1821 
  		 			Go read the Fallows link.  It includes a  message from a police trainer in Texas who explains the options that  the police force had, and precisely why they're culpable for what  happened.

Fallows clearly speaks from a position of knowledge and experience, but in that regard, he is no more authoritative than Kay, who wrote the manual that supposedly prescribes pepper spray for situations like the one at UC Davis.

I support Fallows’ arguments about policing generally, and about the need for training that places the police in the midst of, and in a position of responsibility to, the community they serve. However, his prescription for a 3:1 officer/protestor ratio strikes me as wishful thinking with respect to small police forces – even those with access to some reinforcement from other agencies.

Police rarely outnumber mobs. Fallows can advise on the 3:1 ratio either as an ideal, or because peaceful protests in the contemporary experience have been small. We can all agree that many peaceful protests should be allowed to run their course – monitored, but not disturbed for fear of causing greater disruption and violence. I would argue that UC Davis falls into that category. I agree that the correct decision would have been to order the police to disregard the letter of the law with respect to public demonstrations.

The argument that the police endanger themselves by deploying pepper spray is compelling because the crowd has obvious power to “punish” the police if it disapproves of their behavior. But that was always true. What happens if a 3:1 ratio of officers-to-protestors becomes impossible to achieve? And don’t police take on long odds? We call them, after all, the “thin blue line.” That’s a reference, in part, to their small numbers by comparison with the rest of society, including lawbreakers. If that is true, then the police need to use force multipliers like OC when they perform crowd control. I think some of the problem is that the police also act with ignorance of what might happen when they do, finally, take action; hence their view is that the OC provides a kind of guarantee against the possibility that they’ve misread the crowd. Then we get back into the question of how much risk we as a society wish to ask that police officers take.

1822

And DJ just mindlessly repeats himself. Good show old chap. Welcome to the ignore list

The first is on display by DJ (and earlier in the thread by Scuzz). It views police instigated violence as a fait accompli. As I pointed out in responding to Scuzz, doing so casts the police actions in the same terms of those of a natural disaster, or an act of God.

1823

Not to sound pedantic, but everything I see affects my perception of the situation.

Not at all. I’m genuinely interested in discussing it.

You can’t evaluate the actions of Pike without noting his demeanor, just as you would any participant in a confrontation. I think you’re asking what I choose to read into his demeanor, and that’s obviously going to be subjective.

Right.

Personally, I viewed this less as a callous disregard for the well-being of the students and more of a callous disregard for the hard work of responsible policing.

That makes sense. Granted, you and I disagree about what “responsible policing” means in this instance. I’m not convinced that “responsible policing” would have been to opt for the 3:1 ratio suggested by the Dallas trainer.

Given permission and opportunity to use his new toy, he seems unconcerned with the countless cell phones and cameras capturing his exercise, content in the knowledge he is following orders precisely and will suffer no repercussions for his actions (obviously a miscalculation on his part).

It always makes me uneasy when the police take action to discourage people from filming them. That may sound bizarre given the widespread misunderstanding of my position on this thread, but I’ve always felt that there is something sinister about wanting to do all of these things unseen. That’s actually why I don’t have much issue with Pike’s “just following orders” mentality. Pike is trained to do precisely that. It is an article of faith in his profession that his superiors have the training to best handle each situation – a mantra that cuts against the moral imperative of self-possessed engagement with the world at large. Consider the private who may find fault in his superior’s orders, but who may not be able to weigh all the significant components of that calculation at the moment of action.

In fact, my guess is that in light of the events of Oakland and Berkeley over the past few weeks, he feels he was exercising considerable restraint and executing “textbook crowd dispersal techniques.”

Probably, yes.

That’s a little silly. Potential for resistance to what? To dispersal, of course.

In this case, the officers act with their own safety in mind. I have to be honest here and add that I think it is due in part to the widespread myth that OC has no lasting repercussions. The consequences are of course worse when police don’t treat protestors. There is certainly incentive for authority figures to discount complaints as another form of instrumental protest, which needs to be guarded against through training.

1824

That is the best way to hold an internet discussion. I bet your fun in “real” life.

1825

That’s aside from whether he made a gleeful comment just before he pulled the trigger, which some people are claiming.

I saw some video with sound yesterday and somebody (and it appeared to be him) does say something “smart ass” as he is spraying the pepper spray.

