Home > Protest > Pepper Spray Cop Art

Pepper Spray Cop Art

Among a string of disturbing pictures and video that came out of Occupy protests last week is the image of Lt. John Pike who casually pepper sprayed a row of UC Davis college students sitting on a sidewalk. If you missed it, watch Pike’s spray of shame here.  See also the students silent protest of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi who ordered the attack on students.

Pike’s overzealous use of pepper spray has now become an internet meme, with people inserting his despicable act into a variety of images. A dedicated website is at peppersprayingcop.tumblr.com. More here.

In other Occupy news, Occupy Oakland is calling for a total West Coast port shut down on December 12th.

  1. November 21, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Officer Pike has entered dictionary-land
    as a verb.

    Piked verb
    To broad-spray capsicum oil solution on
    innocent citizens who thought they were in america.

  2. Goldie
    November 21, 2011 at 9:13 am

    This seems to be a new normal in terms of police response to protesters. UC Davis is not a case of unusual police action as this is fairly consistent across the county.
    The spray being used is a military grade. Directions on the can say to broadcast from a distance of 15 feet.
    A Charles J. Kelly, former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant after watching the tape of the pepper spraying said what he saw was ‘fairly standard police procedure and that use batons is allowed when protesters move their arms or try to protect themselves. Moving is resisting.
    http://www.americablog.com/2011/11/cops-says-pepper-spray-beatings-are.html

  3. nO hOOLDS bARRED
    November 21, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Hold they eyes open when applying the pepper spray. Works faster that way.

  4. November 21, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Lt. John Pike’s home phone at 530-752-3989.
    cell phone at 530-979-0184.
    email:: japikeiii@ucdavis.edu.

    Also:

    UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza
    Email: amspicuzza@ucdavis.edu
    Police Line: (530) 752-1727
    Facebook

  5. November 21, 2011 at 9:33 am

    UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza’s
    Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=718861623

    To call for Chancellor Katehi’s immediate “dismissal” email the UC Regents: regentsoffice@ucop.edu
    and write to Governor Jerry Brown:
    http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

  6. tra
    November 21, 2011 at 10:27 am

    From what I have been reading, police departments justify this offensive use of pepper spray on the basis that the protesters have linked arms, which, according to police, constitutes “resisting arrest,” at which point cops are allowed to use things like pepper spray, tasers, and batons to force compliance. Apparently that policy seems to be pretty widespread institutional practice, not just an isolated incident, and not just “a few bad apples.”

    The brutality of this sort of policy comes into sharp focus when the protesters remain so darned non-violent and the police are the ones to initiate violent actions on the protesters. And the routinization of this brutality is all-too-apparent in the decidedly nonchalant way in which Lt. Pike applies the chemical. I guess the best you can say for Pike is that he didn’t seem to be laughing and enjoying himself as he applied the pepper-spray, as appeared to be the case in the video of our very own Pepper-Spray-by-Q-TiP incidents here in Humboldt. But the way Lt. Pike so casually made his way down the line, spewing the pain-causing agent so calmly and deliberately, was extra-creepy in its own way.

    As I recall, in the lawsuit brought againt Humboldt County and the City of Eureka in our local Pepper Spray case, the judge was NOT persuaded by the argument that passive, non-violent noncooperation by protesters necessitates and justifies the use of pepper-spray. As you may recall, the judge found that what the Humboldt and Eureka cops did WAS excessive force and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, but declined to sanction the Defendants with a monetary judgement, so the County and City got off relatively easy (though they still had to pay out big money for legal fees).

    Hopefully this recent incident at UC Davis will lead to a major policy shift, and pepper spray use by police will be limited to actual self-defense — just like it is for the rest of us.

  7. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

    What’s up with Occupy Eurkea? Is there a blog or website out there that gives people the latest news and planned actions?

  8. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Betsy Lambert used her questions and microphone like a can of pepper spray.

  9. tra
    November 21, 2011 at 10:36 am

    The words that immediately came to my mind while viewing Lt. Pike’s application of the human pesticide was the phrase “the banality of evil.”

    Banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

    Explaining this phenomenon, Edward S. Herman has emphasized the importance of “normalizing the unthinkable.” According to him, “doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on ‘normalization.’ This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as ‘the way things are done.'”[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

  10. Goldie
    November 21, 2011 at 10:39 am

    I don’t think there will be any major policy shift during post 9/11 time of the militarization of our police forces. This is America now, today. As a nation we have allowed personal searches at airports of citizens of all ages, we allow crimes of fraud and corporate ruin of drinking water ( fracking ) our fishing waters ( BP in the oily Gulf and where ever they sink their holes ) to go unpunished and we have watched as the bank bailouts are used to further the size of the too big to fail institutions. Trillions are missing from the Pentagon and so our friendly Protect and Serve police are protecting the momentum of the 1%.

  11. Goldie
    November 21, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Yes, evil is here. Evil intends to stay. Evil does not listen to reason or laws. Evil wants you to ‘not believe it’, to have your senses shocked. Evil wants you to think that this is America where evil is the exception. Evil loves the idea that good people can not get their minds around what is happening. Shock and awe is evil’s hobby and delight. Evil loves the ole switcharoo: Protesters are violent and so on.

  12. November 21, 2011 at 10:59 am

    If the Occupy folks done what they were told to do, they would not have been pepper sprayed. The right to protest does not mean that you may suffer criminal consequences.

    Also read TRA’s post If the linked arms attitude is considered resisting arrest, what options would you have the officer use?

  13. November 21, 2011 at 11:13 am

    The officer could change the “consideration” that is the simplest and most Constitutional approach.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  14. November 21, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Domino Twenty one,

    Arrest and trial are the consequences of intentional civil disobedience. When someone is beaten or pepper sprayed for no reason other than to inflict pain on a non-violent protestor then that is extrajudicial punishment, punishment without trial.

    Cops are not judge, jury and executioner. Not in a democracy.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  15. tra
    November 21, 2011 at 11:30 am

    If the Occupy folks done what they were told to do, they would not have been pepper sprayed.

    You’re kinda missing the point. Nobody’s disputing the fact that the students at U.C. Davis were non-cooperative. That doesn’t justify the way they were treated. The relevant questions are: (1) whether the use of pepper spray was necessary, (2) whether it was the use of force was proportionate to the perceived threat and (3) does the use of pepper-spray in a case like this amount to “excessive force.” The answers, in my opinion, are no, no, and yes.

    I’ve seen mass arrests involving hundreds of peaceful protesters, and “linked arms” don’t really pose much of an obstacle to their removal by police. Sometimes police use the simple tactic of waiting, since eventually even the most disciplined protester will need to eat, to use the bathroom, etc. And if there is some real need to remove the protesters more quickly (such as if they are blocking an intersection or something like that), then unless the protesters possess super-human strength, it takes, at most, two officers to pull a protester away from the rest of the group.

    From what I’ve seen, the removal of protesters is much more likely to be a calm, orderly, and safe process without the pepper spray than with it. On the other hand, if the idea is to try to provoke a violent clash, pepper spray might be a logical choice…though it didn’t work out that way in this case, thanks to the level-headedness of the student protesters.

  16. anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 11:42 am

    “Also read TRA’s post If the linked arms attitude is considered resisting arrest, what options would you have the officer use?”

    Why do YOU say they had to be pepper sprayed like that? And if that’s not what you’re saying, what do YOU suggest police officers do in a situation like that?

  17. November 21, 2011 at 11:43 am

    The silent protest was, in a literal sense, awesome.

  18. November 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    My question is what recourse should the officer have used? What would have been an acceptable way to get these people to comply? I am operating under the premise that a lawful order to clear the space had been given, and that said order was ignored. Our society is built on rule of law, not a democracy where the mob rules.

    My thought is that the message should have been that if you do not clear the area that felony trespass arrests would be made and that felony charges would be pursued. In other words, make the penalties so harsh that non-compliance not an acceptable option. That is how we usually address criminal behaviour.

  19. November 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    That is not how we address civil disobedience in a democracy, Domino. You want to charge people sitting peacefully on the sidewalk with a FELONY?

    You are calling peaceful non-violent people sitting on the pavement a MOB?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  20. interstate media school of fish
    November 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    So what would YOU have done as an officer, Domino? Please answer.

  21. tra
    November 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    “My question is what recourse should the officer have used?”

    As far as other options for removing protesters without using pepper spray, the middle paragraph of my 11:30 comment decribes several non-pepper-spray options.

    Of course even before you get to the question of how protesters are removed, you have to answer the question of whether they needed to be removed in the first place. In the case of the Eureka encampment, and encampments elsewhere, the reason given was that they were “illegally camping” and the line repeated over and over was that the protesters were welcome to demonstrate around the clock if they wanted to, they just weren’t allowed to set up camp. In the case of this UC Davis protest, those protesters were not in tents, they were sitting on the grass. Why they “needed” to be removed is not clear to me.

  22. Dan
    November 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Dom 21
    “I am operating under the premise that a lawful order to clear the space had been given….”

    And that order was given at 3AM?

    I mean what horseshit, you have your boots on, right?

