A few weeks ago, a version of the pepper spraying was posted on YouTube by “UCDCollegeRepublican” which purports to show a different vantage point of the incident than what was previously aired. I was a bit skeptical about this purportedly new video, because I had watched the full 25 to 30 minute version on AggieTV.
The first problem is that it is no more of a complete version than other videos. In fact, it intentionally clips out nearly 22 of the 30 minutes of the confrontation. We are left at the mercy of the editor’s discretion to know if key things were omitted, but more importantly we immediately lose context as to duration of time. And when assessing a perceived level of threat, duration matters.
There are three things we will specifically assess in this analysis. First, the level of threat issued verbally by students. Second, whether the police were surrounded. Third, whether the police had options with less force to resolve this situation.
After an immediate arrest – the narrator claims for resisting arrest, though we never see enough of it to know – the students chant: “Let’s march peacefully as one towards where they are being held.” Note the use of the term “peacefully” because while the students use their numbers to their advantage – a tactical error by the police allowing themselves to be outflanked – there is never a hint of violent confrontation between police and protesters.
This occurs in minute 2 of the video, which by my calculation is about seven minutes into the raw footage of this event.
The students then get up and march, chanting “Set them free.”
Now the video sideswipes into an alternate perspective that the narrator claims show the police being completely surrounded.
This happens around four minutes into the video, but the video perspective does not show the event from a good vantage point, instead it’s in amongst the trees.
Now around 4:50 of this video, the students chant: “If you let them go, we will let you leave.”
The implication is that this is a threat, but the reality is that, at worst, the students are in a circle around the police with a large buffer in between them. It is only at this point when the students move into “a position intended to prevent the police from leaving.”
The problem is that we only see the front side of the confrontation and cannot tell if the police can exit the rear.
And then at around the 5:36 mark you hear the chant: “From Davis to Greece, f- the police.” This is where I think the video clipping process actually harms the understanding of the event. The editor skips forward three minutes where the students are basically demanding the police off the Quad. Then they skip again, to Lt. Pike calmly warning the protesters.
It is only at the twenty-minute mark of the video, a full 13 minutes of real time after the most threatening statement, that we hear, “If you let them go, we will let you leave.” The students at this point are seated, and while loud and obnoxious, there is no clear elevation of threat to the officers.
Now we can view these stills from this sequence.
First we see Pike calmly walking up to the students, informing them that they will be pepper sprayed if they do not move.
Now we see the students ducking as Lt. Pike shakes the can for about a minute in an effort to warn the students.
Now we see Lt. Pike calmly walk between the students to pepper spray them from the front – the students are not making an effort to impede, or presenting a threat to him in any way.
This shot is particularly telling, because it shows the police on the other side of the line, calmly clearing room for Lt. Pike. They could have just continued to walk off the scene – but chose not to.
Now here is the Enterprise photo shot from the other side of the crowd. Whereas the video we saw was filmed from about where the trees are to the other side of the walkway, this photo shows the other side and it shows a fairly open space, with the police on both side of the protesters.
This vantage point is actually better because it shows that the protesters are actually spread out very thinly. The people sitting and interlocking hands are clearly separate and distinct from the group of onlookers who are standing and mostly filming the event.
So let us back up a few steps. The first question is whether the students are making verbal threats to the police. There are really three utterances, all of them far removed in real time from the actual commencement of the spraying.
First, the students chant “Let’s march peacefully as one towards where they are being held.” That was probably the moment of greatest uncertainty for the police as they had a large group of moving students. But while the students marched around the police, they never marched at the police, and they prefaced their movement with the phrase “march peacefully.”
The most threatening statement was uttered, it appears, 13 minutes prior to the pepper spraying and that was “If you let them go, we will let you leave.” However, again their actions showed that their efforts would be to simply use their numbers to surround the police – they made no move on the police and again it was a full 13 minutes prior to the pepper spraying.
Finally, you have the most vulgar display, the “From Davis to Greece” episode – which while vulgar and unnecessarily antagonistic, does not justify pepper spray or an escalation of the use of force.
From that evaluation, we believe the actual utterance of threats by the protesters is minimal and relatively far removed in time from the use of force.
