On Wednesday, Tomas Matzat was back in the Yolo County Court where he was finally arraigned on his felony and misdemeanor charges for vandalism.
Famed Defense Attorney Tony Serra made his first appearance in front of Judge Tim Fall – it was largely uneventful and a matter of formality. Mr. Matzat pled not guilty to the charges and they set, at least for now, a preliminary hearing for July 18.
While the Vanguard has externally determined the identity of Officer Lee, the university has not publicly done so, and the Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee recently filed suit against UC Davis and the UC Board of Regents for a disclosure of that information.
We have been able to confirm that two officers remain on leave, following the retirement of former Chief Annette Spicuzza. And spokespersons for the university have confirmed that they are UC Davis officers, and not officers from other campuses that did arrive at the November 18 event on the quad as part of a mutual aid agreement.
While the Vanguard has confirmed that Lt. Barry Swartwood is not among those suspended, it is unknown if he as incident commander will face criminal or internal discipline for his role in the decision to pepper spray and his role as scene commander, that was at least somewhat abdicated.
Kroll reports that, according to Lieutenant Pike’s Supplemental Narrative Report, he discussed the use of pepper spray with Lt. Swartwood and “considered other force options.”
However, “In the ‘Supplement Narrative Report’ written by Lt. Swartwood, “he does not say that he discussed the use of pepper spray or any other less-than-lethal force with Pike.”
The major finding of the two reports is: “The pepper spraying incident that took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented.”
Kroll writes: “The actual deployment of pepper spray by Lieutenant Pike and by [Officer Alexander Lee] at Pike’s direction was flawed and unnecessary.”
The task force finds, along with Kroll, “The decision to use [pepper spray] was not supported by objective evidence and was not authorized by policy,” as the pepper spray that was used was not an authorized weapon for use by the UCDPD.
The task force finds, “Lt. Pike bears primary responsibility for the objectively unreasonable decision to use pepper spray on the students sitting in a line and for the manner in which the pepper spray was used.”
There are two critical reviews that are still pending with regard to the police in this incident.
Both are still ongoing according to an email this morning by Barry Shiller, UC Davis spokesperson.
He informed the Vanguard that the internal reviews “continue to meander their way through the multiple levels of review customary for the process.”
On the other hand, he is not sure where the District Attorney’s investigation stands and when it will wrap up, or whether they are waiting for the internal review to be completed first.
The Vanguard had previously learned that the decision of whether to prosecute Lt. Pike, among others, will be spelled out by the DA in some sort of written form rather than in just a brief summary.
This is likely a wise decision as the public will undoubtedly have questions regardless of the direction that the DA chooses to go.
As our previous analysis indicates, the finding of the Kroll report made it difficult to understand why Lt. Pike, at the very least, would not face criminal charges.
Not only was the use of pepper spray not reasonable according to Kroll, and not only was the legal authority at least questionable, but these errors were compounded by the ultimate fact that the police used non-authorized pepper spray.
The type of pepper spray is unauthorized under UCDPD General Order No.559 which “provides that pepper spray can be used, but specifically refers to the MK-4 (a smaller canister).”
The task force adds, “Furthermore, the investigation found no evidence that any UCDPD officer had been trained in the use of the larger MK-9.”
Kroll supported their conclusion that use of pepper spray was not reasonable use of force by stating, “This conclusion is buttressed by the facts that the MK-9 was not an authorized weapon under UCDPD guidelines and that UCDPD officers were not trained in its use.”
The task force notes that UCDPD officers were not trained on how to use this pepper spray correctly and that they “did not use it correctly.” Writes the task force: “The MK-9 is a higher pressure type of pepper spray than what officers normally carry on their utility belts (MK-4). It is designed for crowd dispersal rather than field applications and “[t]he recommended minimum distance for . . . application of the MK-9 is six feet.” Lt. Pike appeared to be spraying protesters at a much closer distance than 6 feet.”
Unfortunately, all of these questions ultimately remain unresolved as the process has dragged on. That means that many of the students involved in this incident will be gone for the summer or graduated before a decision has been made.