  23. Domino Champion
    November 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Heraldo, I thought that the Herald was blocked @ city hall? Is it unblocked now?

  24. What Now
    November 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Lt. Pike’s email and answering machine have been full since the early morning hours of November 20th.
    If one wishes to make their feelings known, calling the UC Board of Regents and the Chancellor is a good place to start as is the State Attorney General’s Office and The governor’s office.
    As of 11 AM I have recieved lengthy responses from The UC Board of Regents and the Attorney General’s Office.Evidently, they are recieving inquiries and comments from all over the country as well as over seas.

  25. November 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Would Domino would have asked what other choice Mississippi cops had other than to attack civil rights protestors with cattle prods and dogs?

  26. November 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Bill, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic.

    Dan, I still am under the assumption that they were told to leave, the when doesn’t really matter, does it?

    I am not saying this was a good idea. I am suggesting that perhaps there is blame to go around.

  27. interstate media school of fish
    November 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Please answer the question as you’ve requested others, Domino. What would you have done as an officer?

  28. Plain Jane
    November 21, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Since Domino thinks it okay for police to pepper spray lawbreakers, what about pepper spraying speeders before they write the ticket? For officer safety, of course.

  29. jr
    November 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    U.C. Davis has become the Kent State of the Occupy movement.

  30. Dan
    November 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Thanks Dom, Timing matters. Timing is the essence of
    respect, spirit and mutuality. If I am to believe that you
    are as concerned with my rights as those of the banksters,
    your actions will be as transparent to me as they are to Wall Street.

    And… at 3AM they are not.

    Oh Domino 21, whether you recognize it or not,
    those Occupiers represent ALL of us. At least 99.876%

  31. Apologist Not
    November 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    The HSRW (Horse-shit Reich-Wing) will never concede the irony of a police force that protects the Wall-Street criminals while subverting American’s Constitutional right to protest.

    Even our local sheriff’s protected the timber industry despite the industry’s hundreds of violations of law. Selective enforcement is what manufactures violence and history’s citizen-vigilantes…like the environmentalists who took matters into their own hands.

    Rerouting traffic around protests is nothing new. Police are first to tell you, “driving is a privilege”.

  32. November 21, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    So Domino Twenty One you are saying that in my “democracy” it is not ok to billy club or chem spray peaceful protestors, but in YOUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC it IS OK to billy club or chem spray peaceful protestors? That is your answer? Incredible.

    BTW I will take “democracy” over “democratic republic” anytime if that’s the way its going to be.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  33. November 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Joel, there were no legitimate reasons for the actions you refer to. But this is a different situation entirely.

    I would probably have arrested them and charged them with everything that applied. I do not know what the protocols are for this sort of thing though.

    Where did I say I approved, or disapproved, of anything? I do not have enough information to make a sound judgement. The easy answer is to say that the cop was wrong, but if the rules that he is operating under, the UC SOP. It is equally easy to say that the protesters are at fault, because they were not complying.

    Dan, I still do not know what the Occupy folks want, for sure. They remind me of the mobs in France during the reign of terror in their closeminded, my way or the highway behaviour.

    The OWS folks claim to be the 99%, but what they espouse is liberal cant, and only 21% of the nation claims to be liberal.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

  34. November 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Bill, I did not say anything along those lines.

    Is this a good way to convince someone that is not on your side, but is not on the side of your stated enemy? Isn’t dissent a good thing? Aren’t closed minds a bad thing?

  35. Anonymous
  36. November 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    I think Dave Tyson unblocked the Herald from city computers after he was heavily criticized for his hypocrisy shown by his utter failure to block or address the Above The Law blog (which was run by his clique of EPD officers).

  37. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    The MSM was busy this morning planting the seed of future “justifiable actions” against peaceful protestors by repeatedly equating “rape” with the “occupy movement.”

    It looks as if the MSM has learned the lesson Betsy Lambert taught them. Demonize the 99%, so the 1% can continue to rule the earth as arrogantly as kings once ruled by “divine right.”

  38. jr
    November 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Go to http://www.noyonews.net for more about UC Davis

  39. November 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    “Dan, I still do not know what the Occupy folks want, for sure. They remind me of the mobs in France during the reign of terror in their closeminded, my way or the highway behaviour.” Domino XXI

    I wonder, did your heart go out to Marie Antoinette?

    “If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless.
    Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible…It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed.”

    Maximilien Robespierre Speech on the Justification of the Use of Terror

    Who is the Terrorist- the armed and uniformed ones that arrive at 3AM by stealth,
    or protesters, the barefoot poor and displaced?

  40. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    I wonder what now retired Sheriff Philip thinks of Lt. John Pike’s actions?

  41. jr
    November 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    And on that note I came across this site, http://www.americancensorship.org, at the Occupysac site. Anyone know anything about this?

  42. anotheranon
    November 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Silly me. I thought pepper spray was to be used on perps who were violently not cooperative as the police were attempting to arrest them. But the video would make it appear that the procedure is to 1 – ask them to leave and inform them that if they stay they will be arrested and if that warning isn’t heeded 2- arrest them 3 – if they become voilent, apply pepper spray to gain control of subject 4 – arrest crying (howling in pain) suspect.
    Guess I was wrong. Pepper spray is now used as step 1 or 1A. I’m so stupid, I’ve got it comin’. Pike me.

  43. George Shieman
    November 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    One of the comments above, near the top, mentions the Humboldt County Pepperspray case…which went through three civil trials in Federal Court in SanFrancisco..over a time period of eight years, famed SF lawyer Tony Serra (google him and see new book, “Lust For Justice”) and finally a verdict was forthcoming in favor of the plaintiffs (pepperspray victims).

    See great website: NoPepperSpray.org
    covers totally the trials..etc.
    No Pepper Spray on Nonviolent Protestersnopepperspray.org/Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Information about Headwaters Forest activists tortured by Humboldt County California sheriff’s deputies putting pepper spray into their eyes with Q-Tips in 1997.

  44. interstate media school of fish
    November 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    “I would probably have arrested them and charged them with everything that applied.”

    Thanks, Domino, but that only partially answers the question. Please elaborate; how would you have gone about arresting them?

  45. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    some of the definitions of piker:
    a stingy person
    an amateur

  46. November 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Tra says: “police departments justify this offensive use of pepper spray on the basis that the protesters have linked arms, which, according to police, constitutes “resisting arrest,” at which point cops are allowed to use things like pepper spray, tasers, and batons to force compliance.”

    “Resisting arrest” is not a crime in itself. Yet, it seems that’s what being justified here. So, what was the crime these people were being arrested for that they could “resist”? Non-compliance to some cop’s “order” can mean anything. The psychological rape going on here is astronomical and it seems it all started right here with the good old Humboldt County’s illustrious Sheriff’s Department. Kind of puts the like to B. Obama’s “look forward” way to justice.

  47. November 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    From a Human Rights Petition to Barack Obama “I want to be very clear,” Obama said back in January, “in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.”
    The full link here “http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-obama-to-condemn-police-actions-around-the-country”

  48. SNaFU
    November 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    !!!!!!!!!spray baby-spray!!!!!!!!!!!!

  49. interstate media school of fish
    November 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm

  50. skippy
    November 21, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    The question has been asked: “How would you go about arresting them?”

    There were other options other than the use of oleo-capsicum (pepper spray). Officers receive 40+ mandated hours of training yearly beyond their POST certification for extractions, assaultive behavior, and arrests in a variety of ways and settings– such as individuals interlocking arms or refusing to exit their vehicles, for example. The techniques taught do not rely upon pepper spray or lethal force; although these can be used as the level of force escalates up the ladder.

    In this situation, two officers can unlock protester’s arms from behind, or the side, as a third or even fourth officer stands by to assist. If necessary, leverage, distraction, and certain compliance techniques enable the protester to be extracted, pulled away from the group, placed prone, and handcuffed. A baton, if necessary, can be placed between the armpit and back for leverage removing an arm in more physical situations. By removing a single arm and using its non-pain leverage points (arm, wrist, hand, and sometimes shoulder) for control, an individual can be fully restrained in a fairly humane and efficient manner without injury, marks, or even bruising.

    These officers failed using the ACT model everyone is taught in training: What are the Alternatives, the Consequences, and how do you Tell the story? In other words: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This was a public relations disaster. They failed to treat these passive, nonviolent youth as if they were their own kids. One major misstep, injury, or the lack of good common sense and judgment and one’s illustrious law enforcement career is in serious jeopardy– with an accompanying disciplinary letter garnering your evaluation and personnel file. There goes the promotion!

    We know pepper spray is an inflammatory agent causing tears, pain, and temporary blindness lasting 30-45 minutes, used in riot and crowd control, violent individuals, and for self defense egress. The effect is similar to feeling as if one is being set on fire, the spray hitting the soft and sensitive mucous membrane passages in the eyes, mouth, nose, and lungs. Considered a less-than-lethal agent, in there’s a risk of death in rare cases for those having asthma, taking certain drugs, or undergoing restraint restricting the breathing passages. Those being pepper sprayed need to be examined by medical personnel both as a general precaution and also in being cleared for detention. That is, if detention was even necessary in this case.

