1841

And in case it got glossed over, it looks like the same woman had a run-in with the police in September, and at that time also said that she was three months pregnant. I’ll be very curious to see how this story plays out.

If it turns out that she was lying (IF), I wonder if those here who were horrified at the police will be similarly horrified that a woman would make an accusation like this. I predict that those same people will dismiss the lying as no big deal.

1842

Well no shit Andy, lying is a lot less serious than causing a miscarriage.

1843

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

Excuse me? Is that what anyone said or implied?

There’s judgment, and then there’s criminal culpability for an act of violence.

A pregnant woman exercises bad judgment if she shows up at a protest that has similarities to those that police have violently ended in the recent past. That is not the same as being responsible for her child’s death if she was hit in the stomach by a police officer. I would not be so inclined to say that, however, if the woman sat down in a circle and linked hands, thereby daring the police to try and lift her free. There is too much danger involved with even minimal use of force. A pregnant woman has no business subjecting herself to a scuffle.

1844

Who has claimed that the police struck her in the stomach on purpose? From the woman’s report:

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.

Neither of those indicate that the police acted in response to her screaming. So, should police just assume that every person they come into contact with is pregnant, and treat them accordingly?

1845

What about lying about someone causing a miscarriage? Does the severity of the lie carry any weight?

1846

Yes, the severity of a lie does carry weight.

Lying about a miscarriage is a lot less serious than actually causing someone to have a miscarriage.

1847

Of course! The amount of force used by the policy should not vary based on how fragile they think the person is; the police should always use the minimum force necessary.

1848

Hint: When someone is screaming relevant information, ignoring it doesn’t mean you didn’t know it.

1849

Hint: Screaming in a large crowd in the middle of a police action might not be the ideal time or place to communicate relevant information.

1850

Oh yes, I’m sure if someone is doubled over in the road, you’d keep on walking. After all, if he wanted to communicate the fact that he was ill, he’d be on the sidewalk.

1851

Your comment has absolutely no relevance to the situation being discussed.

1852

Holy shit I can’t believe this. It doesn’t matter if she was pregnant, it is inappropriate to kick someone.
Hell remember the 84 year old woman I linked to? Why was it ok to pepper spray her?

1853

Right, but as others have mentioned, the police are not the military. We ask them to interact with the American public who are granted liberties and rights via our constitution, which those officers and their superiors are sworn to uphold. Good policing requires more than strict adherence to orders or handbooks. When commanders feel the need to dictate exactly how each officer must respond to each situation, we remove all responsibility from the officers actually interacting with the public. “Protester sits on ground and refuses to move = administer pepper spray to face region” isn’t managing the situation. It’s just filling in the blanks.

Some protests have become violent, so all protests must be treated as potentially violent. Again, we’re restricting the ability of either side to come to a peaceable agreement. As others have noted, rebranding passive resistance as active lawbreaking is a choice on behalf of the police. Good policing allows for officers to grant a certain amount of leeway in all sorts of restrictions, which precludes a rigid enforcement of all laws based on the “potential” for harm. Clearly, these officers in this situation didn’t fear for their safety (some were seen engaging students in conversation and even patting them on the back). But if the book says spray them down, and their superiors insist they surrender judgement in favor of strict adherence to the book, then police training would consist solely of the proper application of force. Following this to its inevitable conclusion, if the officers responding at the scene are no more than the point of a long spear, then ignoring them becomes a protester’s only viable option. Just keep chewing up that spear until you get to the hand holding it.

1854

Who said that the police kicked her? According to her report (linked above), the police officer “lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach.” That doesn’t sound like he kicked her. If he had deliberately kicked her, it seems like she would have said that.

1855

Right, but as others have mentioned, the police are not the military. We ask them to interact with the American public who are granted liberties and rights via our constitution, which those officers and their superiors are sworn to uphold. Good policing requires more than strict adherence to orders or handbooks. When commanders feel the need to dictate exactly how each officer must respond to each situation, we remove all responsibility from the officers actually interacting with the public. “Protester sits on ground and refuses to move = administer pepper spray to face region” isn’t managing the situation. It’s just filling in the blanks.

I agree wholeheartedly with your description of good policing. I would like to point out, however, that good policing involves tradeoffs. Law enforcement institutions, by virtue of their small size relative to the population that shall be policed, are jealous of their authority. Flouting that authority tends to elicit a negative, sometimes violent, response. In particular situations, I am inclined to say that those responses are inappropriate. Across a whole continuum of similar events, however, my certainty gradually weakens.

