters ? If so, please explain your rationale and if not, what do you see as the distinction ?
Here is a post from Prof. Jonathan Simon, a criminologist at UCB’s Boalt Hall, who writes a blog called “Governing Through Crime.” I think it captures perfectly what happened at UCD this week:
Adding Injury to Insult: Campus Police and University Administrations
Students today at public universities like the University of California and the California State University systems have significant reason to feel insulted. In just the past decade tuition has more than doubled at UC and nearly tripled at the Cal State system. They have to listen to lectures from people like me who went to UC for almost nothing and have, in many cases, great opportunities to pursue our ambitions and passions, while they face the prospect of graduating with tens of thousands in debt into a job market that is likely to be stagnated for years.
Mobilized by the nationwide “Occupy Wall Street” movement, and with perfect reason noting the relationship between government for the 1% and the long term strangulation of public higher education students at several UCs have undertaken non-violent occupations in settings, like Sproul Plaza in Berkeley, that pose no significant burden to ordinary University activities. But rather than finding that University administration’s have their back, students, and those faculty and staff protesting with them have been violently set upon by police.
The week before last it was the Berkeley campus, where police used batons on non-violent demonstrators linking arms around a tent encampment (videos and reporting from Bay Citizen here). Yesterday it was UC Davis, where videos clearly show police calmly pepper spraying passive sitting students preparatory to arresting them (NYTimes coverage here).
The Chancellors at both universities have called for investigations, but the real question is why police were ever deployed to clear these assemblies at all. Since 9/11 campuses have begun to define even non-violent protest and civil disobedience as an unacceptable threat to security the prevention of which warrants the ready use of police violence. Videos show a policing approach in which casual use of chemical weapons, non-lethal guns that look like automatic weapons (but shoot cotton pellets), and batons. In the absence of reasonable suspicion of violence, non-lethal offensive police weapons should not be brought to or displayed at peaceful campus protests. They serve only to chill speech, provoke panic, and become a moral hazard in favor of violence. Using police force to clear peaceful campus protests should be a last resort only when negotiations and passive measures have failed to restore vital university functions.
The focus of investigations should not just be on individual police misconduct but on misguided university administration policies that have treated their own students as an intolerable threat to university security. More than even the tuition increases these policies raise the question of whose benefit these universities are operating for.
MW and RD
I have raised similar points and questions earlier. The Chief is quoted in the Bee referring to the officers being circled (and how that influenced the officers’ response to the situation that day) and I was merely highlighting that point in juxtaposition to the 9th circuit ruling cited on this site.
Dr Wu provided the quote from the citation:
“the use of pepper spray on the protestors’ eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.”
I believe the key here, as a reference point re: the Lieutenant’s conduct, is “under the circumstances” and “no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.” I’m just trying to synthesize the information and understand what would make the UCD incident different from the one examined by the 9th Circuit. The fact is the two incidences are not identical.
AR,
“oops MW (not SM) my bad…”
You had it right the first time.
“Yes among other factors.”
Do you think the Lieutenant’s use of pepper spray was reasonable? What permitted the Lieutenant to use pepper spray on those sitting with arms linked? Did the threat, which warranted (for the sake of discussion) such use of force, come from the seated/linked-armed protestors, the crowd or who else?
The actions of the police at UC Davis have gone viral on the internet. Davis sees itself as a progressive school in a progressive town but the police acted no better than common thugs and most of the world agrees. It is alarming to read the comments here approving violent police action as appropriate because the students were sitting in protest and refused to move. What is even more alarming is that people approve of the use of violence by the police because they are “inconvenienced” by protesters. Is this society so blinded by greed and avarice that it is now acceptable to injure peaceful humans in the name of property rights and right of way convenience? All you NIMBYs in Davis don’t dare say you support Occupy or your noses are gonna grow!
Superfluous Man (great alias!):
Let’s look at what the police chief said: “The students had encircled the officers,” she said Saturday. “They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out.” (from the AP and other news reports).