    Using OC spray wasn’t an appropriate level of force or intervention. This was a real boneheaded move, one that was fairly outrageous in its application.

  51. November 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Thanks for the great info, Skippy, but the ACT model sounds like a lot of work, and seriously, do you think that the tubby cop with the spray bottle pull weeds in his garden? No, he uses Roundup.

  52. Junkyard Dawg
    November 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    We have our own instance of police brutality right in front of us. We have all seen it on Mark Sailors video.

    1. An occupy camper in Eureka was brutally assaulted with baton for no reason, in the view of Murl Harpham.

    2. That policeman should be at the minimum suspended without pay until it is determined whether charges should be filed against him.

    3. Murl Harpham should be terminated immediately from employment with the EPD.

    3. Mark Sailors needs to make secrure copies of his video because they will be knocking on his door requesting the video and claiming that it is evidence.

    4. Call Dist. Attorney Gallegos and demand an investigation into this incident and the degree of responsiblity of Murl Harpham for this crime.

  53. FoxStudio
    November 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    The Humco pepper spray thuggery has it made into James Fallows’ blog over at The Atlantic: “Update 5: A discussion at Hullabaloo about the chilling calmness of the policeman doing the spraying, and the resemblance of this case to a previous one involving cops who used Q-tips to paint pepper-spray directly onto the eyeballs of environmental activists in Humboldt County, California, in the late 1990s. Thanks to Iris Xie and Lois Quick for these leads.”
    For the whole post: http://www.theatlantic.com/james-fallows

    Pike should be arrested and charged with assault. And I hope the parents of those kids sue the shit out of him.

  54. FoxStudio
    November 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    And the next post: “Update #2: Thanks to many, many readers who have sent links the 9th Circuit ruling laying out the rules for acceptable use of pepper spray, in response to the outrageous 1999 Humboldt County case. By the standards laid out in the ruling, the UC Davis use was obviously unjustified. More on the ruling here.”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/the-moral-power-of-an-image-uc-davis-reactions/248778/

  55. prajna
    November 21, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    This was posted today by Anonymous…

  56. anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Oh those poor protestors. All they do is disrupt our lives. Crap on our public & private property. Stop us from getting to work. Cost us tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in law enforcement costs. Destroy our quality of life. Take our welfare dollars and tell us how stupid we are for working to support their useless lives.

    Pepper spray? I wish we could do worse.

  57. mresquan
    November 21, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Unbelievable….or not.But here’s the heading on Rose’s Coffeeshop blog’s latest post.

    “The UC Davis pepper spray incident wasn’t an accident. The Occupiers wanted it. They needed it. They have been trying to make it happen.”

  58. Anonymous
    November 21, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    OCCUPY:THE NEXT MOVE—SAT NOV 26 1-3 COUNTY COURTHOUSE

    The Occupy movement has awakened us to something we all knew, but hardly anybody was saying: WE HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED. Not by people in tents, but by Wall Street banks and corporations. Our elected representatives scurry to do their business. Our police are made to serve them, and treat ordinary citizens like insurgents. Our County Courthouse looks like the Green Zone because the Occupy people tried to take back a patch of lawn to say to us: wake up.

    Now that we’re awake, let’s broaden the issue beyond illegal camping and biohazards. The homeless among the Occupy groups deserve our strongest support and recognition of their basic human rights. People wrongly arrested and falsely imprisoned should have legal defense. [see humrights.org] Charges should be filed against those responsible for violence against persons and property.

    And now that we’re awake, take a look around. It’s true: we are an occupied country. Corporate dollars are protected speech and they have the dollars. We are out-gunned, out-spent, and out-voted even when we win elections.

    Now that people are awake, it’s time to find the common cause in all our causes. To find a common voice and speak common sense. Health is wealth. Ecology is economy. To restore those basic values, to re-occupy our work places and our homes and our lives, will require all of us. Young and old, working and jobless and retired, nurses and secretaries, farmers and waitresses and vets, teachers and trades people: WE ARE THE 99%.

    All are invited to a General Assembly in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse, on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. There will be speakers and music and conversation. There will be opportunities to form alliances.

    Let’s be thankful for what we’ve managed to hang on to, and celebrate what we’ve accomplished. Then let’s talk about the next move. Bring the family. Bring a friend.

    SATURDAY NOVEMBER 26, 2011 1-3 PM FIFTH AND I STREETS EUREKA

  59. November 21, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    esquan wrote, “Unbelievable….or not.But here’s the heading on Rose’s Coffeeshop blog’s latest post..

    And she’s probably right. Just as the local pepper spray incident at Frank Rigg’s office was intended to provoke exactly the type of confrontation with police that occurred, so was the Davis incident.

    I can’t believe anyone would say otherwise. This is a tactic of activists, revolutionaries….you name it, for decades, if not centuries: Get the powers that be to over react, or at least appear to, media wise. Works all the time. How esquan (or anyone else) can feign ignorance of that old tactic is beyond me.

    I’m not commenting specifically on the use of pepper spray to remove protesters. I’m just saying this is an old tactic by protesters of any kind and no one should act surprised.

  60. November 21, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Those poor cops! Manipulated into torture by that age-old tactic of students sitting down! Oh, the humanity!

  61. November 21, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Yep. A shame, isn’t it?

  62. November 21, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    Sadder than sad.

  63. skippy
    November 21, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Oh, the conspiracy! After a little bit of research, proof is found in the historical pudding. People need to wake up discovering this wretched litttle plot has been happening for some time now– and we found the pictures to prove it.

  64. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 6:58 am

    There oughta be a law against protesters forcing cops to pepper spray them! Maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to bring pepper spray to protests to supply the cops?

    Oh and Rose and Fred are both certifiably insane.

  65. November 22, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Rose and Fred are just wannabe pikers compared to this..
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/fox-news-on-uc-davis-pepper-spraying-its-a-food-product-essentially.php?ref=fpblg

    Maybe the Teabagger Congress cam pass a law making it part of the public school lunches…

  66. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Rose and Fred will now demand that the protesters pay for their meal provided at taxpayer expense.

  67. November 22, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Now you anti-everything people are against food products? Where does it end?

  68. November 22, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Fred,

    Real libertarians are committing acts of non violent civil disobedience right now in New Hampshire and are being tossed in jail for it. They are protesting for free speech and the right to use cannabis.

    Do you think they should be pepper sprayed as well?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  69. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Bill O’reilly was wondering just how bad pepper spray hurts. He should find out. Do it live Bill.

  70. November 22, 2011 at 7:58 am

    I thought the Cayenne facial was part of their tuition package

  71. November 22, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Is this what they mean by “dumbed down?”

    “Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don’t watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University. ”

    http://urlet.com/redder.parer

  72. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 8:08 am

    That’s not surprising, Bill. Being uninformed isn’t as bad as being misinformed. It’s not that hard to inform people but very hard to “un-inform” them of falsehoods and then inform them of facts.

  73. mresquan
    November 22, 2011 at 8:11 am

    Ok Fred,here’s the whole diatribe for you,and others to read.Rose is clearly afraid of what an overhaul of Wall Street,and what fairness in the banking industry will do to her future.

    The UC Davis pepper spray incident wasn’t an accident. The Occupiers wanted it. They needed it. They have been trying to make it happen.
    ◼ The Occupy losers are delighted; they finally got the footage they think will shift the focus off the almost unbelievable legacy of Occupier violence, sexual assaults and general degeneracy that has been so carefully documented by Big Government.

    The Occupy movement is in a public relations freefall, and the outlines of the next phase in what is a classic Alinskyite propaganda operation are becoming clear. The problem for the Occupiers is that people are now seeing them for what they are, a movement composed entirely of weirdos, losers and mutations who worship at an altar of greed, laziness and bad hygiene – all served up with an utter lack of irony and self-awareness that drives away even those who might support aspects of the Occupiers’ inchoate ideology.

    Can they recapture the magic, with footage of the poor little pawns suffering the ‘abuse’ they went out and begged for?

  74. November 22, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Did Rose personally sniff the breath and armpits of those UC Davis students to determine their “worship” of bad hygene or is she projecting?

  75. November 22, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Don’t we get enough of Rose over at the Mirror?

  76. November 22, 2011 at 8:48 am

    What is the purpose of participating in civil disobedience? To get more media attention than protesting by more conventional means. In that respect, the U.C. Davis students did exactly what they planned on doing.

    FWIW, Steve Greenhut, over at CalWatchdog, agrees with most here in regards the pepper spray. That’s no surprise as he’s always been pretty hostile towards police.
    http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/11/21/davis-pepper-spray-clear-case-of-brutality/

  77. November 22, 2011 at 8:53 am

    OK Fred I get it you seem to be tip toeing around the issue.

    Do you think the protestors at UC Davis should have been peppersprayed or not? That’s an easy question, yes or no?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  78. spell it out
    November 22, 2011 at 8:57 am

    ‘Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don’t watch any news, according to a new poll”

    Another factor causing this observable difference, besides the lies and disinformation from Fox, is the innate intelligence of Fox viewers.

