Kanluwen wrote:It comes down to a point of semantics I guess.
You believe that pepper spray is an "unacceptable use of force", I don't.
Personal opinion and whats been ruled in court are often two different things.
Example: use of pepperspray on peaceful protests was ruled illegal based on the 4th ammendment to our constitution in a 2002 case:
Headwaters forest defense Vs county of Humboldt
But if thats been pointed out already... my bad
And that situation was completely different than this one. In that case, pepper spray was in some instances being applied directly into someone's eyes with a Q-Tip soaked in pepper spray and in other instances an entire can was emptied into one single person's face. That case also had an issue as the police are supposed to warn protesters that they will be pepper sprayed--in one particular instance(the one which the case was based upon), the Sheriff's deputies had just arrived and pepper sprayed the protesters. Several of the deputies also sprayed the protesters with water after pepper spraying them, which as I mentioned makes it worse. They claimed that they were "trying to alleviate the pain".
If you want to read the actual decision by the 9th Circuit Court, here it is:
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's characterization of the "quality of the intrusion."[9] The district court found the use of pepper spray was minimal because it did not involve the use of deadly force or a significant level of physical force. The Ninth Circuit agreed that fact was relevant, but not dispositive, and reasoned that the evidence suggested that the protesters suffered excruciating pain when the officers applied the pepper spray to their eyelids. The court also disagreed with the district court's emphasis on the government's interests in speedy arrests, preventing organized lawlessness, ensuring safety of others, and deference to the officers' split-second judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court relied too heavily on the government's interests and made inferences from the evidence against the nonmoving party, rather than in its favor. Particularly relevant to the court's conclusion was the severity of the crime. Here, the only crime committed by the protesters was trespass, and the officers had alternative means available to effect the arrests. In short, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court because the district court's "conclusion that the officers did not use excessive force to effect the arrests of the protestors as a matter of law [was] untenable given the [conflicting] evidence at trial. [A] fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiffs on the evidence presented."
There's an important fact there.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's characterization of the "quality of the intrusion."[9] The district court found the use of pepper spray was minimal because it did not involve the use of deadly force or a significant level of physical force. The Ninth Circuit agreed that fact was relevant, but not dispositive, and reasoned that the evidence suggested that the protesters suffered excruciating pain when the officers applied the pepper spray to their eyelids.
Oh look, Democracy Now interviewed the creator of pepper spray today. Lets see what he had to say:
Kamran Loghmam wrote:“The use was just absolutely out of the ordinary and it was not in accordance with any training or policy of any department that I know of. I personally certified 4,000 police officers in the early ‘80s and ‘90s and I have never seen this before. That’s why I was shocked... I feel is my civic duty to explain to the public that this is not what pepper spray was developed for.”
Pretty much the last word on this topic for me. Makes me wonder if Kan really knows what he's talking about at all.
Kanluwen wrote:It comes down to a point of semantics I guess.
You believe that pepper spray is an "unacceptable use of force", I don't.
Personal opinion and whats been ruled in court are often two different things.
Example: use of pepperspray on peaceful protests was ruled illegal based on the 4th ammendment to our constitution in a 2002 case:
Headwaters forest defense Vs county of Humboldt
But if thats been pointed out already... my bad
And that situation was completely different than this one. In that case, pepper spray was in some instances being applied directly into someone's eyes with a Q-Tip soaked in pepper spray and in other instances an entire can was emptied into one single person's face. That case also had an issue as the police are supposed to warn protesters that they will be pepper sprayed--in one particular instance(the one which the case was based upon), the Sheriff's deputies had just arrived and pepper sprayed the protesters. Several of the deputies also sprayed the protesters with water after pepper spraying them, which as I mentioned makes it worse. They claimed that they were "trying to alleviate the pain".
If you want to read the actual decision by the 9th Circuit Court, here it is:
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's characterization of the "quality of the intrusion."[9] The district court found the use of pepper spray was minimal because it did not involve the use of deadly force or a significant level of physical force. The Ninth Circuit agreed that fact was relevant, but not dispositive, and reasoned that the evidence suggested that the protesters suffered excruciating pain when the officers applied the pepper spray to their eyelids. The court also disagreed with the district court's emphasis on the government's interests in speedy arrests, preventing organized lawlessness, ensuring safety of others, and deference to the officers' split-second judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court relied too heavily on the government's interests and made inferences from the evidence against the nonmoving party, rather than in its favor. Particularly relevant to the court's conclusion was the severity of the crime. Here, the only crime committed by the protesters was trespass, and the officers had alternative means available to effect the arrests. In short, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court because the district court's "conclusion that the officers did not use excessive force to effect the arrests of the protestors as a matter of law [was] untenable given the [conflicting] evidence at trial. [A] fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiffs on the evidence presented."