If they were “looking to leave” why did they spend so much time spraying and handcuffing. If you look at the videos closely, there were a groups of police on both sides of the students on the sidewalk. Additionally there was a police car behind those cops facing the front of the students. No student impeded the Lt.’s path as he calmly walked through the seated demonstrators to get to the front of them so they could be sprayed. Most of the people in the front of the surrounding group were filming – there was a TV cameraman right in the midst of the crowd. The UC PD cameraman (the bearded guy in the sports jacket) calmly walked through the demonstrators at one point. The chief’s statement – “The students had encircled the officers…” could be interpreted to mean that the crowd moved in to block their exit. The multiple videos I’ve watched and that others have noted, show no intentional moves by the crowd to impede passage by the cops. It could be that the encirclement was a consequence of the natural movement of people in the situation.
Re. the Humboldt case – the demonstrators used a device that prevented the deputies from removing them from the scene (the “black bear”). In one of the three situations (the congresswoman’s office?) they gave up with the stuff in the eyes on a couple demonstrators and went back to the grinding tool that they had started out with. Remember, in Humboldt, the cops went to the manual application of pepper spray to save time!
The point of use of force policies in general is to use the least force necessary to gain compliance. Someone mentioned California prisons – where OC spray is commonly used to get inmates to comply. On a prison yard, when there’s a disturbance, the order is to “GET DOWN,” and they usually do. Inmates who are “down” are not sprayed – period.
The bottom line for me in this situation is did the UCD police need to use OC spray to gain compliance and to achieve their law enforcement goal? And my answer is no – 1) they could have easily left the scene (from what the videos show – I was not there so that’s my data) they had room to move, and did so seemingly with impunity; and 2) the pepper spray did not seem to change the behavior of the demonstrators in a way that made the cops job any easier – the demonstrators did not immediately loosen their grips on each other to protect their eyes, etc. As the 9th circuit has made clear, the standard is “reasonableness.” And my lay opinion of what I saw was that the cops used a level of force that was unreasonable and unnecessary.”
[i]”it looks like the cops have gotten tired of doing their job the old fashioned way by carrying passive resistors away.”[/i]
This is an idiotic statement.
HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED TO LIFT A FULL-SIZED PERSON FROM A SITTING POSITION, WITH ARMS LOCKED WITH AJACENT PEOPLE WHO WERE ALL RESISTING?
The risk of back injury to the cop is high. They are precluded from doing this.
The risk of the injury to the law-breaker is high.
The risk of a frustrated cop is high… thereby leading to greater potential injury to the law breaker.
From the AP story,
“However, a law enforcement official who watched the clip called the use of force ‘fairly standard police procedure.’”
And…”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.”
Does this statement make sense? In this case, how did the use of pepper spray allow the officers to avoid picking the students up and off the ground? In general, how does actually pepper spraying people prevent the officers from having to “lift” the protestors off the ground?
When pepper sprayed, does the sprayed individual usually stand up (if sitting down) or stay standing if upright?
Also…”When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”
Which is interesting, because the officers can be seen carrying the bodies of the pepper sprayed protesters, their feet dragging on the ground, away from the scene at UCD.
Also…”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.”
I watched the video too, the woman has her arm pulled and then has it let got by the officer…seemingly at the direction of the pepper-spraying Lieutenant. I doesn’t appear to me that she actively resisted. As to a person curing into a ball, I don’t recall seeing that, but it looked like they were attempting to protect themselves (at the suggestions of onlookers/protester not seated on the ground) for the pepper spraying. So, that is, nevertheless, “active resistance?”
Chief Spicuzza…
“The students had encircled the officers,” she said Saturday. “They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out.”
[i]”Which is interesting, because the officers can be seen carrying the bodies of the pepper sprayed protesters, their feet dragging on the ground, away from the scene at UCD.”[/i]
Dragging a law breaker that has given up resistance as a result of being pepper-sprayed is much different than lifting them from the ground while they are uncooperative and have their arms locked with other law breakers.
There is a great risk of injury to both the cops and the law-breakers. Also, what about male cops grabbing female law breakers? Thank union work rules, the ACLU and Gloria Allred the abulance chaser for helping to establish pepper spray as the best alternative.