    Fox viewers are stupid. On the bell shaped curve of intelligence, Fox viewers fall along he curve’s fringe – the part representing the extreme. Extremely limited ability to think, reason and learn.

  79. November 22, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Don’t we get enough of Fred over at Fred’s?

  80. November 22, 2011 at 9:15 am

    That’s an easy question, yes or no?

    I’d say probably not, but I don’t know the totality of the circumstances. Did they really need to remove the students, or could they have left them there? I don’t know and opinions will differ as to whether they needed to be removed.

    The biggest threat to the student’s physical well being wasn’t the pepper spray. It was the physical act of being removed, and that was a physical threat of injury to both police and the students. If the pepper spray could have induced the students to leave without any further physical confrontation, that might have well been appropriate use of force.

    As it is, I’m not sure pepper spray is all that effective in such instances, but I haven’t studied the subject. I do know back when Frank Riggs’ office was had that sit- in, the one young girl got up and left immediately after being subjected to pepper spray. Worked with her, but the others were seasoned protesters.

  81. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Could it be that the purpose of civil disobedience is to cause a society to change the inequities that exist within said society? People like Fred seem to be unaware that this is not protesting for the sake of protesting. This is a protest of the way the 1% fat cats run this country and an effort to cause a positive change for the other 99%. If you haven’t figured out why people are protesting you are not paying attention.

  82. November 22, 2011 at 9:22 am

    So Fred just to be clear your opinion of the pepper spray by the police at Davis is not based upon humane policing concerns, or Constitutional concerns, but merely upon it’s efficacy?

    Mussolini would be proud he was a proponent of efficiency also.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  83. Load Me Another
    November 22, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Having paid time off today, I have a moment to drop in on Heraldo’s flea market of ideas. To spray or not to spray, that is our focus. For the EPD, outsourcing to a third party might be wise next time. And, make sure it’s a local vendor, not Terminex. Whether it be matches, explosives, or cops, Johnny better be careful what he plays with. If you stick your hand in the lion cage, do you expect it to be there when you pull your arm out? Just bringing attention to action and expected outcome here. As I mentioned earlier, folks have to buy what you’re selling- it’s presentation and packaging, baby. But, with the way Occupy markets it’s product, the problem of gov’t corruption, cronyism, and more is lost. Instead the focus is bad cops, poop and pee, etc. Folks remember this stuff when it’s time to pull the lever in the voting booth. What isn’t getting attention is that one of the NY Occupy leaders was staying at the $700 a night W Hotel after the eviction. He is one of a few who control the $500,000 or so in donations. If you’re gonna talk the the talk (“down with corporate greed…more champagne, please…”), shouldn’t you be towing the line with your comrades? Doesn’t this mirror corrupt public officials and our tax dollars? Is he behaving like the the 1%?C’mon,at least pitch your new REI ultralight tent like the rest of them and and pay your dues.

  84. Goldie
    November 22, 2011 at 10:26 am

    oh my, those protesters ( aka Citizens ) are too poor or too rich to be taken seriously. The idea of corporations ( hotels ) is not bad but rather the lack of accountability is annoying, and fair taxing might seem desirable, or for corporations to have the rights due a business and not due a person might be nifty.
    It would be interesting if Queer Eye of the Straight Guy did a show on how citizens should dress when protesting corporate fraud and lack of lawful prosecution of while collar crime.

  85. November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Fred seem to be unaware that this is not protesting for the sake of protesting.

    It’s irrelevant what the purpose of the protest is. The police are simply there to enforce the law. The purpose of the protest has nothing to do with it. If the powers- that- be determine the protesters are breaking the law and need to be removed, it’s the job of police to remove them.

    your opinion of the pepper spray by the police at Davis is not based upon humane policing concerns, or Constitutional concerns, but merely upon it’s efficacy?

    Yet another “they should be able to do whatever they want” reply?

    Assuming the students needed to be removed, they should be removed with the least amount of harm to all involved, if possible. If using chemical agents would be the safest and most effective way to encourage the students to leave without physically grappling with them, I’d say that might make sense as it might be the least harmful option.

    That assumes they needed to be removed. We know opinions differ on that. If they were blocking a the main street of the campus or a major street in the City of Davis, I’m sure many would agree they should be removed. Would chemicals (pepper spray, CN or CS) be the safest and most effective way to remove them, or would physically twisting arms?

    I’m sure opinions would even differ on that, although I’d say if you could get people to leave an area without laying a hand on them, that would be the best choice. I’m sure there are even cops that might disagree with me on that.

  86. November 22, 2011 at 10:45 am

    What do you think of the video baton assault on the morning of November 14th, perpetrated on an Occupy Eureka camper who was laying on the ground? Was that police brutality Fred?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  87. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Fred doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on the idea that cops inflicting pain to obtain compliance is punishing people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. Btw, what was his opinion of torture and waterboarding?

  88. November 22, 2011 at 10:58 am

    When is District Attorney Gallegos going to investigate the evidence of police brutality that is plain to see on Mark Sailor’s video? What are you waiting for Mr. Gallegos?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  89. November 22, 2011 at 11:16 am

    P.J. wrote, “Fred doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on the idea that cops inflicting pain to obtain compliance is punishing people who haven’t been convicted of a crime..”

    Totally wrong, PJ. Cops are allowed to use whatever force necessary to effect an arrest and always have been. People who are being arrested, by the very nature of their being arrested, haven’t been convicted of a crime.

    Whether it’s an out- of- control drunk, a bank robber or a protester that refuses to comply with the law, the police can use pain compliance, if needed, to enforce the law, take a person into custody or maintain order.

    What that proper use of force is, can (and obviously is) argued forever.

  90. scooter
    November 22, 2011 at 11:53 am

    When I was a kid, police officers were physically fit, and capable of handling themselves in a physical confrontation. Nowadays it seems like most of the cops I see are fat out of shape slobs. they don’t want to take the time and effort to remove each and every citizen from a protest. They don’t want to take the time and effort to disarm a kid with a knife, or a mentally challenged woman with a flare gun, even though they have the training and the mandate to do so. They just shoot em. Shoot em with a gun or pepper spray whatever is easiest. Look at the video, officer Pike is overweight, out of shape, he couldn’t fight his way out of a paper bag. He has no other choice but to kill you first.

  91. November 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    When is District Attorney Gallegos going to investigate the evidence of police brutality that is plain to see on Mark Sailor’s video? What are you waiting for Mr. Gallegos? 10:58

    Of course. When?

  92. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    So if infliction of pain doesn’t do the job, lethal force, Fred?

  93. What Now
    November 22, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    ” The police are simply there to enforce the law.”

    The infamous (and failed!) Nuremburg Defense.

  94. What Now
    November 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    “Heraldo says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:30 am
    Did Rose personally sniff the breath and armpits of those UC Davis students to determine their “worship” of bad hygene or is she projecting?”|

    Consider the source.
    Roses are grown with enormous quantities of natural and chemical fertilizers.
    Existing under such enormous quatities of “effluvia” has lead to a ratrher shitty cosmological construct.

  95. November 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    So if infliction of pain doesn’t do the job, lethal force, Fred?

    What would that have to do with using chemical agents to disburse a crowd? They do that in the middle east. We don’t do that here, at least not anymore.

  96. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Fred: “I’d say probably not, but I don’t know the totality of the circumstances.”

    You smell like waffles!

  97. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Jeezus Fred. What if the chemical weapons to disburse the crowd don’t work and the people refuse to leave? What’s the next step after infliction of pain. I’ve long believed that most countries, including this one, will use whatever measures required for the elite to hold onto power. All of our criticisms of other countries for using violence against protesters now come back in shades of hypocrisy. Using violence against protesters is just as wrong in Oakland as it is in Egypt. Whether the violence is from a baton or a chemical sprayer is just a matter of degrees. They are both violent.

  98. November 22, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    They’d move them, eventually, even if that meant calling in 1000s of cops from all over the state and they had to go in, batons swinging. And that’s probably what a lot of the Occupy organizers would like to happen. Lots of publicity that way.

    Trying to compare troops shooting randomly into a crowd as has been happening in the middle east with police trying to deal with uncooperative crowds in the least harmful manner possible as we do here is ridiculous.

  99. November 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    You smell like waffles!

    I don’t know exactly where the protesters were or how long they’d been there. Were they being disruptive, aside from taking up space? Were they impeding the business of U.C. Davis?

    I don’t know whether they really needed to be cleared out, or not. Wasn’t the chancellor, or at least someone in her chain of command, the one that gave the order to clear them out? I’d say she’d have a better idea of what needed to be done there.

    Maybe it was a good decision on her part. Maybe not. I don’t know.

    Of course, the majority of people here on this blog think they should have been left alone, regardless, just as they thought the courthouse campers should have been.

  100. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Fred: “Trying to compare troops shooting randomly into a crowd as has been happening in the middle east with police trying to deal with uncooperative crowds in the least harmful manner possible as we do here is ridiculous”

    Trying to compare these uncooperative crowds with publicity seeking know-nothings is ridiculous!

