"Shame On You"

"Safety" concerns:

UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said officers used force out of concern for their own safety after they were surrounded by students. “If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad,” said Chief Spicuzza. “Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.”

Yes. Look at the video.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | UC-Davis Officials React To Pepper Spraying Incident >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Adrenalized... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    ... just watching.  Shame indeed.  Shame that we are paying for "authorities" to treat our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters this way.

    "Who do you serve?  Who do you protect?"  I think we know the answer to that.

    Shame on them.  Shame on us.

    As shameful as the police (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    action is, what will be  even more shameful is the inevitable defense  of the police action by some 'patriots" and their comeback that the protesting hippies were an inconvenience, deserve what they got  and should get a job.

    All I can say us, thank God for video. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    It isn't just one person's selective recording of the event - from what I could see, there were lots of people recording, from different angles and for varying lengths of time.

    What those cops did, and the justification that was given, were worse than shameful, in my opinion.

    And I don't think it's going to subdue the protest, I think it's going to energize it.

    When they start rounding up people for even thinking about speaking out, we'll know how big a mistake it was not to nip this whole with-us-or-against-us, no-privacy/no-rights agenda in the bud when we had the chance.

    Yes, and the video (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    was not done clandestinely---the police just pepper-boarded the protesters with apparent impunity and without caring about being recorded.  They did not learn anything from Tony Baloney.  Indeed, they seem to have been emboldened by that episode.

    That video (none / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:47:02 AM EST
    may have prevented the police from escalating it even further.  The police were more than uneasy.  And made so by their own actions.  And yet some people (who shall remain unnamed but live in dc) continue to assert that it is a$$ wipes throwing bottles who cause it escalate.

    The story has faded (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    Or, maybe it's my mind that has faded, but, in either case, what happened to the talk about arresting video tapers? Wasn't that the police warning some crap about video-ing constituting a "hindering their ability" to perform their duties.

    I know, I know, it's Bull, but I don't hear that noise any more.

    Do you know what happened. Has there been some legal clarification here?



    I remember that (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    I kind of keep expecting the police to try to confiscate video.  But it's just a futile exercise.  Nearly everyone has a smart phone.  There are just too many.

    They ARE confiscating cellphones (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    that can videotape on some campuses and have been doing so, targeting students (and faculty) using cellphones at demonstrations, for more than a year now.

    It's good that OWS events on campuses may bring attention to police overreactions on campuses for well more than a year now.  It seems coordinated.  And there are clues that coordination of attacks like these may relate to coordination of training through the agency that provided new weaponry to at least some campuses: the Department of Homeland Security.


    Why'd you have to (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    go and burst my tiny little bubble like that?

    Are they (the "authorities") being sued?


    While you still hear reports of arrests (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    for video-recording or photographing police in action, when those arrests have been challenged in court, the courts have in the last couple of years rather uniformly upheld the right of members of the public under First Amendment to record the on-the-job actions of public officials, undertaken in a public place.  Making such recordings does not violate the wiretap laws or any other provisions that shy cops and their DA supporters initially tried to invoke.

    thank you (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    The spirit was freedom and justice (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    The spirit was freedom and justice
    And it's keepers seem generous and kind
    It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
    But now they won't pay it no mind
    'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
    And now their vote is a meaningless joke
    They babble about law and order
    But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
    Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
    It's got our heads into a noose
    And it just sits there watchin'

    Our cities have turned into jungles
    And corruption is stranglin' the land
    The police force is watching the people
    And the people just can't understand
    We don't know how to mind our own business
    'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
    Now we are fighting a war over there
    No matter who's the winner
    We can't pay the cost
    'Cause there's a monster on the loose
    It's got our heads into a noose
    And it just sits there watching

    America where are you now?
    Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
    Don't you know we need you now
    We can't fight alone against the monster

    -- John Kay, Steppenwolf, The Monster

    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by CST on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    I thought this video was awesome and it gives me a lot of hope for the movement.

    "and then they fight you, and then you win"

    The protesters won this round.