1826

Which makes their life worth less than that of a civilians. Oh not to the people in charge of course, who rightly see police as one of the best ways to maintain control of the rest of the population.

The question here is what that minimum was, and whether the use of pepper spray as a preventive measure exceeded that minimum.

Why don’t you go, take some tabasco sauce or other hot sauce, dump half a bottle in each of your eyes, then sit there for half an hour or so. You aren’t allowed to wash it out because you’re being arrested. Then realize that pepper spray is worse than that.

Then, you get into a question of whether police should be expected to try to separate crowds at hazard to themselves, and deploy pepper spray and the like only when met with violence, not just passive resistance.

That’s a given.

Knowing what we do about psychology, I don’t wave that flag very confidently. Most human beings are highly susceptible to authority.

Too bad. They have a job that gives them authority over other people, they get held to a high standard. If they can’t maintain that standard, then they don’t deserve that job.

Defend to me why it is reasonable for a pregnant woman to place herself in a situation where she is likely to be subject to physical harm.

Defend to me why it’s reasonable to hit a pregnant woman in the stomach for any reason. Go ahead. Why don’t you

The students clearly chose to make victims of themselves.

You’re a vile boot licker. Why don’t you go prostrate yourselves before the feet of your police masters and clean the dirt off their boots with your tongue like you clearly want to do.

1827

He is saying the exact same thing over and over and over again, I’m confident nothing will change that as he takes a direct response to something he says as a chance to simply repeat himself. There is no “discussion”. He says something, someone responds, he says the exact same thing, someone responds, he says the exact same thing.

You must talk to the NPCs in “video” games repeatedly.

1828

Okay. But first you have to explain to me why peacefully protesting, standing around in a park, or sitting with your fellow students linking arms is inherently a a “violent” action.

And then defend to me why it is reasonable to be hitting people (not just women) with such force as to cause a miscarriage. Remember, there’s been no violence from the OWS protesters, just the police. So, why is it her fault again? Explain that to me.

1829

Anyway, about that pregnant woman. So far she refuses to do anything to support her story, except for planning a candlelight vigil. Despite the miscarriage, she’s still down there, which I suppose it to be expected, she is, after all, homeless. At the time of the incident, she was three months pregnant, which is odd since two months ago when she had another run in with police, she was also three months pregnant. I think she may have remembered this, because she told another reporter that she was only two months pregnant this time.

The violence against the protesters is excessive and in nearly every case force itself is unjustified, in my opinion, but that’s no reason to take every single claim made by every OWS person as being undeniably true. Facts should still be checked. People are up in arms about a woman being hit so hard “it killed her baby” when we can’t even be sure there was a baby at all.

1830

Fact checking is always a plus.

I would note, however, that anybody (and you dipshits know who you are) who believes that it is compatible with the principles upon which the United States of America was founded to state that pregnant women should refrain from exercising their constitutional rights because the police might violently deprive them of those same rights, thus acting with flagrant, intentional disregard for every moral and legal principle in existence, should fuck right off, preferably either to Pyongyang or the center of the fucking sun.

1831

Which makes their life worth less than that of a civilians. Oh not to the people in charge of course, who rightly see police as one of the best ways to maintain control of the rest of the population.

The fact that they choose to risk their lives is not evidence that their lives are worth less. Nor is it evidence that their lives are more valuable.

Why don’t you go, take some tabasco sauce or other hot sauce, dump half a bottle in each of your eyes, then sit there for half an hour or so. You aren’t allowed to wash it out because you’re being arrested. Then realize that pepper spray is worse than that.

I don’t deny that the use of OC is compounded badly by the indefensible decision not to let subdued persons have medical attention or other immediate relief. I think that those who treat anybody that way should have disciplinary action initiated against them.

How does that compare to having your arms pried from somebody else’s with a police baton? How does that compare to “soft hand” techniques?

That’s a given.

No, it isn’t, since there’s a question of whether violence could result from the mere act of trying to cart off protesters. The fact that it didn’t happen in this particular instance is not evidence that it never does. Nor is it compelling evidence that the police should feel comfortable acting against crowds that appear “flurry.”

Too bad. They have a job that gives them authority over other people, they get held to a high standard. If they can’t maintain that standard, then they don’t deserve that job.