  101. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    The point, Fred, is that there are painless ways to arrest people who are engaged in peaceful protest. The use of violence on people who are not threatening anyone is wrong no matter who does it. If they can pick them up and arrest them after they pepper spray them, they can do so without the pepper spray. That it would pain people like you for them to not hurt people you disagree with politically would make it even more desirable. For a “libertarian” you sure have strange ideas about what liberty is. You sound like you must belong to the fascist branch of that ideology.

  102. jr
    November 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Thought provoking essay entitled “Why Occupy” in the current edition of http://www.noyonews.net. I look forward to reading comments on it.

  103. November 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Ok. Didn’t at least a couple people raise the same question here in the last day, or so: How would you arrest them, P.J.? How would you clear them out? Let’s hear your ideas.

    Whether or not the protesters really needed removing, I’m suggesting the police went through what was about as an appropriate progression of use of force as they could, keeping in mind there’s no way they could remove the protesters peacefully.

    First they tried to encourage them to leave verbally. That didn’t work. Then they threatened to use pepper spray. That didn’t work. They were left with at least a couple choices at that point: Either go directly physical with the protesters with the greater risk of injury to all involved, or try pepper in hopes some or all would leave.

    Up to and beyond the point of the pepper spray being used, any of them could have left at any time.

    They tried the least violent method first- pepper spray. The pepper spray didn’t work so that point they had no choice but to get physical. In hindsight, I suppose they could have forgone the use of the pepper since it didn’t work (and they likely got a bunch of it on themselves, too) but that’s in hindsight.

    I suppose the police could use pressure points as the person in the other venue suggested, but that’s using pain to gain compliance again, isn’t it? Heck, they probably did use some once they had to get physical. I’m sure we’ll hear some complaints about that if that comes to light.

    So let’s hear your ideas. I suspect you’re like the gal or guy giving me the same hassle in the other venue. I’d bet you’d complain of police brutality no matter what they did to clear out the protesters. That seems to have been the common theme here all along.

  104. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Physical removal, without pain, pepper spray, or any kind of violence, but with stiffer penalties after arrest and felony charges for this behavior.

  105. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Not me, Fred. Have you seen the videos were people are being arrested without pepper spray or the use of batons? Even those which show pepper spraying then show the police lifting and dragging the protesters they are arresting away. What would prevent them from doing the same without using the pepper spray? The use of pepper spray on peaceful but non-cooperative protesters is unnecessary abuse. It looks to me like the cops are trying to incite violence to justify even more brutal force and turn public opinion against protesters.

  106. November 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Pregnant Woman Blasted with Pepper Spray by SPD Says She Miscarried (Updated)
    posted by DOMINIC HOLDEN on MON, NOV 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM

    “I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in,” she says. “I was screaming, ‘I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'” At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. “Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,” she says.

  107. November 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Physical removal, without pain, pepper spray, or any kind of violence, …

    There is no peaceful way of removing uncooperative protesters. If verbal persuasion doesn’t work, any steps after that are violent ones, as far as I’m concerned. The only difference is the level of intensity of the violence.

    I realized, after hopefully closing an almost identical discussion about this on another web site that my disagreement with some here may not be as big as it sounds.

    Unlike many here, I certainly think there are limits to what can do to express themselves, aka “free speech”. But the biggest disagreement seems to be over what level of force using pepper spray is. Obviously, some here think pepper spray rates a higher rating in the level of force than I do.

    I’m not sure but law enforcement agency guidelines can differ in what level of force ratings. For instance, some departments might consider use of a physical blow from a baton or nunchuks to be the same level of force as deploying pepper spray. Others might say pepper spray would be a lower level of force and should be considered first.

    That person in the other venue seemed to think of using pepper spray as being the equivalent of throwing acid in a person’s face “…a caustic substance….”. I consider the use of pepper spray more along the line of farting in someone’s face. It can be painful and annoying, but it goes away after awhile, unlike the physical damage that can result when conflict has to go hands- on.

  108. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Passive resistance isn’t conflict, Fred. It takes the same number of officers to lift and drag a passive resister as it does to pepper spray them and then lift and drag them and the same number if they beat them unconscious and then lift and drag them. The pepper spray serves no purpose against passive resisters other than the extrajudicial infliction of painful (cruel) punishment. It’s indefensible just like torture is indefensible in a civilized, free society.

  109. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Fred, both you and the person in the other venue are using false equivalencies. Pepper spray isn’t acid, although it probably feels somewhat like acid in the eyes and other mucous membranes until it is washed off. You don’t really equate having your face covered with pepper spray the equivalent of a fart, do you? Now tell the truth, have you ever farted under the covers and then pulled them over your wife’s head so she had to smell it? If you haven’t, do you think every man who has done it committed the equivalent of spraying his wife in the face with pepper spray?

  110. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    I think carefully lifting and dragging is not violent. The violence starts with the protesters resisting being moved, because it makes the dragging and lifting dangerous. Most protesters seem to want to have violence committed to them (without actually being hurt, of course) so they can appear to be a victim.

  111. What Now
  112. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Read all about it! Suggestions to ‘remove’ the protesters are moot altogether! A groundbreaking idea is seeping into social consciousness! Leave them alone! Confrontation becomes a non-issue altogether, as do expenses at our expense including lawsuits, police pay and the senseless encarcertion of tens of thousands of people!

    All out-of-sight complainers have managed to go about their daily lives for three full months now! Their arguments against we, the people who dare protest, are complete nonsense! Here’s for many more months to come!

  113. George Shieman
    November 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Ray Taliaferro {KGO NewsTalk – 1am-5am} and other San Francisco talkshow hosts have been taking calls from civil right’s lawyers and others regarding the pepperspraying of “non-violent, non-resisting” protesters by UC Davis police. Several have mentioned directly the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Lundberg v. Humboldt (Our Pepperspray case that went through 3 trials).

    Some of the more important quotes from the 9th circuit decision, which allowed plaintiff pepperspray victims to have a third trial..which they won..are listed below… The gist being, as you can see below..is that use of pepperspray on non-violent protesters is illegal and and is an unconstitutional, excessive use of force.

    The UC Davis police had to know this…even if the person using this violence against the protesters didn’t… other officers or commanding officers likely did know..and did not make any effort to stop the officer from using illegal, excessive force.

    From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion…these quotes:

    # [R]egional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against non-violent protesters is excessive.

    [I]t would be clear to a reasonable officer that using pepper spray against the protesters was excessive under the circumstances.

    The facts reflect that… the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protesters (citing Graham v. Conner).

    Characterizing the protesters’ activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case.

    Defendants’ repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable.

    [A] continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.

    Because the officers had control over the protesters it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under control

    It also would have been clear to any reasonable officer that the manner in which the officers used the pepper spray was unreasonable.

    ——— After verdict against Humboldt here are some quotes from attorneys and others who won that case:

    They hope and expect that the verdict will reverberate far beyond rural Humboldt County to make it clear that police can not use the extremely painful pepper spray on non-violent people to coerce them to follow orders.

    hope law enforcement all over the country will hear this message, that they can’t just use pepper spray on non-aggressive people who don’t follow orders.

    Lawyers Dennis Cunningham, Tony Serra and Bill Simpich gave strong statements at the press conference, saying they thought the jury’s message was clear enough that using pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators was unconstitutional, and law enforcement agencies nationwide should take note.

    the Ninth Circuit in Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d
    1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2002) that the inability to slowly increase and quickly alleviate pain
    disqualifies the pepper spray use in these incidents as legitimate “pain compliance.” The court
    held, “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that using pepper spray against the protestors was
    excessive under the circumstances.” Headwaters, 276 F.3d at 1130 citing LaLonde v. County of
    Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir. 2000).

  114. November 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    THOSE STUDENTSW WERE SITTING IN THE UNIVERSITY O

    CALIFORNIA CAMPUS.. THE ARE NOW PUTTING MORE4 OF THEIR MNEY THAN DORS THE STATE CLIFORNIA

  115. What Now
    November 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Have another shot of white lightening, 90.

  116. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    NYPD pepper sprays man to death

    The death of a Bronx man who suffered a fatal asthma attack after cops pepper-sprayed him has been ruled a homicide by the city medical examiner.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/death-pepper-yarborough-nypd/

  117. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    She’s probably texting from her phone, WN. That’s not how she usually posts.

  118. Plain Jane
    November 22, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    This is hilarious

  119. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I think I might have a severe allergic reaction from pepper spray. I think it should only be used when a person is in eminent danger, against the person causing the danger.

  120. High
    November 22, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    I heard someone today perfectly summarize this minor incident.

    The police gave the protestors a legal & lawful order to remove themselves from the scene. They gave the protestors plenty of time to leave. The protestors illegally refused and prepared themselves to resist the police.

    The cops could have used force by twisting their arms which could have caused a lot more harm than just pepper spraying them.

    The protestors are at fault and have nobody to blame but themselves.

  121. High Finance
    November 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    7.30 was me. I don’t know why my last name didn’t print.

  122. November 22, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    “The cops could have used force by twisting their arms which could have caused a lot more harm than just pepper spraying them”

    HiFi has obviously never been pepper-sprayed.

  123. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Corrected:

    Police ordered protesters to stop protesting. Protesters requested to be left alone and prepared themselves to resist the violence police had arrived trained and geared to initiate.