    Awesome is hardly what I would call it (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    You must be kidding.

    specifically (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CST on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    the last 8 minutes of the video.

    The students not only kept their cool, but they effectively shamed the police into leaving the area.

    The students might have been pepper-sprayed and arrested but they stayed and the cops actually left through no force other than speech.  You can see it in their eyes as they are backing up and walking away that they have lost.

    That was powerful and yes, awesome.


    I think what CST means (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    is that the students did not lose their cool, even in their justified outrage and that the students were awesome.

    That's my read, anyway.


    You have to remember (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    that BTD not only speaks in tongues, he also thinks in tongues. He does, however, hear in beltones & chimes. (a little inside fusball here)

    But, fwiw, I also thought CST was referring to the protesters.

    I wonder if they all had pre-planned to just sit and "take it" if a police assault occurred?

    What guts!


    Where's the President on this? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    I'm not sure you can claim to support the people at this point and then allow the crickets to take over.

    Hiding (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    at the other end of the earth., And hoping it will just all go away before he gets back and has to look it in the eye and face questions from the WH press room full of Helen Thomas don't wannabe's.

    SAme sh*t as Kent State (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by scribe on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    "We were scared, so we opened fire on unarmed kids."

    That was their defense then....

    Same sh*t, different decade.

    Seems to be an exaggeration. Pepper (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    spray is not lethal.  Gun fire is.  

    "Pepper spray is not lethal" (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 12:04:10 AM EST
    - Neither is waterboarding.

    Both are torture.


    You really think (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    there would have been no gunfire if the students had fought back against this?

    Are you ok with what the police did here?

    How long before they use guns instead of pepper spray? And try to justify it as "safety concerns"?


    Be reasonable. We don't know (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    the entire scenario before the Lt. used the pepper spray.  It does look like the students were passively resisting. Also looks like UC posted policy says no camping--but I don't see any tents etc. in the video.  Not sure why police decided to remove these students from this location.  Don't see any indication students were assaulting law enforcement or law enforcement had drawn firearms.  

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    This line is only workable when there is no video.

    If you can't unreservedly condemn what you saw on that video, I have to say that your arguments on this issue will lose a lot of credibility with me.


    Having read your subsequent post and (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    the rationalizations of Ms. Morain, please strike my comments.  She's a deficit monger.  

    Indeed (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    Like the ones in DC, a stupid one as well.

    There will be more protests Monday and C-Davis is on the hook for these incidents.


    Another video recording shows (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    two officers pepper spraying, one in front of the seated protestors, and another coming up and spraying from behind--and then moving over to protestors seated on the grass.   (cf. Americablog).

    Pepper spraying from behind? (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    Ineffective.  Why bother?  

    I'm really questioning your mindset now (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    What a statement.

    If my daughter were in the group (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    I'd have a different mindset.  Just saying pepper spray isn't effective in the scenario described.  real question is whether the Lt. had discretion to use pepper spray at all in the circumstances.  Doesn't sound like it from the statements of Ms. Morain.  

    You SHOULD be considering (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    your daughter in that group.  They are all somebody's sons and daughters.  Actually, they are all our sons and daughters.

    The Campus police chief (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    was on the scene and said her people did a great job.

    I'm thinking Pike had authorization.


    That's clear from comments of (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:28:23 PM EST
    UC Davis higher ups not in law enforcement.  

    the head of campus police (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    is the relevant "higher up" in law enforcement here.

    Should be. But it appears (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    he/she was ordered to clear out the protesters from the plaza.  Which order the chief should have refused to carry out if, in his/her opinion, it would violate the First Amendment rights of the protesters.  

    Disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    Clear them out. But do it without the freaking pepper spray.

    I frankly do not see how anyone could possibly justify the use of pepper spray as seen on that video.


    Use of force continuum: talk, (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:26:23 PM EST
    make hand signals, use hands, then pepper spray/batons.  Law enforcement told students they had 3 mins. to clear out of the plaza.  They didn't.  Then what?  