Your expectations are noble, even ideal, but probably unrealistic in the context that you are speaking to. Expecting the police to buck an order from their superiors and engage in passive resistance of their own is ignoring that (A) they have been conditioned to obey, and (B) the breaking up of protests involves significant questions of authority and fear, which are part of the nested series of games police play with potential lawbreakers who aren’t peaceful.

Defend to me why it’s reasonable to hit a pregnant woman in the stomach for any reason. Go ahead. Why don’t you

Who said that it was? I’ve even pointed out that it’s reasonable to expect a driver otherwise following traffic rules to take into account that some pedestrians endanger themselves. The driver is still liable for the accident; his is the greater responsibility. That doesn’t mean that a pedestrian who rushes into oncoming traffic hasn’t acted in error. It certainly mitigates outrage against the driver, unless drunk or otherwise impaired.

You’re a vile boot licker. Why don’t you go prostrate yourselves before the feet of your police masters and clean the dirt off their boots with your tongue like you clearly want to do.

Specifying that the students chose to be victims, intentionally defied the police, and prepared to be pepper sprayed is merely recounting the facts of the situation. I’m not making a value judgment about whether or not anybody “deserved” anything. I do find some of the professed shock to be quite odd. What I want to call attention to is that the protestors called the bluff of the police, who chose not to stand down. Call it an error in community policing. I think it was. Call it an excessive use of force. I’m not convinced that it was in the context of nested games, allowing for the fact that the pepper spray was used improperly, and medical treatment later withheld, neither of which things are okay.

He is saying the exact same thing over and over and over again, I’m confident nothing will change that as he takes a direct response to something he says as a chance to simply repeat himself. There is no “discussion”. He says something, someone responds, he says the exact same thing, someone responds, he says the exact same thing.

Your last group of posts has merely restated the claim that I’m blaming the victim, which is, in fact, something I am not doing at all. I have invited you many times to explain why a pregnant woman would show up at protests that have ended in violence.

Okay. But first you have to explain to me why peacefully protesting, standing around in a park, or sitting with your fellow students linking arms is inherently a a “violent” action.

I didn’t say that she initiated the violence. I didn’t say she intended to partake in it. I observed that a protest liable to be broken up by police, even unjustly, is a bad place to be for a pregnant woman, and that that should be obvious to a reasonable person. I think, specifically, linking arms is designed to increase the “work” police need to do to remove somebody, and may lead (if you assume the best of the police, which you can’t in cases like these) to the use compliance techniques that could hurt or kill the infant. If she linked arms, she intended to be manhandled, which results in an awful situation that she could have avoided. It’s less clear if she could have avoided getting caught up in the protests. If she was just passing by, like Woody Harrelson’s wife in Battle of Seattle, then it’s a tragedy with nobody but the police to blame. If she was involved in the protest, then she made a poor choice. People trying to call out her case as an example of police brutality may just be trying to make political hay from an awful mistake brought on by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The woman may have been able to affect what happened. I’m not casting aspersion on her person, merely questioning her judgment. Nor am I celebrating anybody’s pain. If the woman linked arms with seated protesters, she did so foolishly. The question of whether the police behaved unacceptably is a completely separate issue. How obvious is a three-month pregnancy?

And then defend to me why it is reasonable to be hitting people (not just women) with such force as to cause a miscarriage. Remember, there’s been no violence from the OWS protesters, just the police. So, why is it her fault again? Explain that to me.

Who said somebody hit her with the intention of ending her pregnancy? Who said anybody knew?

Also, I don’t expect to get into an accident just because it’s raining, but I slow down my car. I don’t drive the same way I would ordinarily when vision and traction are not impaired. Yes, I’m also making assumption that the police didn’t just appear out of nowhere. If they charged the crowd without any warning, then obviously there’s no question of whether she used bad judgment.

I’m looking at the Davis incident from a 30,000-foot level, and addressing the issues as they relate to our assumptions as a society about how to deal with peaceful protest. I think that a lot of what I’ve seen on this thread reflects possible wishful thinking. I’ve taken basic economics. I know how the economy works in a vacuum. I also know how the economy works when people have imperfect information and there are other variables in play. That’s why Republican prescriptions for economic recovery don’t impress me much. But it’s also why I’m uncomfortable insisting that the police absolutely overstepped by trying to break up the protest, their clear procedural misdeeds aside.

1832

I would note, however, that anybody (and you dipshits know who you are) who believes that it is compatible with the principles upon which the United States of America was founded to state that pregnant women should refrain from exercising their constitutional rights because the police might violently deprive them of those same rights, thus acting with flagrant, intentional disregard for every moral and legal principle in existence, should fuck right off, preferably either to Pyongyang or the center of the fucking sun.