RD,
I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. I’m simply trying to understand, given the various tests applied to such situations, whether the Lieutenant’s conduct could be found “reasonable” given the circumstances
“It could be that the encirclement was a consequence of the natural movement of people in the situation.”
A point I had made earlier.
“The point of use of force policies in general is to use the least force necessary to gain compliance.”
According to the case law citation, “‘[t]he force which was applied must be balanced against the need for that force: ‘it is the need for force which is at the heart of the Graham factors.’”
I understand this definition to differ slightly from what you offer regarding the use of force. But, that’s my interpretation (i.e. the “least force necessary” portion, IMHO.)
“The bottom line for me in this situation is did the UCD police need to use OC spray to gain compliance and to achieve their law enforcement goal?”
On its face, I would say no. However, is it just a matter of achieving a goal?
Also, from the citation provided:
According to Graham, “[d]etermining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)) (emphasis added). Assessing “the nature and quality” of a given “intrusion” requires the fact finder to evaluate “the type and amount of force inflicted.” Chew, 27 F.3d at 1440. Weighing the governmental interests involved requires the fact finder to evaluate such factors as “(1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, ․ (3) whether he [was] actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight,” and any other “exigent circumstances [that] existed at the time of the arrest.” Chew, 27 F.3d at 1440-41 & n. 5.
JB,
“Dragging a law breaker that has given up resistance as a result of being pepper-sprayed is much different than lifting them from the ground while they are uncooperative and have their arms locked with other law breakers.”
Which resistance are you referring to? The woman? So the ends justify the means? The Lieutenant knew or suspected that the protestors would physically/actively resist arrest, so they pepper sprayed them? I don’t see the protestors “actively resisting” in those videos.
My point, really, had to do with the quoted former officer…pepper spraying so as to avoid “lifting” bodies. I don’t see how pepper spraying helps the officers avoid have to pick protestors up and/or drag them away, if in fact that’s a reason for such force. I could see how it may make it easier to do so, but I don’t believe that’s what he’s quoted as saying.
In case you’re wondering, I’m not coming at this from a “humane treatment” point of view. Just attempting to make sense of the tactical/procedural information presented by the expert in the AP story.
Superfluous Man:
We are in agreement – I’m not paying as much attention to other posts as I should – sorry. The Graham standard seems pretty clear about what is needed to evaluate the situation. Doesn’t seem that the protesters posed an immediate threat to the officers’ safety or were trying to “evade arrest by flight.” If I were the fact finder I’d have a hard time going with the cops on this one. And I’m no expert on use of force so the definition you cite sounds more authoritative.
Superfluous Man,
It appeared to me that the protesters were locked arm in arm. Police officer training precludes them from straight-lifting a person from the ground who is not cooperative and is resisting. Pepper spray makes them stop resisting. There are other methods to get them to cooperate, but they are all worse for the law breaker. Peper spray would stop the protestors from being locked arm in arm as they would use their hands to wipe or protect their eyes, nose and mouth. After this they could be dragged horizontally off the pathway they were illegally blocking.
It is typical for several law suits to be filed against the cops after breaking up these types of events of lawlessness. The children of well-off cop-hating wack jobs will jump at the chance to dip into their little darling’s trust fund to pay one of many underemployed ambulance-chasing lawyers to make “evil law enforcement” pay. Pepper spray has a temporary impact. Pulling on or grabbing hold of body parts of a protester can provide more long-lasting exploitable evidence to harass cops with.
Frankly, there are no good procedures available to deal with problems like this. Thank our screwed up legal system and a population of cop-haters.
Jeff: What was the imperative that they had to remove them at that moment? Given the reaction by the community, community’s standards were violated and once they did that, they lost the ability to control the situation.
Jeff – they got sprayed and didn’t unlock arms. Look at the video – it didn’t make them comply. The cases cited earlier from Humboldt County suggested that pepper spray alone does not always induce compliance. My point in the last couple days has been that the pepper spray seemed superfluous – it really didn’t seem to be necessary. And of course the argument from the Chief that the police were looking to leave doesn’t make sense from the videos since they seemed to be moving around at will.