    Whjy pepper spray of course (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 08:32:34 AM EST
    and if that didn't work, just shoot them.

    Are you reading yourself?


    I read your previous reply to assume (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    UCPD had discretion to remove the students from the plaza.  Assuming they had such discretion, by what means?  

    Have you seen the video of (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    them removing students from BoA (Thursday I think?). It took awhile, but was not violent. One at a time and a video of each arrest. Much preferable to the actions at UCB a day or so before . . .

    You realize this was a demonstration, right? (none / 0) (#68)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    Law enforcement told students they had 3 mins. to clear out of the plaza.  They didn't.  Then what?  

    The order itself was ridiculous on its face.  But barring that, they (the police) should have expected this response.  I don't do so well with ultimatums, myself.  In this case?  What other response did they possibly expect?

    My reply was to BTD's comment, in (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    which he assume clearing the students from the plaza was a proper.  You changed the hypothetical.

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    My personal answer to "then what?" is probably what the students expected:  being carried out as they resisted passively.  There's a fairly long tradition for that.  The students were calm, and prepared.  Just not for what they got.

    No, I don't think I did (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    You changed the hypothetical.
    Whether it's "proper" or not, what else did they expect?

    Please enlighten us... (none / 0) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    with your experience getting pepper sprayed and what's effective and what's not.  

    None. Have defended law enforcement (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    officers in civil litigation where use of pepper spray was asserted to be violation of federal civil rights.  

    I can't speak to the legal on this (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    But I can speak to what I think is a sense of common decency. GThe actions shpown on the video are morally reprehensible and I can not imagine how anyone could possibly defend them.

    I'm eager to hear what information you believe might justify the actions you see on that video.  


    So why are opining on it? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    I'll give you the benefit of mine--it doesn't matter which direction it comes from--if it makes its way to any mucus membrane or open sore or cut, it is "effective".  It can also be lethal to those who may have severe allergic reaction to it or suffer from asthma or any number of other medical conditions.  

    I don't need to see any more than what is on that video to know that this was the action of morally bankrupt, gutless cowards and bullies.  


    And, if it did prove ineffective (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    it isn't for a lack of trying.  From the campus defense, it seems the only lesson to be learned is that the officers should be sent back to Pepper Spray School so as to increase effectiveness.

    Ok (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    don't answer the questions...

    I'm not "ok" with what the police (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    did in the posted video but also need more information.  So do you.  

    What is the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    "more information" you think you need about THIS incident?

    Yes, what am I to believe? (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    The police or my own lying eyes?  Courtesy of Groucho Marx, A Night at the Opera (with some license).

    I disagree (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:13:27 PM EST
    It's Chico, in "Duck Soup," not Groucho in "Night at the Opera." link

    Am I permitted to disagree with myself? (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:56 AM EST
    If so, I disagree too.  It was Duck Soup (1933) and Chico not Groucho.

    Mrs. Teasdale: Your Excellency, I thought you'd left.
    Chicolini: Oh no, I no leave.
    Mrs. Teasdale: But I saw you with my own eyes!
    Chicolini:  Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
    (Groucho was Rufus T. Firefly).          


    Hail, Hail Freedonia (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 08:37:11 PM EST
    Won't shake my hand, eh? You realize, this means war!

    Edger: You are showing an interesting (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    tendency to hype on this whole subject. Elsewhere, e.g., you refer to the revoutionaries.

    Obviously, from the film shown, the initial use of pepper spray was unprovoked, wrong. Oculus simply points out that there is a distinction as to Kent State. Again...while the recorded action here seemed to show precipitation of threatening conditions by the police themselves, there were no drawn/aimed guns or other lethal weapons as the police seemed to slowly back away.

    It does help to look at historical accounts of Kent State, the 60s demonstrations & confrontations with arrests, and other incidents of the past century or so involving protests in this country. It helps for a number of reasons. Not that we should view this sad situation as ordinary or to be expected or anywhere near acceptable. But, my caution: Hyperbole--as I believe that you have been pushing--has a way of backfiring as well in its distortions.