UC Davis Spokesperson Barry Shiller clarified, however, that this is not a matter of foot dragging by the university.
He said, “It’s simply the time it takes to go through a series of proscribed appeals and reviews (partly proscribed by law, partly by collective bargaining rights, partly basic personnel practices). Very thorough, methodical, and intended to ensure that decisions are thoroughly evaluated.”
Both the bank-blocking prosecutions and the charges against Matzat will continue through the summer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It looks like someone decided that the truth needs help in the case against Lieutenant Pike. It’s not enough to rest on the fact that it made no sense for Pike to use pepper spray, it has to be “military grade” pepper spray. But Kroll-Reynoso never says “military grade”, and neither does the ACLU complaint document, even though the ACLU press release does say that. Also the product page is well known and nothing there indicates that this particular pepper spray can is “military grade”:
[url]http://www.defense-technology.com/products.aspx?pid=56795[/url]
Besides, what does “military grade” even mean for a can of pepper spray? It certainly doesn’t mean use against someone with a gun.
[quote]Besides, what does “military grade” even mean for a can of pepper spray? It certainly doesn’t mean use against someone with a gun.[/quote]
LOL Good points…
“Besides, what does “military grade” even mean for a can of pepper spray? It certainly doesn’t mean use against someone with a gun.”
It was worth a laugh for me too. But does not change the fact that if the officers did not have training in the use of this particular device, and did in fact not use it properly, then it was wrong to have used it, and in this case, potentially dangerous for medical reasons I put forward in previous commentary on this issue.
I removed the reference to military grade, I believe it is, but I must be really tired because I was not intending to use that term.
medwoman – Hey, it was practically Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Okay, not really, but it was still potentially dangerous for medical reasons.
Actually, the same ACLU that parroted the description “military grade” has also given the truth some help in its discussion of the medical effects of pepper spray. People with heart disease, meth/cocaine intoxication, and/or morbid obesity have died in violent police confrontations that also involved pepper spray. So what the ACLU says about it is that pepper spray can be fatal for people with conditions “such as” asthma. Which is a lot like saying that swimming can be fatal for people with conditions “such as” asthma: Swimming can indeed be fatal, and a lot of people have asthma.
David – But the real issue is not whether you’re tired, it’s that this phrase “military grade” is part of the standard propaganda against the university. Google turns up roughly 100,000 hits.
Yeah and because I was tired, I slipped into using the rhetoric rather than the more precise and neutral term.
[quote]”While the Vanguard has confirmed that Lt. Barry Swartwood is not among those suspended, it is unknown as he as incident commander will face criminal or internal discipline for his role in the decision to pepper spray and his role as scene commander that was at least somewhat abdicated.”[/quote]Goodness, gracious, who said that Lt. Swartwood is being investigated for criminal prosecution? (Guess one could say “it is [u]unknown[/u] if he fired a gun during the same month or if he stopped beating his wife.”)
The reason for the lack of resolution of criminal charges for the rest of the folks is obvious. They refused plea deals offered months ago. And, obviously, they plan to waste our tax money and clog up the courts–you know, the way the DA has been doing–by going to trial.
Wonder what the defense plans to argue? Seems as though the evidence is just overwhelming against Tomas Matzat and Professor Clover. Or, as the [i]Vanguard[/i] has suggested in other situations, an “open and shut case” that cries out for the DA to offer a plea deal.
This matter will continue without “resolution” as long as it’s seen as generating beneficial publicity for the larger Occupy movement and as long as language like “military-grade pepper spray” and “11 years in prison” and “$1-million in restitution” can get liberally applied.
Speaking of distortions that have bent people’s thinking, there is also widespread propaganda that law enforcement pepper spray is 1,000 times more concentrated that hot sauce in food. Both Wikipedia and Scientific American are complicit in this distortion, see for instance
[url]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/[/url]
In fact, according to the ACLU complaint, it was pepper spray with 0.7% capsaicinoids, which is 35 times the strength of Tabasco sauce. (Which I also figured out independently because the spray can has an orange band in the video.) Now that’s very painful, because ordinary Tabasco sauce hurts plenty enough if you get it into your eye, much less if you boil it down from a half gallon to a two ounce shot glass. But 1,000 isn’t in the same ballpark as 35, unless you don’t mind paying $1,000 for a $35 dinner.