    Cops could have refused their orders.

    Protesters are in no way at fault.

  124. November 22, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    We have all seen Mark Sailors video. Where is the investigation of this police brutality, this excessive use of force? Has Murl Harpham even ordered an internal investigation yet? How about our district attorney? Has he started an investigation yet?

    What does it say about us as a community if we can witness a crime and not demand accountability?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  125. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    “What does it say about us as a community if we can witness a crime and not demand accountability?”

    It says nothing of the community and everything of the people who are in positions to control the police.

  126. Anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    “The protestors are at fault and have nobody to blame but themselves.”

    And that is why the UC Davis Police Chief was put on leave.
    And why the Chancellor has said he did not act according to her request. UC Davis is saying this was mishandled, but somehow Hi Fi knows better.

  127. November 22, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    “We have all seen Mark Sailors video”

    I wouldn’t make that assumption.

  128. November 22, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    You are correct Joel. Upon reflection, I am guilty of a bit of hyperbole.

    I am relying on Mark Sailors eyewitness account and I believe him when he says he is not a liar.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  129. Pepito McCoy
    November 22, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    I grow pepper spray, and sell it to a processor who then packages it to military and police. We employ lots of people, both in the growing and processing. If we stop pepper spraying, some minimum wage jobs may be lost. Yes, its brutal and hurts, but it only hurts the people we are ok with hurting. I say we need to pepper spray more people, not less, and keep our economy strong.

  130. anonymous
    November 22, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    police brutality HA. Are you all a bunch of pussies? I was pepper sprayed as part of my training. There are much worse things.

  131. Pepito McCoy
    November 22, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Yes, we pepper spray all of our minimum wage employees, part of the training. It keeps our economy strong by letting these people know whats in store if they make a fuss, over anything. Try pepper spraying the head of Goldman Sachs!!!

  132. skippy
    November 23, 2011 at 2:00 am

    This has been a way-too-interesting thread to follow. The comments have taken on a delightful life of their own, as always, in a way only Humboldt does.

    To spray or not to spray? A bit more of the recent UC Davis news is at the Sentinel for interested readers… although the colorful comments found here are one of a kind and, well, between priceless, gnarly and Pepito-humorous. Just sayin’.

  133. November 23, 2011 at 8:02 am

    “Are you all a bunch of pussies?”

    Thanks for contributing such an intelligent comment.

  134. Anonymous
    November 23, 2011 at 9:05 am

    I love you so much skippy, thank YOU for birthing such overwhelming feelings of love into my awareness with a simple hypertext transfer protocol. Reading your spam ALWAYS brings me to the verge of a limp-dick orgasm within seconds. May the exchange of our emotional dialog outlast sunsets on this planet! It’s not going to happen on your lame blog though.

  135. November 23, 2011 at 9:21 am

    CORRCT AND CLARFICATION: THOSE STUDENTS WERE SITTING ON THE CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY O CALFORNIA
    IN DAVIS. THOSE STUDENTS NOW PUT MORE MONEY INTO
    HIGHER EDUCATION THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  136. Tea Party Think Tank
    November 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Rose Welsh’s tea party blog comment of the day:

    “There isn’t enough paper spray In the world to use on these people if you ask me”

  137. Tea Party Think Tank
    November 23, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Sorry, PEPPER spray, not paper

  138. Plain Jane
    November 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    I shudder to think what she would substitute for the inadequate pepper spray, TPTT.

  139. Apologist Not
    November 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Always fun to read more Horse shit from fools who think they’d still have the rights they enjoy today if not for the “Occupy” protests of the past.

  140. November 24, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    to the “Peace?|” officers of the University as an alumni 0f the university f California __not in my name!!!

    add to the Chorus—-SHAME ON YO*U

  141. skippy
    November 24, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    “The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. It is not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.” (Mark Twain)

    and thank you, Anonymous @9:05. Don’t get too excited, Sparky. New around here?

  142. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 8:24 am

    seems like there is more to this story. being surrounded by people chanting “if you let them go, we will let you go” and “fuck the police” changes the story a bit from the single image we have been presented with.

  143. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 8:26 am

    from the caption

    “This video shows the events leading up to the use of pepper spray by UC Davis police officers. Occupy protesters and the media have sensationalized this story by only showing short clips of the officers spraying the students with pepper spray. This video shows in chronological order how the protesters trapped the police and demanded the release of those they had arrested before they would be allowed to leave.”

  144. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 8:55 am

    The use of weapons-grade pepper spray is not legal to use against peaceful protesters and was never intended for that purpose. You might find the interview of the scientist involved in its development and training in its proper use available at Democracy Now! educational, 8:26. If they had sprayed the students surrounding them and not those seated and posing absolutely no threat, you might have a case that police were acting in self-defense; however, to claim that seated protesters surrounded by police who walked into the middle of a large protest had to spray the seated protesters to escape from the standing protesters is nonsense.

  145. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 8:57 am

    If anyone has the ability to do so, I would love a photo of the Grinch pepper spraying Cindy Lou Who when she interrupts his robbery.

  146. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 9:07 am
  147. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 9:52 am

    “If they had sprayed the students surrounding them and not those seated and posing absolutely no threat, you might have a case that police were acting in self-defense;”

    watch the video, that is exactly what happened

  148. Mitch
    December 2, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Meanwhile (apologies if this has been posted before), the woman who was kidnapped by undercover New York police for closing her Citibank account has sued the police officers, the highest uniformed NYC police officer, and the City of New York.

    You may have heard about it as an arrest, but kidnapping is the proper term, as the officers had no right to do what they did.

    Sure looks like a slam dunk case to me…

    Beats shouting, if you ask me.

  149. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 10:17 am

    9:52, I watched the video twice and what I saw was at 13:23 the cops sprayed students sitting on the ground, not those standing, and never were the cops surrounded by protesters despite the text added to the video. That sort of crap might trick idiots into denying what they see with their own eyes, but not most people.

  150. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 10:41 am

    why were the protesters chanting “let them go and we will let you go”?

    look at minute minute 10:00 of the video. they are completely surrounded.

  151. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I watched it twice. The video at the very beginning was the segment widely seen previously. The rest of the video was from a different perspective (not the same videographer) and you couldn’t see the spraying being done because of the people in front of the camera, just the screams. There was once incidence of pepper spraying which was shown clearly on the first segment. What the kids were chanting is irrelevant. You can clearly see the area behind the cops which was free of protesters, but they wanted the kids in front of them off the sidewalk and that is why they were sprayed.

  152. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 11:02 am

    *What the kids were chanting AFTER THE PEPPER SPRAY ATTACK is irrelevant to justification for the use of pepper spray.

  153. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Is Baa Baa Sheepskins in Old Town still? I know they left the mall.

  154. RefFan
    December 2, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    OMG, they surrounded the officers, telling them they wld let them leave if they let the arrested go, and some of you ppl think that is okay?? They are threatening the police!! It was not okay what they did and they were warned a few times b4 any action was taken. The protestors were in the WRONG, not the other way around. Get a grip ppl.

  155. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    You people are always against the police. If you only knew what it was like to try to do that job.

  156. Mitch
    December 2, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Not even clever enough to be “not true,” 12:04.

    First, there’s no “you people” at the Herald, just people. But beyond that, it is downright stupid to suggest that “people” here are against the police.

    I can speak only for myself.

    I am for the police when they do a professional job of serving the public. I am grateful when a police officer catches a mugger, rescues people in a car crash, or just helps a lost kid.

    I am against the police when they use force that is not necessary, as in shooting to death a person who could have been talked down for a smoke, or in pepper spraying protesters who are seated.

    I have a relative who is a police officer. That doesn’t mean I need to admire every officer who abuses their job. My relative’s job would be made FAR easier if the police did not have the idea that they must protect their bad apples at all costs.

  157. Ed
    December 2, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    if the cops were so justified, why did the chancellor apologize?

  158. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    You can see in the video when the kids were chanting that the cops could go that they weren’t surrounded. Even the cops involved haven’t tried to claim they used the pepper spray in self-defense and in the clip at the beginning of that video where you can actually see the pepper spraying occurring the cop is very nonchalant about it, walking back and forth in front of them. No amount of deceitful spin is ever going to make using weapons-grade pepper spray on nonviolent protesters okay. At least not unless the fascists take over completely, then it’s a whole new deal.

  159. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    The cops at UC Davis do not appear to have been in any actual danger. Nobody was attacking them. So the use of pepper spray was clearly not done in self-defense, which is its only legitimate, lawful use. Therefore its use in this case amounts to an excessive and illegal use of force.

  160. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Pj, that chant was before the pepper spray. You truly are living in an altered reality. The reason you see nothing behind the cops is because this video is shot from inside the circle looking out. Incredible. There are several scenes where you can see a group of 10 or so police surrounded by hundreds.

    I originally wrote that it seems like there is more to the story, and the fact the police were surrounded changes it a bit. This info is new to me and it was never mentioned in any story I read that the protestors followed the police, surrounded them, and told them to let the people go who had been arrested for camping.