    Normally I skip past the predictable variations of a call-to-arms that seem to be your trademark in the Occupy-related (& other) venues.  Sometimes, tho, a pushback against escalating hyperbole from others who also care makes sense. Wherever this all leads, there are many believers & activists for justice who would see the desired changes come via legal, community means. In short: Escalating violence goes nowhere...don't kid yourself.


    Absolutely Right! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    "..Escalating violence goes nowhere...don't kid yourself."

    If George Washington and King George, the 3'rd hadn't sat down and negotiated a peaceful "separation" we might have had a war....a "revolutionary war," at that.

    And they are sooo messy; bloody noses, and snuff, don't go well together.

    (hi, Christine)


    S t r e t c h (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    I didn't realize that you were talking about revolution, NYShooter. C'mon, that almost sounds like the Tea Party & the 2nd Amendment talk awhile back (with the Palin hints & cues.)

    I'll assume that you are being sardonic. Heh. Because surely you get the point: The fact that the police have overreacted (& may have violated their own training, etc.) does not mean it is wise to meet overreaction & violence with violence. Rational responses work better in these challenging confrontations. That is what I'm saying.


    How old are you, christinep? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Zorba on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:13:00 PM EST
    Because I don't have to look at "historical accounts" of Kent State, the 60's protests, confrontations with the police in that era, and so on.  I lived through it, I participated in the anti-war protests, and after Kent State and Jackson State in particular, we all knew the stakes, and we all knew that "Next time, it could be us."  Nobody expected at the beginning that the government's response would escalate to the extent that it did.  We were wrong.  I just hope and pray that the governmental response (at whatever level) does not escalate that far with the current protests.

    What Occupy is about (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    Ilived through it, Zorba (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    We must be contemporaries. One of my memories from that Spring week in 1970, BTW, is locking arms in solidarity while occupying the campus administration building at Indiana University.

    It was a time, it was. Sometimes I wonder how we all moved into & through it.  It was important tho, and the anti-war activities could not be avoided. For the first time since then, I sense the fullness of intent so similar in the Occupy movement. I hope that we all remember what we learned.


    Zorba: Things may have improved (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    in terms of "acceptable" actions by the "authorities" since our youth: AP is carrying a story this am that 2 of the police officers involved in the pepper spray incident have been placed on leave.  That's a start.

    Maybe rationality will invade the Davis campus in their next steps.


    I certainly (none / 0) (#91)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    hope so.  I really, really do.  This is at least a start.

    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 05:39:59 PM EST
    you pathetic attempt to paint me as calling for violence would be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful.

    It's fairly obvious though from the video that the police were doing their best to provoke a violent reaction from the protesters that they could then use to justify using deadly force to "protect themselves" from anarchists and dirty hippies, since I'm sure they - and others, probably some here - think of them as the "good guys" putting their lives on the line in the name of law and order and the public peace.

    Like the police attacks on peaceful protesters in other cities have not only failed to repress the Occupy movement but have only served to grow it, this action at UC Davis was an utter failure too, and shows the desperation, fear, and moral bankruptcy of the attackers.


    It is only my opinion (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 05:48:22 PM EST
    But, it is my opinion. Look...I share a lot of your concern.  I've been in a number of protests. And, the Kent State matter is particularly close to me. My reaction: Hyperbole begets hyperbole...and the escalation process rarely ends well. Again, in my opinion, you have engaged in your share of over-the-top, provocative, spurring on language & invective. We are all entitled to opinions, Edger. (BTW, your description in the full two paragraphs here do not reflect the jab-jab incite of a number of earlier posts in my read.)

    The read more carefully. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    I had to do a double take (none / 0) (#42)
    by Amiss on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    The police seem to be way too anxious to use force and violent force at that. The best thing for the men in blue to do is to become bobbies as in the UK. From the evidence here, those men and women don't deserve to carry a weapon and certainy not of sound enough mind to be armed with anything more than a billy club, if that.