Pepper Spray Creator Decries Use of Chemical Agent on Peaceful Occupy Wall Street Protesters
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/pepper_spray_creator_decries_use_of
KAMRAN LOGHMAN: Pepper spray was available in those days as a dog repellent, but it did not have the strength to be a weapon-grade product for law enforcement and [b]military application[/b], so it went through a series of research and development and a lot of field testing, and by the time it became available, it went under three years of study at the FBI Firearms Training Unit in Virginia and became a standard issue with almost every police department in the United States. And I was involved in all the research and development and basically the development of the product.
AMY GOODMAN: So explain how it went from pepper spray to weapons-grade pepper spray and then how—why the FBI was interested in developing this, and then how it came to be used by police departments all over the country.
KAMRAN LOGHMAN: Well, what you have is that in chili peppers or capsicum peppers or cayenne pepper, as you call it—it is the family of capsicum pepper—you have an ingredient which is called capsaicinoids. Capsaicinoids is the active ingredient which actually causes inflammation of the mucous membranes, you know, the eyelids, the nose, the respiratory system, anything that basically is moist in the human body, and causes a lot of irritation and inflammation in that regard. So, that part was manipulated, concentrated, strengthened, so it was no longer something you see just in chili pepper. It was fortified to many more degree. Then it was formulated, under pressure in a canister of an aerosol with variety of chemicals which are not pepper spray, such as alcohol or water, depending on the brand, different kind of propellants or gases in order to eject the spray. And that’s how the [b]military specification[/b] that we applied to that, making sure that it works every time you pull the trigger, let’s call it.
Pepper Spray Creator Decries Use of Chemical Agent on Peaceful Occupy Wall Street Protesters
KAMRAN LOGHMAN: Pepper spray was available in those days as a dog repellent, but it did not have the strength to be a weapon-grade product for law enforcement and [b]military application[/b], so it went through a series of research and development and a lot of field testing, and by the time it became available, it went under three years of study at the FBI Firearms Training Unit in Virginia and became a standard issue with almost every police department in the United States. And I was involved in all the research and development and basically the development of the product.
AMY GOODMAN: So explain how it went from pepper spray to weapons-grade pepper spray and then how—why the FBI was interested in developing this, and then how it came to be used by police departments all over the country.
KAMRAN LOGHMAN: Well, what you have is that in chili peppers or capsicum peppers or cayenne pepper, as you call it—it is the family of capsicum pepper—you have an ingredient which is called capsaicinoids. Capsaicinoids is the active ingredient which actually causes inflammation of the mucous membranes, you know, the eyelids, the nose, the respiratory system, anything that basically is moist in the human body, and causes a lot of irritation and inflammation in that regard. So, that part was manipulated, concentrated, strengthened, so it was no longer something you see just in chili pepper. It was fortified to many more degree. Then it was formulated, under pressure in a canister of an aerosol with variety of chemicals which are not pepper spray, such as alcohol or water, depending on the brand, different kind of propellants or gases in order to eject the spray. And that’s how the [b]military specification[/b] that we applied to that, making sure that it works every time you pull the trigger, let’s call it.
[url]http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/pepper_spray_creator_decries_use_of
[/url]
Yeah, Kamran Loghman “created” pepper spray “in the 1980s”. And did you know that he’s also an expert in venture capital, quantum physics, Japanese martial arts, and film production?
[url]http://www.kamranloghman.com/[/url]
It looks like Kamran Loghman likes to wave his hands about every topic under the sun, and that his real job is motivational business seminars.
On the other hand, it seems that Kamran Loghman used to be (or still legally is?) Cameron Logman, and that he did sell pepper spray in earlier years. He was connected with a pepper spray company called Zarc International. If you want to sell pepper spray to police departments and to people on the street, you might well sensationalize it with a so-called “military specification”.