    Seems relevant to me.

  161. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    TRA,
    It is easy to sit here and say that after the fact. Being a police officer surrounded by hundreds of people chanting “from Davis to Greece, fuck the police” would fit some people’s definition of danger.

  162. December 2, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Did you see the size of that canister?`
    Officer Pike doing the blase’ spray-over
    right into the faces of kids.

    Lessons in fascism 101, be at the other-end
    of the iron-fist. You’ll never ignore it again.

  163. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    7:08

    “if you let them go, we will let you leave. if you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully.

    let them go!”

  164. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    …the fact the police were surrounded changes it a bit.

    Not really. The protesters who were pepper-sprayed were sitting on the ground, not surrrounding anyone.

    If the cops had turned the pepper-sray on the people who were surrounding them, because of the threat they supposedly perceived from those people, then we’d be talking about whether that action was necessary, justified, etc. But that’s not what happened.

    The idea that the cops “had to” pepper spray the nonthreatening, seated group of protesters, because of some perceived threat from the other protesters who were “surrounding” them…that just makes no sense at all.

  165. What Now
    December 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Anonymous says:
    December 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    TRA,
    “It is easy to sit here and say that after the fact. Being a police officer surrounded by hundreds of people chanting “from Davis to Greece, fuck the police” would fit some people’s definition of danger.”
    Evidently a preoponderance of riot gear, weaponry and an extra 40 lbs of doughnut based cholesterol around their bulging guts and lazy fat asses isn’t enough to protect the poor little coppie-oppies from WORDS!
    Oh, the humanity……………………

  166. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    Being a police officer surrounded by hundreds of people chanting “from Davis to Greece, fuck the police” would fit some people’s definition of danger. .

    “You’re honor, some people in the surrounding crowd were chanting “fuck the police,” so I had to pepper-spray these protesters who were sitting on the ground.”

    Yeah, best of luck with that.

  167. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    I watched their video twice and paid close attention to the sequence of events, i.e. first pepper spray and then kids chanting about “letting the cops go” at the same time the video shows no protesters behind the swarm of heavily armed riot, gear protected cops. No one was threatening them or preventing them from leaving. There was no indication that the cops felt threatened at all.

    To continue to try to justify pepper spraying of sitting, nonviolent protesters while ignoring the opinion of the leading expert on pepper spray says to me that you aren’t really interested in honest discussion. You don’t like protesters, we get it.
    There are “good little Germans” in every country it seems.

  168. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    PJ, you are not telling the truth about the sequence of events and I actually can’t believe you are doing this when anybody can watch the video and see you are lying. I don’t know whether to be angry or feel sorry for you.

  169. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    If the police believed that they were under threat from the surrounding crowd, why would they attack those who were not surrounding or threatening them? That just doesn’t make sense.

  170. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    the people sitting down were part of the “surrounding crowd”. i think the police were trying to get them out of the way so they could get the people they had arrested into the car and get out of there. the people on the ground were in the way and would not move to allow them to leave. had you heard about any of this before?

    and PJ, your “good little Germans” comment…i find very offensive. I used to live in Germany. They are good people.

  171. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    I think Jane is referring to a colloquialism regarding those who ignored the Nazi regime, not trying to insult a nationality.

  172. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    4:03,

    It doesn’t look to me like the officers’ freedom of movement was really impaired in any meaningful way at the time that the pepper-spray assault took place. Right up until the moment of the pepper spraying, I see cops on both sides of that group of protesters, and crossing back and forth. The protesters who were seated on the sidewalk and were pepper-sprayed were surrounded by police, not the other way around.

    The longer video does not lend any weight at all to the argument that the cops were under any kind of threat. In fact it shows a much heavier police presence than is shown in the shorter video that went viral. The cops clearly had plenty of personnel available to make their way through an unarmed crowd of student protesters without the use of the pepper spray. The pepper spray was clearly used as a “chemical cattle-prod,” not for self-defense.

  173. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    The phrase never was “Good little Germans.” it was “Good Germans.”

    It meant something. Let’s not dilute its meaning by adding unnecessary and diminutive modifiers!

  174. Darby O'Gill
    December 2, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Whoo, whoo, hullabaloo!!!! Spin, spin, let the falsehoods begin!! Up is down, and pink is blue!! Whoo, whoo, hullabaloo!!!

  175. Anonymous
    December 2, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    http://news.yahoo.com/calif-police-pepper-spray-justified-224930560.html

    I guess the question will be whether the protesters were “actively resisting” when this goes to court.

    TRA I disagree with your basic premise that the cops were not in danger and will leave it at that.

    Pj, you are a fucking nut.

  176. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    8:08,

    In danger? In danger of what? Being annoyed and inconvenienced by the protesters?

    In our local pepper-spray case, this use of the pepper spray as a “chemical cattle-prod” was found to be excessive force — even when used against protesters who had locked themselves down into metal sleeves to slow down their removal. And in the U.C. Davis case, the student protesters were just seated on the ground, not even locked down. Unless the courts decide to completely reverse the established precedent, it’s pretty hard to see how this will be judged as anything other than a straightforward case of excessive force by the police.

  177. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    The pepper spraying begins at approx 3:21 on the video. The first time you hear anything from the kids about “letting the police go” is after an obvious break in recording and then at 13:50 on the video there is a mic check and they say, “We are willing to give you a brief moment of peace….” I may be nuts but you are mentally defective, 8:08. The video count is there for anyone to check, including leg humpers like yourself.

  178. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Re: “active resistance,” see the last few paragraphs of the yahoo news article that you linked to at 8:08…

    The court used the term in considering a case about another highly circulated video of a group of passive demonstrators being swabbed with pepper spray in 1997. The protesters had linked arms on the floor of a California congressman’s office to protest the logging of old-growth redwood trees on California’s North Coast.

    Because demonstrators were using a metal sleeve to prevent the county sheriff’s office from separating them, attorneys argued the protestors’ “active resistance” left officers no other way to disperse them than dabbing their eyelids with Q-tips soaked in pepper spray, said Jim Wheaton, an attorney who assisted in the prosecution of the civil case.

    The 9th Circuit ruled that the protesters weren’t in “active resistance,” and because they were sitting peacefully, the use of pepper spray was excessive.

    “Pepper spray is designed to protect people from a violent attack, to stop somebody from doing something,” said Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project.

    UC Davis police used “it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that’s exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive.”

    Seems like the UC Davis cops are on pretty shaky legal ground there, to say the least.

  179. What Now
    December 3, 2011 at 1:34 am

    “Anonymous says:
    December 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm
    You people are always against the police. If you only knew what it was like to try to do that job.”

    Noone forced them to take the job.
    Society doesn’t owe them ANY passes from or excuses for lapses into barbarism because they carry weapons.
    Quite the contrary.

  180. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 3:13 am

    Pj you must be watching a different video. Check 7:00.

    Do you think nobody will go to the link or what?

  181. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 3:37 am

    TRA, it’s all in how the info is presented. Suppose this was the last paragraph:

    After reviewing the footage, Key said he observed at least two cases of protesters actively resisting police. In one, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques, he said.
    “What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Key said.

    Would this leave the reader with a different perception?

    People on this blog criticize the media all the time for presenting biased information and my reason for posting that video was because I had only seen the picture and the news made it appear they were just hanging out and this guy decided to spray them. I formed an opinion based on that. When I watched the longer video, it became evident much information was left out of the story, whether you agree with the pepper spray or not. I am the type of person who likes to see all the info and decide things for myself.

    Also TRA, I was under the impression the pepper spray up here was applied by q tips to their eyes or whatever and that was outside of the prescribed usage, unlike the Davis case.

  182. Plain Jane
    December 3, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Okay, you’re right that there is a clip at 7:00 where the kids say they will “let the cops leave,” but that clip doesn’t continue to the pepper spray as a few seconds later it says “from a different view” and the clip from another camera begins which continues to the pepper spraying. In that clip the pepper spraying is first and the “mic check” to “let them go peacefully” comes after. There are no “real times” provided, just a biased person claiming they are chronological, which is funny since the very first clip is of the pepper spraying.

    These clips were spliced together by an obviously biased editor for the purpose of “proving” the cops were justified; but, as the expert who developed pepper spray and trained police in its use (link provided above) states, there is no justification to use pepper spray on people who aren’t threatening bodily harm or property damage. Edited video provides nothing but the information the editor wants you to see. This editor felt the need to add text to the clips to explain to viewers what they are seeing, apparently not trusting his video clips to give the right impression. An edited video of disjointed clips by someone whose beliefs that the pepper spray was justified doesn’t trump the foremost expert on the appropriate use of pepper spray and no amount of edited video clips ever will unless they show a credible threat. These clips do just the opposite.

  183. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Speaking of not checking links, 8:08 leads their comment with this conveniently named link: http://news.yahoo.com/calif-police-pepper-spray-justified-224930560.html

    Unfortunately for the argument 8:08 is making, the headline at the link reads as follows: Was Calif. police use of pepper spray justified?

    And the article at the link ends this way:

    “Pepper spray is designed to protect people from a violent attack, to stop somebody from doing something,” said Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project.
    UC Davis police used “it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that’s exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive.”