You don’t seem to be reading any of what I say.

You should also be free to ride a roller-coaster, but you’re advised against it if you’re pregnant.

There are plenty of ways for people to exercise their constitutional rights. Whether they are practicing good judgment if they do so from the middle of a protest of the kind that has been set on by police before – we’ll use the version people here seem most comfortable with, which presumes police misconduct – is another question. Under such circumstances, using a case like that to demonize the police is disingenuous at best. Do you disagree with any of that?

1833

Do any of those fancy ignore plugins have an option to have the page display “[Insert dipshit] is beneath your contempt”?

1834

“I’m not blaming her, I just think it was her own damn fault for being there in the first place.”

Look, DJ, all this shit about “I slow down my car when it is raining” was stupid the first time you said it. “Managing risk” and “not putting yourself in harm’s way” is fine, and I’ll note with detachment all of your examples (roller coasters, wet driving, etc.) include risk that is an act of god. That is, an outside, uncontrollable force, that you can plan for. It’s dumb when you apply it to rape victims (who, as I noted previously, are rarely if ever raped when dressed sluttily in a bad neighborhood), and it’s dumb when you apply it to a woman who was beaten up, because you are relegating the acts of police to an uncontrollable force. You want to talk about managing risk? Fine. My way of managing risk is coming down heavily on abuses of authority that should use force in a controlled manner.

And yes, Jason, you are correct, but then again so is sinfony.

Fuck it. I’m gonna go bake some goddamn pies.

1835

That’s a mistake.

1836 
  	 		"I'm not blaming her, I just think it was her own damn fault for being there in the first place."

Who’s assigning fault? I’m arguing that it was a bad choice for her to be present at the protest. Do you disagree?

Look, DJ, all this shit about “I slow down my car when it is raining” was stupid the first time you said it. “Managing risk” and “not putting yourself in harm’s way” is fine, and I’ll note with detachment all of your examples (roller coasters, wet driving, etc.) include risk that is an act of god.

If somebody hits me with their car, that’s no more (or less) an act of God than somebody beating me with a stick. On a rainy day, I can predict that the chance of an accident at 60mph is substantially greater than it would be ordinarily. When attending a protest that has attracted police activity, and in the context of situations where that police activity has been alleged to be uncontrolled and unprovoked, I can predict that the chance of being subject to unwanted violence is substantially greater than it would be ordinarily. Forget about fault for the ultimate suffering.

That is, an outside, uncontrollable force, that you can plan for. It’s dumb when you apply it to rape victims (who, as I noted previously, are rarely if ever raped when dressed sluttily in a bad neighborhood), and it’s dumb when you apply it to a woman who was beaten up, because you are relegating the acts of police to an uncontrollable force.

We aren’t discussing where or when rape is most likely. I pointed out that anybody who chooses to enter a bad neighborhood at night is subjecting themselves to danger. They may not have a choice, in which case I can’t fault them for bad judgment. And when something happens, if it does, that isn’t their fault, either. But if they went voluntarily, without a compelling need, that was a mistake of judgment. In this case, the police are being cast as an unpredictable entity… the danger of which becomes predictable to a point, given the media coverage of other incidents.

You want to talk about managing risk? Fine. My way of managing risk is coming down heavily on abuses of authority that should use force in a controlled manner.

What does that have to do with good judgment? Good judgment recognizes that the best intentions sometimes don’t produce good results. Some cities are reputedly very safe, with highly responsive, vigilant police forces that taken activist approaches to crime prevention. I’m still disinclined to go slum-hopping.

1837

Rex Ryan approves.

1838

How is a roller coaster “an act of God”? A roller coaster is designed in a particular way, to exacting standards, to cause a certain physical experience to people who ride it. Those physical shocks could also put a pregnant woman at risk, which is why she is advised against it. She has the right to ride it if she wants, but the risks are pretty clear. Should the engineer be expected to design a roller coaster that does nothing to put a pregnant woman at risk? Similarly, should police officers be restricted to only using force that would not cause any harm to a pregnant woman?

1839

So, an appropriate response to a woman screaming “I’m pregnant, I’m pregnant” is for the police to strike her in the stomach?

1840

This surely ranks among the dumbest questions after asked.