Pepper spray companies are not the only outfits who think of that sales tactic. You can also get “military grade” edge dressing to blacken the heels and soles of your shoes:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/Angelus-Military-Grade-Dressing-Black/dp/B004OYZ738[/url]
I do have to wonder, if Cameron Logman changed his name to Kamran Loghman, why stop there. He could borrow a page from certain rock bands and change his name again to Kämrän Löghmän.
[quote]”I removed the reference to military grade, I believe it is, but I must be really tired because I was not intending to use that term….Yeah and because I was tired, I slipped into using the rhetoric rather than the more precise and neutral term.”[/quote]In an effort to support David’s claim of tiredness, I checked back and found at least a dozen references to “military-grade” or “military grade” pepper spray since the incident.
Some of these references were quoting others (ACLU lawyers, radical professors, demonstrators) and several were David’s own words describing the type of pepper spray that supposedly was used in his commentaries or reporting.
(This type of analysis won’t be helpful in the future since today’s use of “the rhetoric” won’t appear in a search since it’s been scrubbed from the report for reasons unknown, certainly not in the interests of maintaining the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s own accurate history.)
This confirms, I guess, that David was really, really tired.
What is tired is the attempt being made by commenters to downplay the seriousness of Pike’s brutal assault on students. If Pike is such a nice guy, you should pay him to babysit your kids. I’m sure he’s looking for an additional source of income to pay his upcoming legal bills.
Kuperberg, I guess your misguided and laughable defense of banks wasn’t enough. Now you’re minimizing violence against your own students. Congratulations.
crank – In the sense that I’m restricting it to the truth, yes, that is a type of minimization. And I never said or believed that Pike is a “nice guy”. He’s not Lieutenant William Calley, that’s all.
Greg, which truth concerns you more: that media (and OC manufacturers themselves) may have overestimated the strength of the OC spray (which I invite you to test on yourself), or that the UC Davis police had no authorization to possess this spray, were using it improperly and without legal justification, and in fact had no plausible tactical reason to use it either?
crank – I’m a math professor. What concerns me the most is the idea that there is only one truth, not red truth and blue truth.
“Which is a lot like saying that swimming can be fatal for people with conditions “such as” asthma: Swimming can indeed be fatal, and a lot of people have asthma.”
True, however it kind of misses the point unless you are equating pepper spraying of students to police forcibly picking them up and dropping them into a body of water and then seeing who swims out unscathed. I believe that either should be considered an unacceptable use of force. Apoarently the Reynoso report is in agreement with this conclusion regarding the pepper spray. I don’t think the swimming issue was addressed.
“I’m a math professor.”
My father is a math professor, I grew up around math professors, you’re not typical of the math professors I have met. Just saying.
medwoman – I certainly agree that the pepper spray was unnecessary and, in context, unacceptable. (Other contexts could be a different story.) As far as that goes, we agree. My point is that when people want to be accusatory, they often whip up special theories of scary medical consequences. If I understand correctly, obstetricians are sometimes unfairly blamed by some of these special medical theories, so maybe you can appreciate the point.
To its credit, the Reynoso report stayed away from both military hyperbole and irresponsible medical speculation.
David – Sure, mathematicians can be very different from each other and I don’t mean to speak for all of them. Or even more than one of them. Nonetheless, there is a common culture among mathematicians and I am certainly part of that culture.
Greg
rt.com/usa/news/death-pepper-yarborough-nypd/
Above is a link to a single reported incidence of the pepper spraying of an individual with a diagnosis of asthma who died after the spraying. I post this not for a “gottcha” moment, but because I think it is important not to trivialize the potentially lethal nature of this weapon.