Should all police departments deploy enough officers so that there is a 3:1 ratio between officers and the crowd? That seems like wishful thinking. Therefore, there either needs to be an assumption of risk and a use of “soft hand” next, or else a deployment of some risk-reduction tool. Is OC a valid tool, considering that it inflicts pain? I think that’s really the question here. Is it okay for the police to hurt you in order to make you comply? What if they’re just trying to make you more pliant when they’re about to hurt you to make you comply? In that case, it’s hurting you in preparation for hurting you. I think you’d argue that they should err on the side of least-use-of-force. But how can police be assured that a “fluffy” crowd isn’t going to turn on them unless they strike hard and fast?

Some protests have become violent, so all protests must be treated as potentially violent. Again, we’re restricting the ability of either side to come to a peaceable agreement. As others have noted, rebranding passive resistance as active lawbreaking is a choice on behalf of the police. Good policing allows for officers to grant a certain amount of leeway in all sorts of restrictions, which precludes a rigid enforcement of all laws based on the “potential” for harm. Clearly, these officers in this situation didn’t fear for their safety (some were seen engaging students in conversation and even patting them on the back). But if the book says spray them down, and their superiors insist they surrender judgement in favor of strict adherence to the book, then police training would consist solely of the proper application of force. Following this to its inevitable conclusion, if the officers responding at the scene are no more than the point of a long spear, then ignoring them becomes a protester’s only viable option. Just keep chewing up that spear until you get to the hand holding it.

I didn’t fault the protesters’ strategy. I did fault that of the police in this case. I don’t think there needed to be confrontation of this kind. However, it’s clear that I’m more sympathetic than you to the idea that the violence of some protests offers justification for treating protests generally with a higher degree of forcefulness than would otherwise be permissible. It’s maintenance of the deterrent effect.

1856

Why, has he said anything different than his standard cynical-young-white-boy-hardened-by-life line of “drag on cigarette squint into distance that’s how life is: hard and violent. If you don’t know that you deserve what you get cigarette drag”?

1857

Sorry, I’m not going to run interference for you. You’re a grown-up, you can handle conversations on your own.

1858

Of course it does. Keep up the moral vacuum, though!

1859

Fine, I’ll spell it out for you: If someone is doubled over in the middle of the road, he was obviously caught by surprise, in a bad location, by a condition that he did not expect. With the woman in Seattle, she was neither caught by surprise by her condition, nor her location.

1860

Each situation is particular, and as such so should each response be. In each of these confrontations, both sides have choices, including the choice to act. In this situation, the protesters chose to act via inaction. It’s a choice, but a passive one. Left alone, they’d have continued to sit still until they got bored or hungry or wet or cold or their demands were met. The police chose to act via action. After an arbitrary amount of time, it was determined some deadline had been exceeded and the proper next course of action was spraying people in the face. The lack of urgency is apparent in the stances of the officers present, and of course in the nonchalance of Pike himself. End result: the violence present at this particular protest was one-sided in its entirety, and happened to come from the side allegedly better prepared and trained for these situations.

When you say, “I think that’s really the question here,” what you’re actually saying is, “I think that’s really the question here if all the presuppositions I’ve listed before it are true.” I disagree that they necessarily are. Why not interrupt the process before such a confrontation becomes such an inevitability? Why is there an “assumption of risk?” Because one confrontation between protesters and authorities in Oakland became violent? Were there other similarities between the two protests that lead police to draw this line from one to the other? Why not reach even further for informative past events? In Tahrir square, things got much more out of hand - so why not arrive with enough force to quell that kind of uprising? Because the police are not that stupid. They’re able to evaluate to at least some degree the situation they’re presented with. My argument is that they could invest more time in refining that skill and less time learning which end of the bottle the spray comes out of.

I guess what I’m after is the end goal. Is it the hope that there won’t be any more protests? I think that’s unlikely. If you agree, then shouldn’t we be coming up with solutions for the conflicting needs of the protesters and those of the authorities that don’t HAVE to involve violence? How do you step back from the assumptions you make, in which every protester must fear for his or her safety and whose only hope of avoiding pepper spray or a baton or a boot is to not protest? Isn’t that anathema to the founding principles of our democracy?