Former UC Davis Lt. John Pike filed a worker’s compensation claim for injuries suffered on November 18, 2011, during the incident in which he doused protesters with pepper spray on the UC Davis Quad.
While much of the information remains confidential, protected under privacy and other rights, the form indicates that the impact was “psychiatric” and affected the “nervous system.”
The case is scheduled for a hearing on August 13 in Sacramento in front of an administrative law judge, according to the State Department of Industrial Relations website. It is scheduled as a settlement conference and, if no settlement is reached, the case would move forward to trial.
The Vanguard spoke with Andy Fell from the UC Davis News Service who was unsure as to whether the university could comment on the matter or what information was public. He never called back on Thursday afternoon.
“Apparently, Officer Pike experienced so much emotional trauma when pepper spraying those kids that he’s applying for full disability income, retirement, and benefits,” said Bernie Goldsmith, a long-time Davis resident and attorney. “Why shouldn’t he get a payout of millions in retirement income?”
On July 31, 2012, the university confirmed that Lt. John Pike was no longer a university employee. We would learn a week later that the university had in fact fired Lt. Pike.
The Bee would report, “Pike was fired Tuesday after UC Davis Police Chief Matthew Carmichael rejected the findings and wrote in a letter to Pike that ‘the needs of the department do not justify your continued employment,’ according to the documents.”
“For reasons detailed in this report, we conclude that Lieutenant Pike’s use of pepper spray was reasonable under the circumstances,” the report states. “The visual of Lieutenant Pike spraying the seated protesters is indeed disturbing.
“However, it also fails to tell other important parts of the story.”
Cruz Reynoso, whose task force reviewed the report written by former LA Police Chief William Bratton and his firm, Kroll, strongly disputed the validity of the findings.
“Based on the newspaper accounts… it appears that the review was superficial and reached an incorrect conclusion that Lt. Pike had acted correctly under the circumstances,” Cruz Reynoso said.
He added, “As the Task Force concluded, the Pepper Spray never should have been utilized under those circumstances. There was absolutely no danger to the officers and they could have executed their duties in a completely legal proper way without using pepper spray.”
The Executive Board of the University of California Davis Police Officers Association later in August 2012 released an open letter to the UC Board of Regents protesting the decision to fire Lt. Pike for his actions on November 18, 2011.
They wrote, “While the Board fully supports the appointment of Police Chief Carmichael and the positive changes he is implementing, we do not approve of the decision to disregard the findings of the internal affairs investigation and the sufficiency review board as it relates to Lieutenant Pike’s termination.”
The open letter from the police officer’s union notes that the Sacramento Bee‘s reporting of the IA revealed that “the investigation found that Lieutenant Pike was justified with his use of pepper spray under the circumstances. The internal affairs investigation did not recommend discipline for Lieutenant Pike due to the use of force issue, rather other aspects of the events that day.”
They add, “Additionally, the discipline recommendations did not include termination, but rather demotion or suspension. He should not have been terminated from The UC Davis Police Department.”
In May of 2012, following the release of the Kroll Report and the Cruz Reynoso Task Force report with the names of police officers redacted, the Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee argued that the public and press interests were not represented in the agreement to suppress the names of officers who were involved.
In a case that is likely destined for the state’s Supreme Court, the First Appellate District, Division Four, ruled in favor of the newspapers and ordered the release of the names of 12 officers named in the two reports commissioned by the University of California Regents.
“The reports reviewed the facts leading up to the pepper spray incident, made conclusions regarding responsibility for the incident, and concluded with policy recommendations to ensure that such a polarizing incident did not reoccur,” the court notes. “However, the names of more than a dozen UC police officers who planned, participated in, and/or witnessed the pepper spray incident were redacted from the reports.”