There's an important fact there.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's characterization of the "quality of the intrusion."[9] The district court found the use of pepper spray was minimal because it did not involve the use of deadly force or a significant level of physical force. The Ninth Circuit agreed that fact was relevant, but not dispositive, and reasoned that the evidence suggested that the protesters suffered excruciating pain when the officers applied the pepper spray to their eyelids.
Except this is from 211 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)... not the later appeal in 2002... let me get the exact information for you so you can read the most recent.
276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir 2002)
Hope that helps you find the most recent ruling
You can read the letter written about this to the victims from the ACLUs Legal team here.
I bet the guy who invented bean bags never intended for them to be shot at folks from a shotgun either.
I bet the guy who invented water cannons never intended for them to be used as crowd control.
The guy who invented cell phones never intended them to be used to set off IEDs.
The guy who first used amonium nitrate fertilizer never intended it to be used in ANFO.
Lots of inventions get used for more then the inventor's intended use. That doesn't make the adapted uses wrong. Frankly the inventor of pepper spray probably doesn't know enough about police work and crowd control to really be the expert on tactics techniques and procedures in the matter.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Except this is from 211 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)... not the later appeal in 2002... let me get the exact information for you so you can read the most recent.
276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir 2002)
Hope that helps you find the most recent ruling
You can read the letter written about this to the victims from the ACLUs Legal team here.
But then... they just hire a couple lawyers, I'm sure a web site you linked me to is correct
I'd like to point out to you #4. "A photocopy of the label of the substance that was used against the protesters, either of the specific canister or of an identical canister".
That's the most important part. This may very well not have been what Loghman is calling "weapons grade pepper spray", but could in fact have been a less reactive part.
This is what I could find in regards to the final verdict.
This is the most important part of the case, as I said:
The excessive force was used by Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies and Eureka Police Officers when they applied pepper spray with Q-tips directly to the eyes of the eight nonviolent forest defense protesters in three incidents in 1997. Three of the activists were also sprayed directly in the eyes from inches away.
That doesn't say that PEPPER SPRAY is "excessive force". It says that applying pepper spray on q-tips directly to the eyes or spraying from inches away is.
I have been watching this thread, it is growing by leaps and bounds! I have not seen anyone discuss a use of force continuum that the police comply with. Here is what I could find: http://my.firedoglake.com/sjgulitti/2011/11/27/pepper-spray-abuse-and-the-constitution%E2%80%8F/ . This article does have some insight into the situation but is no way a department policy. Does anyone have a link to or more insight on the departments use of force continuum? I have always heard equal or lesser force is to be applied, and know many officers I know personally feel that boundaries were crossed (my wife was a police dispatcher for 7 so I got to know quiet a few officers). The use of force information I have first hand is limited to a private sector (I was security for a casino, by no means a paramilitary force!) we were constantly reminded we are protected by surveillance and must always be vigilant against actions that could produce lawsuits, threats of violence were always handled by the police although we did detain subjects until officers could remove them from our care. The article I linked shows the level of force used exceeds the parameters, but like I said the article I linked is not the specific policy for these officers and policy differs from departments etc.
wow, when I was typing this someone ninjad me with a similar point.
Kanluwen wrote:He also says that it is "to be used when there is a threat for property damage or a situation getting out of hand".
Funny how that gets left out of the quote, huh?
I know i left you a lot to read but when you get a chance... how were linked armed protestors threatening property damage or getting out of hand?
They weren't. They were, however, blocking police from executing their duties and had been warned multiple times to move, not to mention a three day ultimatum for the campers to leave.
The "warning" is one of the key parts there. They did not just go in willynilly without warning and pepper spray someone.
It's also worth noting that Pike does seem to try to be keeping one of the girls calm after spraying them, and that's not something you'd expect from someone who's "abusing their power".
To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.
Also
Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.
Also does
Heroic Leadership, Leadership System of the Ancient Warrior Sages
didn't know his intent was going to be follow?
Well damn..if we're throwing components out
Garage door opener
Water pot
magnets
kid toys dead bodies
electronic doorbell
nails
2 by 4's
well might as well go for it
children suicide bombers
woman suicide bombers
baby carriage
I'd like to point out to you #4. "A photocopy of the label of the substance that was used against the protesters, either of the specific canister or of an identical canister".
That's the most important part. This may very well not have been what Loghman is calling "weapons grade pepper spray", but could in fact have been a less reactive part.