RD,
No worries. My response to the footage was and still is: “that doesn’t seem reasonable,” but then again that’s not always relevant.
Jeff,
Nothing I’ve read or heard leads me to conclude that Lt Pike’s conduct will be determined “reasonable.” You seem to have concluded that it is entirely reasonable, but the case law citation provided on this site may give you added insight into the use of force on non-violent protestors.
Jeff
“Frankly, there are no good procedures available to deal with problems like this. Thank our screwed up legal system and a population of cop-haters.”
I honestly do not know who you are referring to by the expression of ” a population of cop – haters”.
Are you referring to the students ? To those in the community who see this as a use of excessive force when no force but lack of attention, and/or simply lifting the tents over the heads of the protesters would probably have proven a sufficient solution ?
[i]”What was the imperative that they had to remove them at that moment?”[/i]
If not then, then when?
That is the job of police: to deal with law breakers. This wasn’t a legal protest was it?
All this second-guessing armchair quarterbacking is unimpressive. There have been several occupy protest events that have turned ugly throughout the nation and state. Maybe those cops dealing with their law breakers earlier would have prevented the bigger problems that occurred.
There was chanting using expletives against the cops. The crowd was growing in size. The police were there working, being paid to do a job, considerate of the extra cost in OT that would result in “just waiting” like you suggest.
If you are going to join in an illegal protest, then be prepared to be dealt with as a law breaker. These students are not victims, they are criminals. I applaud them for taking a stand, but then they must also accept the consequences for their actions.
And this IS JUST FRIGGIN’ PEPPER SPRAY! Your moral outrage is completely misplaced. It is time to move on to real important things rather than flap with the rest of the dysfunctional media over this non-story. You launched four articles on this single event. Are we that hard up for sensationalized news that we need to be over-fed so much twaddle?
“If not then, then when?”
Well what was the imperative as to ever? You think the students are going to stay through thanksgiving and finals, not to mention a very cold rain?
I understand in the 1980s, the admin at that time let students camp out on Mrak Halls steps for a week, eventually they left. If you do that, the action eventually exahusts itself. When police act in a heavy handed manner, that’s when actions persist because they get the attention that they need. If people want to squat in the quad, let them. If they want to block the path, let them, it’s a big campus people can walk around. Now people are going to lose their jobs and there are going to be five times the number in the quad on Monday at least. Don’t see how you can justify the action given what has transpired. And don’t act like there is not a real world context to a police action, there is.
Here is a good post on the matter, quoting some UCD policing policies, and pointing out some flaws in the logic I’ve seen displayed here and elsewhere:
http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/20/ten-things-you-should-know-about-fridays-uc-davis-police-violence/
As I watch this video I am overcome with complete sadness. What in the world is going on with the other officers watching this unfold. They should be held accountable for not stopping the officer attack non-violent protesters. This is disgusting. I’m completely revolted.
Civil discourse
Thanks for the link. Found especially interesting the manual points about how and under what circumstances force is permissible. No where is the material presented do I see anything that justifies force when there is no danger, no threat and no attempt to escape. In other words, where is the justification for force in this instance ? It would seem the the police were in violation of their own standards.
Jeff Boone: “What do the rest of you suggest should have been the correct response if not pepper spray?”
Turn on the water sprinklers, especially when the temperature drops in the evening.
Medwoman,
“No where is the material presented do I see anything that justifies force when there is no danger, no threat…”
The question here is whether or not it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that a danger or threat was present to the officer(s) and/or public. I think that’s what is at the heart of the decision by the lieutenant and how reasonable his conduct was.
I watched the panel discussion and the student senator stated that officers (prior to the pepper spraying) had placed protestors who were located on the periphery in restraints and escorted them out through the encirclement. In other words, her account would indicate that those officers were able to move through and pass the encirclement without any resistance or threat.
A writer in the Atlantic calls this pepper-spray incident “affectless sadism”. Couldn’t agree more. Here’s the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/the-moral-power-of-an-image-uc-davis-reactions/248778/.