Remember, the use of force must be unavoidable and used as a defensive posture against imminent threat. The video shows the protesters were seated and not advancing for at least thirteen minutes prior to the use of pepper spray.
The next question is then whether the police were surrounded. We never see the rear flank here and so it is difficult to tell. But the Davis Enterprise vantage point shows a thin strand of seated protesters. Not only are their backs turned, but the police had no problem walking among them.
The students neither reacted to the movement nor attempted to obstruct. Lt. Pike was calm, as were the police who cleared out the path with minimal effort, and there is no evidence that the students were attempting to advance.
That leads us to the alternatives, and from what we see, there was no reason for the use of force. The police could have left at this point. Or they could have stayed and allowed the students to grow bored. There was no threat.
If they were concerned about the large numbers of protesters compared to police, there is no reason that they could not have called for backup and bolstered their numbers.
One thing we do not know, from watching the video, is what the orders of the police were at this point. That will be key for understanding ultimately who is to blame.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“if you let them go, we will let you leave.”
I agree that this is the most “threatening” of the protesters chants. But let’s consider what is actually being threatened. The threat is not of physical violence. It is of a stand off. Which speaks to two aspects of a credible threat. First, it’s feasibility. Does anyone actually believe that a crowd estimated at around 200 students, most of whom were merely curious and photographing ( as can be seen directly from these and other clips) would have the ability so stop police in riot gear with the possibility of calling back up, from leaving. Secondly, is the issue of imminent threat. Since there is no threat of physical violence, at any point in the entire 40 minutes of continuous taping as I first saw it, apparently unedited complete with ground shots and people’s backs and legs as the camera was moved and jostled, I do not see how a claim of imminent threat could be made.
Bad behavior, absolutely. Breaking the law, yes. So issue citations or arrest them. An imminent physical threat warranting the use of a chemical weapon ( yes, Jeff, I’ll stand by calling it by its actual name), no,as demonstrated by the visible evidence including the presence of other, presumably reasonable officers who felt no such need.
Good points medwoman, and again 13 minutes between that chant and the pepper spray.
“We are left at the mercy of the editor’s discretion to know if key things were omitted . . .”
An honest, profound, and unwittingly ironic statement. The protesters’ comments were detailed and quoted excessively, the police comments were few and summarized. Editor’s mercy, indeed.
The “police were surrounded” argument is a myth. A trained formation of armed police with a purpose is a formidable force. I can absolutely guarantee you that if the police formation was surrounded and in peril, this group would have formed up into a phalanx by its field commander and extracted itself. And it would be very messy and one-sided.
When the numerical odds are 10-1 or more, enough of this “tactical error” nonsense. Never do the police have numbers remotely close to prevent flanking in a crowd control situation. Police rely on their training and organization to off-set numerical inferiority and geographic disadvantage.
Look at the police body language in the photographs. Nothing suggests a threat to their personal safety. For that matter, the same for the protesters.
The verbal (actually, oral) “threats” is very mild stuff in the lexicon of protester vocabulary. None of these remarks even remotely approaches the the very high legal standard for a criminal threat to a police officer. There is an axiom in legality that “a police officer’s peace cannot be disturbed.” Police are regarded as agents of the government and verbal abuse comes with the job description. In the fabled (and grossly romanticized) history of California college protest, the verbiage here is surprisingly mild and certainly not threatening.
A different perspective:
As seen in your stills the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd forming an enclosure for the police. We agree that the cops were able to walk over or squeeze through the line, but they were escorting protesters whose hands were bound. If the police had tried to bring them through the line in the same manner who knows what could have happened as the police would’ve been putting their safety at risk. All Hell could’ve broken loose. Then the headlines would’ve read: What were the UCD Police thinking trying to squeeze arrestees though a line of protesters who had just been screaming “if you let them go, we will let you leave”?
Thank you, Phil Coleman . Mario Savio, the fabled Willie Brown and a few thousand of us old timers fought and won that battle almost a half century ago . Mild language, indeed and more media savvy than their armoured foe .
Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago? Certainly such students would be comfortable with offensive speech, but really, are they dumb enough to produce this don’t believe your lying eyes video when it was the Chancellors support of the cops that destroyed her credibility. At least Kaiehi might be able to claim she didn’t know how bad it was when she made her first, after the fact, remarks.
The big story that needs more play is did the Chief or Vice Chancellor okay the spraying? Did Pike go rouge because he got pissed off or did he get permission from Meyer? Its the question Katehi wouldn’t answer at the legislature according, I believe, to the Sac News and Review.
Thanks David. The not so young Davis College Republican authors of the video have learned a great deal from Andrew Breitbart and his school of demagoguery through provocative cherry picking.
[quote]There are three things, we will specifically assess in this analysis. First, the level of threat issued verbally by students. Second, whether the police were surrounded. Third, whether the police had options with less force to resolve this situation.[/quote]
1) The Vanguard concedes the students uttered a verbal threat against law enforcement: “if you let them go, we will let you leave”
2) The Vanguard concedes the police were surrounded: “the students marched around the police”; “again their actions showed that their efforts would be to simply use their numbers to surround the police”; “The next question is then whether the police were surrounded. We never see the rear flank here and so it is difficult to tell. But the Davis Enterprise vantage point shows a thin strand of seated protesters”
3) The Vanguard insists the police could have used less force than pepper spraying to resolve the situation, which is probably true. But in light of #1, #2, the question really becomes did the police have the “right” to use the level of force they chose to use. Considering the police were surrounded and being threatened, both pts the Vanguard concedes albeit with great reluctance and rationalization, it would seem the level of force used was technically justified.
Now, do I think the pepper spray should have been used? No. But more from the vantage point of the administration fouling up tactically here. University officials should never have been sent in to remove tents at a time when many other students would be on the quad to watch and join in the fray. Better to wait until evening, turn the sprinklers on, and quietly remove camping protesters later at night when no one was around to give trouble. But to second guess law enforcement or the administration after the fact when it is clear the students were most definitely in the wrong is not fair IMO. No one in this debacle is blameless.
My hope is the university will think long and hard, and put some set policies in place on how better to deal with potential protesters that:
1) remembers students are our future but still young and act rashly at times;
2) is less confrontational;
3) is less physically dangerous to students; law enforcement; administrators and faculty;
4) discourages escalation of events;
5) but nevertheless does not infringe on the rights of students to speak out on issues they care about.
Just as a side note, it is interesting to see how different people can watch the same video footage and come to completely different conclusions…
Rusty:
“As seen in your stills the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd “
Actually what we see is that they are separate and distinct.
Moreover, Phil Coleman is a former Davis Police Chief, he knows better probably than all of us. There is no evidence that the police were at risk in this entire encounter. The former chief calls the verbal abuse and verbiage “surprisingly mild” and “certainly not threatening.”
“Actually what we see is that they are separate and distinct.”
May I suggest that you look at the photos you posted again, the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd forming an enclosure.
Elaine:
You fail to note the use of chemical agent protocols: They state: “Chemical agents are authorized for use when, based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer, lesser force would not reasonably appear to result in the safe control of the suspect.”
That’s why time is a key consideration here.
Toward your point one: the only use of possible verbal threat, one that a former chief calls mild at best, is 13 minutes prior to the use of force which effectively eliminates that claim.
Second, surrounded does not authorize the use of force as Chief Coleman notes, there are other ways to get unsurrounded if the police feel threatened, but their very demeanor seems to suggest that is not the case.
Third, you concede it is probably true that they could have used less force, that’s the standard of the protocol as well, therefore the use of force was not justified.
Rusty: Look at the Enterprise photo clearly they are not intermeshed with those standing.
“Katehi did not answer when she was asked if a vice chancellor authorized the pepper-spraying. Instead, she asked lawmakers to wait until the investigation is completed to make that determination.”
From the Woodland Daily Democrat 12-15-11.
David, looked at that photo too, the seated line appears to go right up to the standing protesters. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
No Rusty, you are wrong. In the video you can see Wayne Tilcock, the Enterprise photographer, at the other end of the line. He would have moved if the police had asked to go around that way if they were obstructed as he is an observer and not a participant. The fact that both the police could easily cross the line and the press could easily easily get in perfect position to photograph shows that egress was not an issue rather it has been argued as an excuse.