That can looks like its weapons grade to me. Can you provide any source of information that points out the difference? I'm not 100% familiar with different grades of pepper spray and such.
I'm tested every year on weapons grade pepper/riot/CS gas. They're different then whats used in the civilian world...and I'm a firm believer that my Pro-Mask and MOPP suit does indeed work
I don't think the inventor's intents has anything to do with it. I mean he is a chemist, not an officer as far as I know, and he does not develop policy. Henry Fords intention was not to take jobs away from people but to lower costs and increase of production, the scientists who worked on the bombs intent was to stop a war not kill civvies....well I am stretching it now but I think I made my point. Not saying the spraying was not over the top, but on the scale I have seen use of spray is pretty far up there, after physical confrontation with an aggressor actually.
EDIT..I was wrong, the inventor did help create the policy in pepper sprays use. Departments still can vary on their use of force continuum but I doubt it is by leaps and bounds.
I'd like to point out to you #4. "A photocopy of the label of the substance that was used against the protesters, either of the specific canister or of an identical canister".
That's the most important part. This may very well not have been what Loghman is calling "weapons grade pepper spray", but could in fact have been a less reactive part.
That can looks like its weapons grade to me. Can you provide any source of information that points out the difference? I'm not 100% familiar with different grades of pepper spray and such.
So you can spot "weapons grade" material?
The difference isn't something you can "spot" simply from the canister. It's something that you'll notice in the formulations and dispersal methods. You'll notice that it's an aerosol rather than a liquid. Liquids are usually the "common" pepper spray which you or I can buy, with police grade(which is the 500, 000 Scoville units stuff) being an aerosol OR liquid depending on what its intended use is.
Weapons-grade pepper spray is 2,000,000 scoville units
Police grade pepper spray is 5,300,000
You need to reread that.
It's "500,000 TO 200,000,000" Scoville units for "most law enforcement pepper spray".
No clue where you're getting "5,300,000 from". 8,600,000 and higher is "bear spray"--which has been ruled to be illegal.
Soooo... by your most important point.... this is weapons grade and therefore excessive force?
Excessive force is not simply the kind of pepper spray used. Why can you not comprehend this?
"Excessive force" requires a specific kind of context going on.
If it's "crammed down a protester's throat" as one of the UC Davis goons claimed, that would be excessive force. If Pike had his men holding them down and spraying it right in their face without any warning--that would again, be excessive force.
That's the reason why the Headwaters case went the way it did. They held the individuals down and utilized the pepper spray in such a way that it would be considered "shocking to the conscience".
Kanluwen wrote:He also says that it is "to be used when there is a threat for property damage or a situation getting out of hand".
Funny how that gets left out of the quote, huh?
I left it out because it obviously has no relation to this incident. Nobody is arguing police shouldn't have pepper-spray, or that there aren't good uses for it. There was no threat of property damage and the only thing out of hand was the police. Besides, I provided the full link.
CptJake wrote:Frankly the inventor of pepper spray probably doesn't know enough about police work and crowd control to really be the expert on tactics techniques and procedures in the matter.
Monster Rain wrote:What does the creator of pepper spray and his opinion have to do with a particular police department and their protocols regarding it?
Hint: nada.
Hmmm, so a guy who has personally certified over 4000 police officers in the use of a weapon that he developed doesn't know anything about police procedures? I think I'd have a better conversation with the walls.
Hmmm, so a guy who has personally certified over 4000 police officers in the use of a weapon that he developed doesn't know anything about police procedures? I think I'd have a better conversation with the walls.
Certified the use of yes. How its to be implemented no.
Kanluwen wrote:He also says that it is "to be used when there is a threat for property damage or a situation getting out of hand".
Funny how that gets left out of the quote, huh?
I left it out because it obviously has no relation to this incident. Nobody is arguing police shouldn't have pepper-spray, or that there aren't good uses for it. There was no threat of property damage and the only thing out of hand was the police. Besides, I provided the full link.
The point was that Democracynow.org left it out of the quote. They also left out him saying that he isn't the "inventor" of pepper spray, but rather that he adapted a currently existing pepper spray(which was used to control dogs at the time) for usage.
They also left out entirely the scandal surrounding the adoption of pepper spray, wherein the head of the FBI's Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Program at the time of a 1991 study conducted by the US military's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Special Agent Thomas W. W. Ward, was fired by the FBI and was sentenced to two months in prison for receiving payments from a peppergas manufacturer while conducting and authoring the FBI study that eventually approved pepper spray for FBI use.
CptJake wrote:Frankly the inventor of pepper spray probably doesn't know enough about police work and crowd control to really be the expert on tactics techniques and procedures in the matter.