Jeff,
You know as well as I that if the cops had to physically drag the protesters away that these bleeding heart liberals would still be screaming police brutality.
Superfluous Man
In the 40 minute clip on Huffington Post, that is shown to be the case. Well before the pepper spraying some protesters can be seen being removed from the area without difficulty. It actually seemed to me that some of the protesters were removed more easily from the area prior to the spraying rather than after it which rather contradicts the theory that the spray was needed to get compliance. The beauty of having virtually every movement
of the police and protesters recorded, and most from multiple angles, is that we do not have to rely on eye witness accounts. It’s kind of like having an instant replay to better evaluate the call on the field.
Rusty: No offense but that’s not a very well thought out point. We’ve seen probably 10 to 15 of these kinds of events in the last few years, this is by far the strongest response we have seen in the community. So don’t pretend like this is not an unusual occurrence or lesser use of force wouldn’t have solicited a much smaller and softer reaction.
rusty49
It is very interesting to me how you know what everyone else knows. Despite the fact that I have posted twice that I would have been fine with either of my children being removed by being carried, or dragged is they would not walk, I fail to see how you can say that “these bleeding heart liberals would still be screaming police brutality.
I can only conclude one of three things. 1) You have not read my posts. 2) You believe I am lying. 3) You do not include me in your sweeping generalizations about bleeding heart liberals. So Rusty, which is it ?
Medwoman,
“The beauty of having virtually every movement
of the police and protesters recorded, and most from multiple angles, is that we do not have to rely on eye witness accounts.”
It certainly helps to not have to rely on those accounts alone. Who knows how many recordings are available at this point.
There’s a really interesting video of the Chancellor walking to her car past students sitting in silence. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8775ZmNGFY8&feature=player_embedded
Rusty,
“You know as well as I that if the cops had to physically drag the protesters away that these bleeding heart liberals would still be screaming police brutality. “
IF they dragged them out? The footage I viewed showed officers physicaly dragging them out, so there’s no question that that happened.
There would likely have been SOMEONE who would have taken issue with a different tactic, such as putting the protestors in restraints and walking/dragging them off and not just pepper spraying them. Or if the officers did attempt to arrest the protestors and they began to resist, then were pepper sprayed. I highly doubt that the response would’ve be such as it is now, if they had done either of those and nothing seriously improper took place (or even appeared to have). I for one would likely question those actions far less than what actually transpired between police and protestors.
The fact is this: the above is not what happened that afternoon, so…
SM asked:[quote]Do you think the Lieutenant’s use of pepper spray was reasonable?[/quote]
That is the basic issue. Based in the comments, it certainly appears as if some here feel they either know all the facts, or are qualified to make a legal determination, after having reviewed a few videos, w/o being present, or having undegone use of force training, etcetera.
There’s a little more to this than meets the eye. In RE: “reasonbleness,” I see you read & address caselaw (Graham v Conner) from the Headwaters case (If I correctly recall the name). Good.
In a cause of action the fact finders will be required to consider many things.
IMHO, 1 important cite [G v C] is as follows:
“The Fourth Amendment ‘reasonableness’ inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.”
Briefly — stated differently (off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list), how would reasonable officers, with same/similar training, experience, under same/similar circumstances involving protesting crowds (LEO’s know from training that crowds could morph into mobs in a momemt) act?
Hence, a vital consideration, in this case, that seems to get less air time is the rest of the crowd, especially in light of the recent ‘peaceful’ protests gone bad, around the country.
In sum, since I was not there to sense the incident, and have not seen all camera angles, over time, and the like, AND like the rest of the posters here, do NOT have all the facts….
I will continue to challenge posters who convey the have a plenary grasp of all the legalities in this matter, however…
AdRemmer – You can certainly continue to challenge others on this, but the court of public opinion has pretty quickly turned against the University and the police for their actions.
Let me ask you some questions based on your viewing of the videos (I suggest you check out the 40+ minute video posted on the known-liberal website The Huffington Post).