The court writes, “We agree with the trial court that the identities of the officers named in the reports must be disclosed because this information does not fall within any category of exempted information under section 832.7, subdivision (a). “
On November 18, 2011, UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike was videotaped dousing pepper spray in a methodical fashion, on what appeared to be a row of nonviolent and seated protestors at close range after their failure to follow orders to disburse.
The incident led to national and worldwide news coverage and two publicly released reports commissioned by UC President Mark Yudof, one produced by Kroll – which is run by former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton. He also appointed former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso to chair a task force (the Reynoso Task Force) to examine the pepper-spray incident.
The result of these investigations led to the retirement of Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, the firing of Lt. Pike and the firing of a second officer whom the Vanguard identified as Officer Alexander Lee.
I don’t believe the claim, and I don’t have much sympathy for him. If he really objected to the idea of the action during the meeting in police headquarters as the Reynoso Report indicates, then he should have just not gone out there and done it. He could have suddenly taken ill or found a way to get out of it.
That conclusion (that he objected to the overall action in the first place) seems to be contradicted by the fact that he used military grade pepper spray. If we’re to believe the idea that he objected to the action in the first place, but then at the same time also chose to use an unauthorized type of pepper spray, then the only conclusion that could follow from that is that he is just plain stupid. But that can’t be true, therefore, I’m led to reject the claim that he objected to the action in the first place.
Brian: he’s not objecting to the action, he’s saying he’s the victim.
Right, I was trying to add supporting evidence as to why I don’t believe his worker’s comp claim. I think he’s lying and just going for the money. His prior actions didn’t match his purported words (regarding whether he objected to the idea of the action in the first place), so I don’t see any reason to believe him on this.
Has anyone come up with a reason why we should believe him on anything? Where has he ever established any amount of credibility?
(By “action” I’m talking about the Nov. 18th police action.)
Worker’s Compensation is a no fault system, so it is irrelevant whether or not the use of pepper spray was justified or even if the claimant objected to it. If the claimant suffered injury as a result, then it is a legitimate claim and is likely to be successful.
@ebowler, it might be no fault, but there’s still the issue of his credibility. That’s why the do depositions of some people who claim worker’s comp injuries, to see if their claim is credible, and sometimes even to sub-rosa photography and videos, to see if they are engaging in behavior that contradicts what they are claiming.
His alleged psychiatric injuries will be established or not by examination by qualified experts.
He could still be lying to his psychiatrist.
Malingering is always a consideration in workers’ compensation cases.
I’m talking about fraud, not malingering.
Is it possible to be the perpetrator of a violent act and be traumatized by it? Absolutely. Since I am not a psychiatrist and do not know Mr Pike I cannot in any way determine whether in fact he is disabled. But his act of dehumanization dehumanized him as well. The condemnation he received–some of it scurrilous and vicious–would be hard for anyone to take. The fact that he committed violence does not mean he is not a human being. I would urge us as a community to not judge Mr Pike on these issues. We do not know if he lives with regret. We do not know how he feels about what he did. We only know he is an international pariah and someone who can never live openly in this community again.
Several of us called for a restorative process in the aftermath of this incident. Such a process could have held both the University leadership and the police (including Mr Pike) accountable for their actions, given the students a chance to describe the harms and give the police and leadership a way to make them right. The Reynoso report called for such a process. The University rejected it (de facto). The failure to move forward with RJ means many lives remain broken and damaged.
Why are we surprised by where Mr Pike has gone?
This case brought back memories to me. My daughter was involved in a car crash when she was 16. Almost a year later she and I got served, we knew the other driver wasn’t injured but he said that he had nervous system problems and a loss of strength. How do you disprove possible injuries like that? My insurance company settled with him over my objections for what they said was a small amount. They said it was cheaper to settle than to fight it.
If some of the protesters received PTSD why can’t Pike?
Is he suing for emotional damaged caused by spraying the protesters, or emotional damage caused by the fall out his actions?