  184. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I put that link up to add info, not to support an argument Mitch. I know, that is unusual here to post things that may not back up your position. Do you feel it added value? It provided two perspectives at least.

  185. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Yes pj, this video certainly provides less information than a single picture, recreated hundreds of times in different scenes.

    Nut.

  186. Plain Jane
    December 3, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Opposing views of former cops add nothing to the debate. Neither are experts in the law or the appropriate use of pepper spray. The pro-pepper spray former cop’s opinion that sitting protesters are “actively resisting” isn’t supported by federal court decisions. The foremost expert on pepper spray and it’s appropriate legal use was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Refusing to watch it or to comment on it after you watched it doesn’t make you look like someone with an open mind. I watched, read and commented on your video links and articles. Your failure to do the same doesn’t make you look like you’re interested in honest discussion.

  187. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 8:09 am

    7:51,

    Is the quote below what you think of as a valid perspective from the article? If so, we’re so far apart that there’s not much use discussing.

    Because, first of all, Mr. Key does not anywhere state that he observed the pepper-sprayed protesters engaging in even the clearly non-violent behavior he cites as justifying force.

    And I’ve got to say I’m amazed that anyone in this day would defend baton strikes in response to “a woman pull[ing] her arm back from an officer” or “a protester curl[ing] into a ball.

    Charles J. Key, a former lieutenant with the Baltimore Police Department who wrote the department’s use-of-force manual, said that officers were clearly within their rights to use it.
    After reviewing the footage, Key said he observed at least two cases of protesters actively resisting police. In one, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques, he said.
    “What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Key said.

  188. Plain Jane
    December 3, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Leg humpers who fall for every edited You Tube video that proves what they want to believe are a waste of time. “Good Germans” who put personal convenience over human and civil rights are a menace to democracy and no amount of logical discussion can change their gerbil-sized minds. Keep the food and water bowls full and they’ll pay no attention to the cage going up around them. As their bowls go empty, one after the other, they’ll wake up and realize they’re caged, but the gerbils still eating won’t notice.

  189. Plain Jane
    December 3, 2011 at 8:31 am

    To avoid the appearance of an insult to my German friends who bear no responsibility for the German sheeple of the past, I’m going to call the “law and order / status quo at any cost” people “Good Gerbils” in the future.

  190. Lemiwinks
    December 3, 2011 at 8:36 am

    free the gerbils! Free at last from Mr. Slave!

  191. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 8:45 am

    But PJ, the people you call “leg humpers” are our neighbors, and exist in large numbers. If you want to see non-violent change, you more or less have to engage with them.

    I think that as things exist today, the vast majority of people are ready to acknowledge (if only internally, to themselves) that something related to the economic system of the country has gone fatally off course.

    People will have different solutions to this based more on their existing values than on rational argument, but I still believe rational argument can sway people. Calling people names will just cause them to dismiss you and your arguments, and will more or less force them to fall back to their comfort zones of “defer to authority, the people in charge know what they’re doing, the whiners are worthless.” It’s counterproductive.

    It’s also, IMO, foolish to think that everyone who is awake to the disastrous problems facing the country will support identical solutions. I think some folks insist on swinging for a home run, while others would be more comfortable to get to walk to first base.

    The banks have committed the largest financial crime since the Germans extracted every gold tooth from every Jew they murdered. It’s too big to hide, and even press outlets like Bloomberg are bringing attention to it. If ever there were a time to build alliances, this is it.

    As people come to understand the true magnitude of what the banks have done, and as they realize the support the banks had from the government under both parties, and as they realize how this is just a symptom of a system gone bad, many will come to support change.

    The left, IMO, needs to do two things. First, not drive people away. Second, speak out against phony scapegoating of the poor, minorities, immigrants, etc… as performed by much of the tea party. Speak out loudly, clearly, and in a way middle-America can hear

  192. Plain Jane
    December 3, 2011 at 8:59 am

    I can’t argue with that Mitch. However, I too am human and get angry at the constant leg humping behavior. I’ll try to ignore it and focus on polite discussion. But not promising perfection.

    As to the possible solutions, you’re right there as well. But it’s hard to be patient with people offering the insane “solutions” that caused the problems in the first place. People who only want you to look at their “evidence” but won’t return the courtesy aren’t likely to be swayed by evidence they refuse to see, much less debate on its merits.

  193. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I know, PJ. I find patience easier on the internet than in person.

    I’ve got to admit, I take some pleasure from the Republican party having run into trouble finding scapegoats.

    Gays aren’t as threatening to most people as they were just ten or twenty years ago, thanks almost entirely to the massive numbers of gay people who have “come out.”

    Blacks are still available, but for some reason the Republicans seem less inclined to use them — there must be something going on in the demographics.

    Immigrants would be perfect and heaven knows the GOP has tried, but it’s a terrible inconvenience that many undocumented workers are latino, and the GOP wants the latino vote.

    Native Americans/Indians would make a great scapegoat except there are too few left, most having been murdered by our ancestors.

    Maybe the Chinese.

    As a Jew, I’m of course waiting for the GOP to trot out the Jews. Even if it sounds ridiculous right now, that hasn’t stopped it in the past. And the fact that the “banker” equals “Jew” meme is still prevalent will make it easy. Again, though, it’s inconvenient that the GOP wants to support the bankers.

  194. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Is the quote below what you think of as a valid perspective from the article?

    It was the guy who wrote the manual for the guy who sprayed the protesters. So yes.

    If so, we’re so far apart that there’s not much use discussing.

    Agreed. I will try not to post opposing viewpoints in the future. I can see those are not welcome here. If you read my original post all I said was:

    “seems like there is more to this story. being surrounded by people chanting “if you let them go, we will let you go” and “fuck the police” changes the story a bit from the single image we have been presented with.”

    If you don’t think that is a valid perspective, we’re so far apart…

    And leg humper? What the hell does that even mean? Are you the same idiot who used to post as Jane doe? Remarkably similar thought processes if not. And this is not good.

  195. tra
    December 3, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    The Yahoo News article linked to above quotes a former lieutenant with the Baltimore Police Department who wrote that department’s use-of-force manual, and he says “that officers were clearly within their rights to use it” [pepper spray], calling its use in this case an example of “standard police procedure.”

    It’s worth noting that Baltimore MD is not within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and therefore is not bound by the the local pepper-spray ruling that article also cites. So this use of pepper-spray may be within the rules for Baltimore PD, and for all I know those rules may be allowable under all the court decisions that apply to Baltimore PD, but that doesn’t mean they’re legally allowable at U.C. Davis, which IS within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Even if the UC Davis cops were acting within their own “use-of-force” manual (I don’t know if they were or not), it’s the court’s decision, not the cop’s “use-of-force” manual, that determines whether the behavior amounted to excessive force or not. If the manual is at odds with the court decision, the manual will have to be revised — and this case will no doubt address that issue. Meanwhile, if this case proceeds as I expect it will, other police forces within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit will be forced to revisit their own “use-of-force” manuals to make sure they don’t end up running afoul of the court in similar circumstances.

  196. tra
    December 3, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    I will say this: If it turns out that the use of pepper-spray as a “chemical cattle-prod” was/is the official policy of the UC Davis Police Dept., and/or Lt. Pike was directly ordered to carry out the pepper-spraying by someone higher up the chain of command, then more of the responsibility for this fiasco falls on the leadership of that Department, and somewhat less on Lt. Pike and his fellow officers who were present on the scene. I expect this will all get a pretty thorough airing, probably in court, in the coming months.

  197. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    tra,

    It goes even beyond what you properly point out. The former Baltimore lieutenant isn’t saying — at least in the article — that the protesters who were pepper-sprayed even offered the trivial resistance of pulling their arm away. As I read the article, all he is saying is that some protesters did this, and as a result there was justification for police use of pepper spray on other protesters.

    That is chilling. It would mean that one police undercover officer (it’s acknowledged that there were several in Occupy LA) could bring down a pepper spray attack on everyone present at a legal protest, simply by pulling back from a uniformed officer when the uniformed officer pretends to arrest the undercover officer. If that’s Baltimore’s policy, it makes me glad I don’t live there.

  198. Mitch
    December 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    And 5:02, I’m not sure why we are not supposed to simply believe our eyes.

    I don’t know what was said elsewhere at the protest, but the video clip shows an unharried police officer calmly and casually strolling along a line of seated protesters, spraying pepper spray directly at them. Are you suggesting that the scene I’m describing never happened? Or are you suggesting it was justified on the grounds that someone somewhere was shouting slogans?

  199. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Do you realize how insane it is to argue about the letter-of-the-law legality of what the police are doing (not just have done, as at UCD) to people all over the country? It’s more than chilling, as mitch says. It really is insane. A person’s mental functions would have to be so far removed from physical reality, let alone any sense of humanity and empathy, to suggst what the police are doing is okay because it’s somehow “legal”.

  200. Anonymous
    December 4, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Or the protesters could get up and walk away. They only sprayed the ones who were blocking the access to load the arrested people into the squad car, and only after telling each of them they would use force if they did not move.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s