Like most people here, I have viewed and reviewed the various videos several times. One thing that strikes me each time is how quickly the chant of “From Davis to Greece F**k the Police” was quelled by other protestors. What this, the approach of sitting with arms linked, and the subsequent silent confrontation with Chancellor Katehi as she left the press conference the next day reveal is a strong commitment to non-violence by the leaders of the protest. Yes, they are rash, inexperienced young people but they have learned a few things about non-violent protest and they were attempting (and I would argue succeeded) to use non-violent approaches. I am not suggesting their actions were legal but they were engaging in protest non-violently. To me, this makes the level of force used all the more troubling.
[quote]Third, you concede it is probably true that they could have used less force, that’s the standard of the protocol as well, therefore the use of force was not justified.[/quote]
You can rationalize all you want, but I would argue from a technical viewpoint there is an argument to be made that pepper spraying was technically justified. From a tactical perspective I personally think it was a stupid move for any number of reasons, but I suspect in a court of law the police would pass muster in this case. But let’s see how it plays out…
But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.
[quote]But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.[/quote]
Not necessarily…
[i]Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago? [/i]
Toad, wasn’t that a peaceful protest? They were not breaking the law (got all their permits). They didn’t block the walkway or create any safety hazards. Yet you seem to froth at the mouth over their expression of their civil rights, and fully embrace the actions of the Occupy growd.
Ironic that the flood of illegal immigrants to this state over the last three decades are contributing to the state and local budget problems what are in turn contributing to rising tuition rates. The law-breaking Occupiers and the law-abiding UCD College Republicans should be working together on this.
Seems pretty obvious we all have our objectivity at least partially blinded by our worldviews.
Phil Coleman, an ex-police captain that I am related to and used to work for you told me that he thought the pepper spraying was an inappropriate use of force based on his observations and understanding of the circumstances. I asked him what he would have done. He said that he would have used pain compliance techniques to get the protestors to release their arms so they could be cuffed and removed. I told him that many people said they police should have just let the protestors alone. Of course he said that would not have been an option since the police were sent onsite to remove the camp and deal with the safety risks for blocking the entrance and exit of the building. I told him that I thought pain compliance techniques would have had a greater risk of injury and hence pepper spray seemed a good choice… after all it did the trick… the protestors got up and moved. His reply was very interesting to me… he said “yes, but pepper spraying looks real bad”. He also said that anyone getting sprayed is going to be arrested. He said then that too becomes a PR problem as the police look like the bad guy taking the protesters to jail.
I tend to forget that police decisions are constantly in the public eye and those prone to be anti-law enforcement will exploit every Kodak moment to the detriment of the police.
You seem to be 100% against the actions of the UC police on this day. As the police chief, what would you have directed your employees to do differently?
[quote]”Elaine: You fail to note the use of chemical agent protocols: They state: “Chemical agents are authorized for use when, based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer, lesser force would not reasonably appear to result in the safe control of the suspect.” [/quote]Actually, David, you failed to note that in your report.
Elaine is responding to what you reported here. You are adding additional information about someone’s protocols–what is the source?–in an attempt to discredit her evaluation of the information you provided in your “analysis.”
She explains why your information leads her to different conclusions than you got to. Tossing in an additional fact doesn’t mean her conclusions about your analysis are wrong. If the protocols are so critical to your opinion, how about noting them in your analysis instead of beating her over the head with them afterwards.
Even with you adding an additional consideration, I’m not sure that she’s off base in concluding that the police facing the situation have the right to make such judgement calls, even ones that, upon reflection, would have been made differently:[quote]”…based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer…”[/quote]Is there really anything here that proves your point that “the use of force was not justified.” Not in the slightest.
I agree with pretty much everything she’s said here, but obviously you’ve missed her point.
Most of the actions and initial responses to this event were made in the “fog of war” and were discredited or backed away from shortly after it happened. Even if not a single person would make the same decision knowing what we now know, it still doesn’t suggest that the officer didn’t have the right to decide.