Monster Rain wrote:What does the creator of pepper spray and his opinion have to do with a particular police department and their protocols regarding it?
Hint: nada.
Hmmm, so a guy who has personally certified over 4000 police officers in the use of a weapon that he developed doesn't know anything about police procedures? I think I'd have a better conversation with the walls.
Certifying someone in the use of something does not mean that they know about everything about adopting police procedures or their evolution since they started help formulate the procedures in the 80s and 90s.
Democracy Now didn't 'leave it out of the quote', I quoted that from the interview they conducted with him. Obviously you did not watch or read that interview, even though I provided the link.
How many local, state, and fed LE guys have been certified in the same time period? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 4k isn't even 1% of LE officers ...
I would bet a paycheck his certification was along the lines of how to (the mechanics of) delivering the agent including safety and environmental (which way is the wind blowing...) concerns the cop needed to be aware of vice tactical employment.
I'd like to point out to you #4. "A photocopy of the label of the substance that was used against the protesters, either of the specific canister or of an identical canister".
That's the most important part. This may very well not have been what Loghman is calling "weapons grade pepper spray", but could in fact have been a less reactive part.
That can looks like its weapons grade to me. Can you provide any source of information that points out the difference? I'm not 100% familiar with different grades of pepper spray and such.
So you can spot "weapons grade" material?
The difference isn't something you can "spot" simply from the canister. It's something that you'll notice in the formulations and dispersal methods. You'll notice that it's an aerosol rather than a liquid. Liquids are usually the "common" pepper spray which you or I can buy, with police grade(which is the 500, 000 Scoville units stuff) being an aerosol OR liquid depending on what its intended use is.
Weapons-grade pepper spray is 2,000,000 scoville units
Police grade pepper spray is 5,300,000
You need to reread that.
It's "500,000 TO 200,000,000" Scoville units for "most law enforcement pepper spray".
No clue where you're getting "5,300,000 from". 8,600,000 and higher is "bear spray"--which has been ruled to be illegal.
Soooo... by your most important point.... this is weapons grade and therefore excessive force?
Excessive force is not simply the kind of pepper spray used. Why can you not comprehend this?
"Excessive force" requires a specific kind of context going on.
If it's "crammed down a protester's throat" as one of the UC Davis goons claimed, that would be excessive force. If Pike had his men holding them down and spraying it right in their face without any warning--that would again, be excessive force.
That's the reason why the Headwaters case went the way it did. They held the individuals down and utilized the pepper spray in such a way that it would be considered "shocking to the conscience".
No I can't spot weapons grade but you can't spot it isn't
In fact. Its more likely it IS weapons grade since its police.
"Weapons grade" covers a whole crap load of stuff. It can be 500,000 to 200,000,000 Scovilles.
And "police grade pepper spray" is not what all police agencies use. Some use the stuff which is commercially available, some use different formulations(some formulations of OC actually incorporate tear gas' formula within), etc.
OC Spray use by the military is kicked up a thousad time. It will actually leave a chemical burn if left on skin after awhile
Also a sidenote to it
That's chamberlain from 3/3 right? He made it through 2 tours in Iraq, But passed away from an accident that should never have happened. I'll never forget the big guy. Rest easy brother. Semper Fi
Lt. Pike used
Def-Tec MK-9 is an extra-strength .7% Major Capsaicinoids solution (identified by an orange band on the cannister) which is 3.5 times more powerful than Defense Technology's "First Defense" product.
edit
Everyone who's been in the miltary know how we love concentrated chemicals
You know, I never thought much would good come of these OWS protests, but these super-lulzy pepper spray photoshops have proven me wrong. Bless you, internets.
I'm gonna go ahead and just give a shout-out to the Occupy Oklahoma City folks as well as the Oklahoma City Police Department. Over these last months, and especially the last week, they have shown how to handle a difficult situation in a pretty decent manner.
1) The Occupy folks picked a park in downtown Oklahoma City, and actually got daily permits to use it.
2) The park rules officially prohibit staying at the park overnight, but the city and the Occupy folks agreed that as long as the daily fee is paid and a permit is issued, the protesters can camp overnight as long as it remains sanitary and clean.
3) The Occupy folks actually keep things sanitary and clean.
4) If there is any "March on City Hall" or "March on the Capitol" events going on, they got permits from the cops and the cops provided escorts and shut down streets for them to march.
5) On Monday the city decided to no longer issue the daily permit because of construction in the area and an episode where drunk homeless people attacked the park and made a mess. The Occupy folks have cleaned up the mess and said that they would challenge the decision of the city and file an injunction to stop the city from removing them.