I agree with Robb Davis. Restorative Justice would have been something to consider in the aftermath of the original incident and could have lessened the level of the emotional aftermath suffered by the students and others. The fact that Pike has now become an internet meme showing a callous disregard for others? Well that could be emotionally harmful to most people. I can see how he could be emotionally harmed by all the attention he personally received, deservedly or not. One can cause one’s own PTSD- right, Mr. Obvious?
I’ve heard that there is a financial benefit to being considered disabled upon retirement – something about substantial tax free income. I seem to remember CHP officers doing this to boost their retirement income and there was a whole investigation regarding fraud. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212225/posts )
There may be more to this. He may indeed be suffering and has exhausted the medical resources provided through UC medical insurance. But to provide him with extra income above and beyond his UC retirement is something I’m not so interested in him being awarded.
Remember, the victims of his actions were given $30,000 each for their trauma (roughly one year of tuition/cost of living for the interrupted year of study) and basically told to get on with their lives. Compared to this, it wouldn’t be right for Pike to receive a substantial financial award.
Rob
[quote]Several of us called for a restorative process in the aftermath of this incident. Such a process could have held both the University leadership and the police (including Mr Pike) accountable for their actions, given the students a chance to describe the harms and give the police and leadership a way to make them right. The Reynoso report called for such a process. The University rejected it (de facto). The failure to move forward with RJ means many lives remain broken and damaged.
[/quote]
I am in complete agreement with you on the applicability of restorative justice in this situation and am wondering if it is too late for the University to still consider such an action. Given the ambiguities of this situation, it would seem appropriate in response to Ryan Kelley’s question for Mr. Pike to receive essentially the same compensation received by each of the students that was traumatized by his actions in addition to what other recommendations resulted from the restorative justice process.
“I’m talking about fraud, not malingering.”
Malingering can be a form of fraud and I’ve seen it charged as such.
I agree with Ryan Kelly that there is something unfair about how this all plays out (I realize he did not say that but really that is what the outcome feels like: unfair). If we step back and look at how the parties responded to this brutal act–from the way the University handled it, to the police attempt to shield members from responsibility, to the role of the DA, to the lawsuit filed by students, we have a textbook case of how our “legal system” failed to deliver justice. Despite that it seems no one is willing to step forward and take a risk to see justice done. No one will take a risk to seek a restorative path. To date, the only people I am aware of who were willing to go down that path were some of the students involved.
Medwoman–it is not too late to engage in a restorative process. Despite everything that has happened, students who so desire could meet in a carefully prepared and facilitated meeting with key UC Davis leaders and the police. Who knows, perhaps even Mr Pike could be convinced to come. There are many factors that work together to keep this from happening but the main one is that we have a retributive system that serves our (collective) need for assigning blame rather than healing broken relationships. The voices of many in the last 24 hours since the story of Pike broke demonstrate that even self-styled progressives want blood, want retribution and have no interest in restoring Mr Pike to our community. Why is that I wonder?
“The voices of many in the last 24 hours since the story of Pike broke demonstrate that even self-styled progressives want blood, want retribution and have no interest in restoring Mr Pike to our community. Why is that I wonder?”
because they don’t feel like the wrongdoers were properly held accountable in this process?
[quote]because they don’t feel like the wrongdoers were properly held accountable in this process? [/quote]
That may or may not be true, but the Workers’ Compensation system is not the place to hold someone accountable. Its purpose is to treat, rehabilitate and compensate a worker for a workplace injury. If he has suffered an workplace injury, he has every right, as does any other worker, to seek remedy from the WC system.
it doesn’t seem like anyone would have access to the worker’s comp system anyway, so that point may be irrelevant.
[quote]”The voices of many in the last 24 hours since the story of Pike broke demonstrate that even self-styled progressives want blood, want retribution and have no interest in restoring Mr Pike to our community. Why is that I wonder?”
[/quote]
LOL, good point Rob. You just showed the liberal hypocrisy of many these people. Rob, you say you wonder why, but I think you know why.