Let’s not go overboard Zapruderizing this video of pepper-spraying law violators. People are killed in “righteous shooting calls” that the cop wishes he or she could have to do over with just one more piece of information or a few more seconds of perceived decision time.
Let’s wait until the investigations get done before we conclude whether heads will roll and, if so, which ones they should be. Unless you’d like to discredit the investigators ahead of time just in case they come up with different conclusions than you already have developed.
Elaine has listed a good number of suggestions to help assure that this doesn’t happen again. But, of course, something very similar certainly will. Sometime.
[quote]”I told him that many people said they police should have just let the protestors alone. Of course he said that would not have been an option since the police were sent onsite to remove the camp and deal with the safety risks for blocking the entrance and exit of the building.” [/quote]Interesting, Jeff Boone, that David happened to interview a bunch of “law enforcement people,” most of whom allegedly told him the authorities involved should have “done nothing” and left the scene of the demonstration.
It must seem like an outrageous commentary to Captain Coleman that the current crop of “law enforcement people” would cut-and-run (rather than serve-and-protect) in the face of such a minor display of resistance threatening a trained, well-outfitted band of Davis’s Finest.
JustSaying: You do understand that the job is “law enforcement”, right?
My guess is that David talked to people at lower levels of authority. That is why I am very interested in what Chief Coleman has to say.
“But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.”
“Not necessarily… “
Sorry, Elaine–it already has.
“Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago?”
“Toad, wasn’t that a peaceful protest? They were not breaking the law (got all their permits). They didn’t block the walkway or create any safety hazards. Yet you seem to froth at the mouth over their expression of their civil rights, and fully embrace the actions of the Occupy growd.”
Jeff, excellent comeback. The Toad is in way over his head.
“Seems pretty obvious we all have our objectivity at least partially blinded by our worldviews.”
Jeff, that sums it up, David’s analysis of the video definitely shows his Occupier apologist slant just as we on the right will tend to see it more from the cops point of view.
“It must seem like an outrageous commentary to Captain Coleman that the current crop of “law enforcement people” would cut-and-run (rather than serve-and-protect) in the face of such a minor display of resistance threatening a trained, well-outfitted band of Davis’s Finest.”
Serve and protect whom? Seems to me that your major complaint is that most of Davis’s police eschew gestapo-type tactics. Time you moved to North Korea, if that’s what you prefer.
“David happened to interview a bunch of “law enforcement people,” most of whom allegedly told him the authorities involved should have “done nothing” and left the scene of the demonstration.”
(A) I spoke to them, I didn’t “interview” them
(B) They told me that they would have not wanted to have tried to clear the tent
(C) They felt that the use of pepper spray was inappropriate use of force
“just as we on the right will tend to see it more from the cops point of view. “
What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here.
“My guess is that David talked to people at lower levels of authority. That is why I am very interested in what Chief Coleman has to say.”
Actually the people I spoke to were either former chiefs or current people in comparable leadership positions.
“What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here.”
no, you took what you wanted from what they said and left the rest. you formed your opinion based on leftist templates…. who do you think you are fooling?
the vanguard then argues if the threats are thirteen minutes before the spray, they don’t count as threats…. they are threats plain and simple.
I saw the video, at no point after the verbal threats did the crowd tone it down a notch. Far from it.
I also noticed the vanguard left out part two of the threat:
“If you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully” – meaning the crowd would not be peaceful if the officers did not let detainees go.
[quote]The first problem is that it is no more of a complete version than other videos.[/quote]
B – I – N – G – O…..
Yet, you failed to so note when you crowed about the first ‘edited’ video..hhhmmmmmm
The threat is not of physical violence.
bull crap medwoman. bull crap.
medwoman, your emphasis on one point, in a matter that is fact bound and contextual is good — but does not make for the whole enchilada….
FYI, Coleman’s comment re: his method (pain compliance – if I recall correctly) is no higher/lower a potential response on the self-same continuum…
Phil Coleman’s post indicated the following [quote] The “police were surrounded” argument is a myth. [/quote]
Yet, case law is replete with issues revolving around reasonableness. Thus, the question is was it reasonable for the officers [whom the USSC said are the best judge(s) to decide what level of force is necessary] under the circumstances, to have such a min