6) The last permit expired at 11pm Monday morning and the protesters were no longer allowed by the city to camp at the park. The city says they can still be there every day, just not camp. The protesters did not leave, and no riot police showed up. The protesters actually had a meeting that night with the Police Department and informed them of their decision to file a suit with the Federal Court.
7) The lawyer with the group said it would take until Thursday to do all the paperwork, get it filed, etc. The Oklahoma City Police Department decided that they would not take any action against the protestors until the paperwork is filed.
8) Paperwork was filed yesterday, Judge said he would make a ruling soon, OKC PD states that they will stand down until a ruling is made.
9) At no point has there really been any hostilities between the protesters and the PD. Everybody has been treating each other with respect, and it seems like that has worked fine so far. Amazing how smooth things can go when both sides are willing to work together and communicate.
So I have to say, I am very proud of our local protesters and our local PD. There was an incident in Del City where protesters were arrested, but nothing here in Oklahoma City. Of course that does not mean that they will go crazy next week, but so far so good.
Radiation, can you give a link to a particular page or article there which is specifically relevant to the topic? The links to the base pages don't seem to add much to the conversation at this point.
Oh, a walk out "strike" (its hard to strike when you're the one paying), we had those at my undergrad school too. It was great because when they happened I knew I could get hammered the night before nd not worry about showing up to class.
Mannahnin wrote:Radiation, can you give a link to a particular page or article there which is specifically relevant to the topic? The links to the base pages don't seem to add much to the conversation at this point.
Yeah. Try reading the post above mine that says "all I learned..." and then look at my post that shows a link to the website of the movement that I started a thread about 22 pages ago. Then if you want to take a look at a specific image that hasn't shown up in this wonderful discussion try to click on the second link. Its from the same website. Thanks for your continued contribution. I would like to keep as on topic as possible at this point seeing as we have talked about a lot of issues surrounding the topic and I have enjoyed yours and everyone elses thoughts so far. Oh look dogma has something to say about strikes. And there is a funny joke about drinking in his post too. Haha. Oh dogma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Good stuff. I totally laughed. Thanks for the link Jihadin.
Radiation wrote:
1. Read the last paragraph of that section again, and continue with your line of questioning.
2. Did you? I am sure someone wants to know.
I'm not sure what "section" you're referring to, but I am willing to assume that you cannot produce an answer.
Press Release-Campus-Wide Strike
/Last Paragraph
"The strike will entail total campus participation in shutting down the operations of UC Davis, including teaching, working, learning, and transportation. In doing so, the students, faculty and workers involved in Occupy UC Davis aim to assert the power—and the will—to effectively represent and manage themselves. We are glad to accept the endorsements of all the unions and student groups that have...yada yada"
Radiation wrote:
Would you like a spoon with that assume?
Is that supposed to be a clever play on the "assumptions make an ass of you and me." cliche?
Radiation wrote:
So did you? Strike?
Of course not, why would I? I have nothing to protest except self-righteous college students who don't know how to engage in constructive debate.
That being said, neither did UC Davis' Occupy group, because it was primarily constituted by students. Calling the walk-out a strike is lazy equivocation.
Lt. Pike and his past "using of a profane anti-gay epithet" against a fellow gay police officer in 2003.
Ended in a 2008 settlement where Pike's actions cost $240,000. When the gay police officer saw the news about the pepper-spray incident he said he was shocked but not suprised when he realized it was Lt. Pike.
I would just like to remind everyone that there are many conversations evolving from this incident. There will likely be more news to report as the various investigations and administrative actions continue.
He'll surely get promotion now for his swift, decisive and successful employment of tactical non-lethal persuasion techniques to defuse a very nasty situation.
He'll surely get promotion now for his swift, decisive and successful employment of tactical non-lethal persuasion techniques to defuse a very nasty situation.
I'll bet you meant this facetiously but there's really only two ways, I personally see this going:
1. He gets fired, his union provides him with a lawyer and he gets rich.
2. The popularity of OWS fades and we all forget about it. He gets promoted.
I doubt there will be any consequences for this, even though I think there should be. Using pepper spray on nonviolent offenders with no immediate or even implied threat of danger to people or property is an unauthorized use of force, in my book.
Spicuzza, the police chief, initially tried to convince officers not to wear riot gear or use batons or pepper spray, but she was unsuccessful, the report states.
Yeah right, no. All other things aside, if I'm the police chief, I'm not giving that order. Nonviolent protest or not, my guys would have been wearing their protective gear even if not the latter elements.