1. Given the ability of UCD police to dismantle the tents and arrest the first set of Occupy demonstrators, why did the police decide they needed to use OC spray on the seated demonstrators rather than simply move in and manually move them? Or simply walk around them and leave?
2. How did the use of OC spray increase the safety of the officers?
3. How did the use of OC spray improve the ability of the officers to effect their arrests?
4. Did you see anyone impede the officers in their duties?
[i]”You know as well as I that if the cops had to physically drag the protesters away that these bleeding heart liberals would still be screaming police brutality.”[/i]
Rusty, I think you are correct. The fact is that cops can never win the hearts and minds of those wired to manufacture moral outrage in support of their anti-law enforcement worldview. There is no use in trying.
What posters on this blog seem to be advocating is for the cops to have played a political game… to leave the law breakers to keep breaking the law because it would look better on TV. Cops are trained to use certain tools and techniques as the situation requires dealing with people that break the law. The use of pepper spray in this situation was justified based on police protocol. It had been used in several prior occupy protests, and will for many more.
I was just thinking about how I would respond if one of my sons had been a sprayed protester. Of course I would want to make sure he was not seriously injured. And since the effects of pepper spray are temporary, I would expect him to be fine. Then I would talk to him about the risks for unlawful protest and ask him if he thought it was worth it. I would respect his decision either way, but I would not accept him blaming the cops for a law that he broke… especially since he was given plenty of warning from the cops to leave.
IMO, the moral outrage over this is comic. These entitled and pampered adult-age children that barely know how to take care of themselves thanks to clutching parents and a full-service nanny government, break the law to demand more entitlements… and their clutching parents and nanny government swoop in to protect them again. What ever happen to people being accountable and responsible for their actions?
Jeff: “The use of pepper spray in this situation was justified based on police protocol.”
As the Chancellor said, protocol is not always appropriate.
[url]http://davis.patch.com/articles/katehi-gives-17-minute-interview-on-pepper-spray-incident-at-uc-davis-video#youtube_video-8504566[/url]
Don, I do not want my police second guessing protocol. They train and train and train for how to deal with each situation based on protocol. When they rely too much on their judgment, they make mistakes and get sued and lose.
Watching the video, several students let go of their arm lock after being sprayed. This allows the cops to remove them. It worked as designed.
As I understand, it is pretty easy for students to request and be given a legal permit to protest on campus property. Why the illegal protest?
Frankly I blame their damn liberal professors… those same people that probably protested during the 1960s and made a friggin’ career out of it. Civil disobedience is not a constitutional right. It comes with consequences. Do the crime, and accept the consequences.
And again, this is pepper spray… not clubs, not tazers, not guns… pepper spray. The students are fine, right?
Let’s try not to get caught up in the media hoopla. Can we all say “balloon boy”?
Sure. Next time you pass by Pedrick Produce, buy some of the straight capsaicin they keep behind the counter. Rub it on your eyes. That is significantly more dilute than what the police use.
Protocol is obviously intended to be combined with judgment. This entire issue revolves around the poor judgment in implementing protocol.
“I do not want my police second guessing protocol. “
I don’t disagree with Jeff on this point. But that is what the chain of command is for, the people who gave the orders from up high are the ones ultimately to blame for this. The people on the ground should be following the use of force protocols, but to me it looks like they violated their use of chemical agent protocols anyway.
Jeff continues to make extreme, unsupported statements that cast a shadow over any logical point he’s trying to make. Painting all the protesters as “those wired to manufacture moral outrage in support of their anti-law enforcement worldview” is an interesting statement. Has Jeff interviewed these individuals to determine the motivations behind their protests? And to place the blame for everything on “damn liberal professors… those same people that probably protested during the 1960s and made a friggin’ career out of it” is laughable. Seems to me they made a career out of something quite different–higher education. These flippant remarks could very well be uttered by the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who’d never even consider that these students are putting themselves on the front line of a struggle to make America a better place for the 99% of us, including Jeff, Rusty and the rest of the nay-sayers.
As for the protests of the 60s–they succeeded in bringing an end to an unjust and devastating war by opening the eyes of Americans. We should all be very grateful for the protesters of the 60s!