    Baton and pepper spray are usually (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    considered in use of force continuum to be non-lethal force comparable on the continuum--same level.  

    Not the point (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    The police DO seem eager to use force (in this case, non lethal force.)

    Certainly in this video, there is no conceivable justification for using any force, much less, pepper spray.

    I'm still waiting to hear the information you think might justify the action you see on the video.

    I really can not imagine what that might be.


    it is becoming very clear, from all the recent (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    police "incidents" at various OWS gatherings, that the departments have way too much money, and seek ways to use it. perhaps the time has come to start reducing those inflated law enforcement budgets, and put those funds to better use.

    as well, it's long past time that RICO acquired funds be turned over, not to the DEA or local law enforcement agencies, but to the general fund. absent those monies, the local police depts. can't afford the military-grade goodies they've been buying. our local police have no legitimate need for weapons designed for use in combat zones. if they want to play army, they should go join the army.

    I never think it's a good sign when (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    those who carry things like pepper spray, nightsticks, rubber bullets and flash bombs seem to have way too much fun using them; I didn't see a single officer in that video who looked afraid, or whose body language was sending a message of being in fear for his safety.

    So...the use of pepper spray, from what the video shows, appears to be less defense, and more about seeing if they could provoke a reaction from the protesters that would not just have retroactively justified the use of pepper spray, but would have allowed them to start whacking on people.

    If nothing else, aren't we seeing what happens when we cultivate a culture where those in power feel free to abuse their power because they know there aren't likely to be any consequences?

    Sadists.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    there is NO other term

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    To me it looks like they wanted to provoke a reaction they could use to justify using their guns.

    That's ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    Perhaps not their guns, but it (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    looked to me, also, like the police were trying to provoke a response that would provide an excuse for a more forceful police action, maybe batons and tasers and fists and feet.

    The police were deliberately provocative.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:34:20 PM EST
    that is how it appeared to me as well.

    He is using the language (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:01:18 PM EST
    of the provacateur, oculus. It is disconcerting, I agree. (The almost Iago-like implication, push & push...a transparent technique.)

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    Would have been more effective (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    for the offices to have joined the protesters.

    Better for their pensions, too.

    erm... "officers" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    To give the officers some benefit of the doubt (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    You just never know. There could have been some 84 year old women in that crowd.

    Better sorry than safe?

    Looks like the officer is dispensing (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    insecticide.  Have never seen such a gigantic pepper spray can.  As to the distance, "point blank" is holding the can w/i inches of the eyes.  Here, the canister is maybe 3 feet from the protesters heads.  

    Would be very surprised if, on review by internal affairs, this use of force is not deemed excessive.  

    I imagine (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    if you were looking at the can of pepper spray it would be point blank.

    My comment was w/reference (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    to use of force standards by which law enforcement is trained and reviewed.  

    interesting (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    Do you have a link for that?  Because maybe more than a few manuals should be up for some peer review.

    Here's a use of force continuum (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    presentation.  As to UC Davis PD, question is what was the overall situation b/4 pepper spray used?  Should the officer(s) have used lesser methods on the chart/or none?  link

    What answer would make this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    acceptable to you?

    I am really curious to read your apologia for this.


    From the video posted in the diary, (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    looks like the Lt. (!) was using a "fogger," which works from a distance of 30 feet.  link

    No info in link as to warnings as to closest distance.  


    IS that the information you need? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:19:05 PM EST

    Thank you for sharing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    your years of experience in such things.  Depressing though

    Definitely. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    What is it (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    With this short fuse, instant reaction,  intolerance these days? In the 60's, whole campus buildings were taken over and occupied. While there were some violence by police, the Administrators then took a much more tolerant view, and more often than not, negotiated with the occupiers/demonstrators.

    The danger, of course, is when armed police swarm a location, something as innocuous as a car back firing could result in a real trajedy.

    note: that, I believe, was the excuse the Guardsmen used at Kent State.