In about 1992 or 1993 the ACLU had done a review of cases of 30 + men who had died in custody shortly after having been pepper sprayed. This study was criticized by some in law enforcement because they made the claim that the cause of death quoted on the death certificates of most of these men was
asphyxiation and therefore the pepper spray could not be blamed for the deaths. This reasoning is very flawed. Having asphyxiation on a death certificate is really no more revealing of the cause than is writing
cardiac arrest. Neither says anything about the underlying cause. In cases of asphyxiation, one has to ascertain why there was not enough oxygen reaching the vital organs. What this interpretation misses is that it is quite likely that in at least some of these cases it was bronchospasm brought on by the presence of the pepper spray that was the direct cause of the asphyxiation. This is not, in my opinion “whipping up
special theories of scary medical consequences.” I think that there is a real concern about a very real potential medical consequence here. Not some dreamed up scenario. And yes, as an obstetrician, I fully understand that sometimes adverse consequences are falsely attributed to physician error. However, that does not mean that certain practices are not more medically dangerous than others, and that it is the responsibility of the doctor ( or in this case the police) to avoid the more dangerous actions and to do only what is actually necessary. I feel that police just as doctors should honor a “first do no harm” ethic.
medwoman – I read some version of that ACLU report after November 18, which is why I feel that I know something about it. The report raises a valid question about the medical effects of pepper spray, However, the ACLU is in the business of braking government excess with lawsuits; it’s not a medical organization. So until the ACLU’s list of cases is analyzed in a medical journal, it does amount to concocting medical theories.
Suppose that you were a physician in a prison hospital and a large, potentially violent criminal patient — which is the profile that fits these deaths — died on your watch. Then maybe you would have violated the Hippocratic oath and maybe not, but I don’t think that you want me to just take the ACLU’s word for it.
The case that you quote is a case in point. Take away the pepper spray and look at what you still have. (1) A suspect with a previous murder conviction begins to have trouble breathing during police questioning. (2) He lunges for his inhaler and the police, mistaking his intentions, tackle him. (3) He begs for his inhaler for 5-10 minutes with men piled on top of him. And also, (4) he weighs 300 pounds and has an enlarged heart, according to a related source that I found. Then even without the pepper spray, this is clearly an emergency medical situation.
Now, sure, the police should have realized that he needed his inhaler and immediate medical attention, not pepper spray. But this is not strong evidence that pepper spray itself is dangerous. Cruelly painful, yes, but that’s not the same thing. That guy might equally have died if they had splashed water on him. It’s a completely different medical situation from pepper spraying a student who isn’t morbidly obese; who doesn’t have an enlarged heart; who isn’t pinned other under people; and who has immediate access to an inhaler if one is needed.
[url]http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-28/news/29844285_1_pepper-sprayed-asthma-attack-nypd-s-internal-affairs-bureau[/url]
(Okay, 300 pounds it obese, but not necessarily morbidly obese, for a guy who is 6 foot 4.)
Greg,
Have you reviewed the Robinson-Edley report? Appendix F (Page 128/158) of that report is the “Evidence-Based Safety Review of Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper Spray) Exposure in Humans” by UCSF.
Is the quality of that review better or worse than the review by ACLU?
http://campusprotestreport.universityofcalifornia.edu/
Edgar – I had not known about this review article in the Robinson-Edley report; thanks for mentioning it. It’s much better than the ACLU report; in particular, it’s a real medical review. It’s also much more conservative in its conclusions. The report has medical jargon that might look scary to some people, but it’s not really so terrible; it’s doctorspeak. The report does not at all say that people should think of pepper spray as a deadly weapon, only that medical attention afterwards is appropriate and there are unknowns.
If there is one weakness in this report, it’s that it doesn’t compare place pepper spray to any other police equipment. Police can encounter armed suspects (witness Virginia Tech), so they do sometimes need guns. Beyond that, you wouldn’t want “guns or nothing”, or even necessarily just guns and batons. Pepper spray could be safer than batons or tasers.
Another piece of context is that the police don’t necessarily need any equipment to deal with obstructive UC Davis protesters in certain situations, not even handcuffs. Court summons might work better than anything else. Berkeley protesters are a different case. I once directly witnessed Berkeley protesters start a bonfire in the street, and later throw bricks and glass bottles at police and firefighters.