Crilly – the manufactured moral outrage is from the media and others, not the protesters. I am sure they are outraged over being doused with pepper spray. However, it was just pepper spray. The kids are fine now. At this point it is just another bubble boy story except for the political element.
And no, Rush Limbaugh didn’t say these things that I am aware of. Although, unlike you, I would not have a problem if he did. He gets it right most of the time; even as he does so without much hyper sensitivity over who might be offended.
The protesters of the 1960s are arguably responsible for the thousands of people executed by the communists as we pulled out of Vietnam. Note that I am formally of the Baby Boomer generation; but there is not much I can see to celebrate about our generation’s actions and performance. Beginning with the 1960s anti-war movement, we have demonstrated over and over again our selfishness and bad behavior while demanding protection and perfection from everyone else.
“bubble boy”… s/b, “Ballon Boy”
“Ballon Boy” s/b “Balloon Boy”
I type too fast…
[url]http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/balloon-boy-story-shows-ugliness-reporting-news-progress-not-tv-news-excess[/url]
JB – it’s OK because it was “only” pepper spray. Was it OK at UCB last week because it was “only” a little push with a baton? How about cattle prods? Are they OK? That would have gotten the students to move.
JB–the moral outrage wasn’t manufactured at all. Because pepper-spraying peaceful demonstrators doesn’t morally offend you says a lot about you, but very little about the incident. As this event has become viral, moral indignity is coming from all over the world, and from every quarter.
And for you to say that the protesters of the 60s are somehow responsible for the post-withdrawal slaughter is absurd. Do you have any idea how many millions of people died needlessly–Vietnamese, Americans and others–because of the US’s pointless and futile intervention in Southeast Asia? 5.4 million. And they’re still dying needlessly–just ask any current victim or Agent Orange. That’s what the protesters were protesting against.
After the last US helicopter left, many of thousands were killed. Also, the Kymer Rouge unleashed a horrific and long-lasting slaughter on the people of Cambodia.
Killings, reprisals, “re-education”, etc. continued in Vietnam for many years. Contrary to what many may think the Vietnamese boat people were not out on luxury cruises. They were risking their lives to escape brutal conditions.
So thanks US anti-war protestors.
Hypothetical question:
If we assume that the cops were very clear… repeating several times to the protesters that they would be sprayed with pepper spray if they did not leave. And ALL protestors knew that their actions would result in being sprayed.
Would knowledge of this change your opinion?
J–You totally don’t get it, do you? The reason the boat people were escaping is because they sided with the US and it’s puppet Saigon government. The same reason applies to the post-withdrawal killings. Not morally defensible, but the US was definitely complicit. We had no business being there in the FIRST place. No US intervention, no Vietnam war, no post-withdrawal killings, no boat people. Ho Chi Minh was a national hero until we decided the “communist threat” had to be destroyed. Not our business at all. Talk about manufacturing moral outrage…
And as for your hypothetical situation, no, that wouldn’t change my opinion. If the cops had been very clear…repeating several times to the protesters that they would be shot dead with rifles, shotguns and small weapons fire if they did not leave, and all the protestors knew that their actions would result in being killed, would that be morally defensible to you? If the answer is “Yes”, then we have no more to talk about. If the answer is “No”, then where do you draw the line? Apparently you draw it in a different place than I, and the multitudes who are appalled by this, do. But then again, you’re probably one of those who think waterboarding isn’t torture. I feel for you, Jeff.
California state budget revenue shorfalls likely to result in $100 million cuts from both UC and CSU systems.
State funding for local public schools likely to be cut by several billion.
Another California company escapes to Texas… the largest publicly-traded company in the area… taking with them ALL the tax revenue ther would contribute and all the other economic activity they generate for the state… including a few hundred good jobs.
[url]http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/12/12/folsom-company-moving-to-texas-for-a-new-start/[/url]
It appears that Atlas is shrugging and the looters and moochers will be left with the empty shell. The good news is that they are moving to another sunny state that understands that business and business owners are the producers that keep the state government running.