Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It comes down to a point of semantics I guess.

You believe that pepper spray is an "unacceptable use of force", I don't.

I think we all made our point, explained why we think it was an acceptable or unacceptable use of force, and we are probably not going to change each others views on this. Probably a good point to call the thread done.

I think pepper spray tastes great with nachos... Either pepper spray or just ghost peppers, I can never really remember.

As to the topic at hand, I personally think the spray down was a little overboard, but I'm a pansy to begin with, and know nothing of police procedure.

Perhaps we could have had a touching moment, with Officer Pike kneeling on the ground and talking with these people like well, people. I think that might be an issue here. Occupy Protesters are being treated (for the most part) as hippies and law breakers (not saying they aren't, and not saying they are), but treating me like a person would get me to move. Also cheeseburgers with bacon... that too would get me to move.



Edit: Such atrocious spelling skills I have.

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.

I believe that the use of pepper spray can be an "unacceptable use of force", and that it was so in this instance. I do not believe it is always unacceptable, nor do I believe (as you have appeared at some points to have argued) that it is totally harmless.

I also maintain that the basic principles behind OWS and Civil Rights movement protests are not dissimilar. That the cause behind OWS is a worthwhile and respectable one. And that people are being inappropriately dismissive and contemptuous of OWS and the people involved in it, based in part on taking the worst fringe elements as representative of the whole.

What he said.

Mannahnin wrote:..I also maintain that the basic principles behind OWS and Civil Rights movement protests are not dissimilar. That the cause behind OWS is a worthwhile and respectable one. And that people are being inappropriately dismissive and contemptuous of OWS and the people involved in it, based in part on taking the worst fringe elements as representative of the whole.

Agreed, to an extent. I really took issue with the people who dismissed the tea party using the same tactics we're seeing now against OWS. But they need to crystalize into one message. I'd like that to be the reintroduction of glass-steagall. Someone else wants it to be a $20.00 an hour wage for everyone. Another wants to emilinate campaign contributions from corporations. And so on.

You can project your own ideas and opinions onto what's happening with OWS. You could try to pretend they're losers with self entitlement issues or heroic citizens saving the modern world. But odds are no matter what you think you'd be wrong. Because that focus just isn't there. Lately it appears they have shifted to anti-consumerism. Who knows? Not me. That's why I don't support them.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Gaining "the respect of the populace" is impossible when the "populace" in this case alters every 4-6 years.

All enduring institutions have continuing cultures which are handed down to newcomers even in short term situations such as universities and schools.

This is a college. The populace does not stay the same, and there are various subcultures present to begin with.

Yet colleges do have enduring cultures, which contain subcultures. The cultures are perpetuated to new students by various means.

CT GAMER wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Do what the cop asked or be willing to accept the consequences.

Wasn't that the Gestapo's philosophy as well?

I sure as heck didn't think that comment could be taken that way.

One of my PSGs used to say, "We all have freedom of choice, none of us has freedom from consequences". Pretty true words.

Piss off a guy with a nightstick or a can of pepper spray, you face consequences which may involve the use of those items. That in of itself does not make their use right or wrong, but when you square off against a cop, even if you are right, you face consequences... Of course the cops actions will generate consequences as well, and if he/she was wrong he/she may not like them.

Even my 9 year old daughter understands there are consequences for actions, some good, some bad, some delayed, some immediate. My oldest son is relearning that concept in a less than fun way right now. It ain't that hard a concept, though many people refuse to accept it.

Again, as SFC B used to say:

We all have freedom of choice, none of us has freedom from consequences

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Of course you can define militarism by tools and tactics.

One only needs to compare the old style "rugby scrum" police with the modern force to see the clear change.

It arise from the desire to use the police as a para-military force.

No. You are redefining words. You don't get to redefine "paramilitary" to mean "having big guns and tanks". Police have literally always been a paramilitary force since day one.

British police haven't.

The british police haven't been paramilitary?

So they don't have ranks and a chain of command?

How does that work?

There's ranks and a chain of command on the Isle of Wight ferry. It doesn't make it para-military.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's ranks and a chain of command on the Isle of Wight ferry. It doesn't make it para-military.

There are big guns at a gun show, doesn't make it a military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

UK police are paramilitary. To say otherwise means you have no idea what "paramilitary" means.

They wear standard uniforms to....do they not stand in formations? Do they have a rank structure? How similiar are the fire arms they carry?

Kilkrazy wrote:There's ranks and a chain of command on the Isle of Wight ferry. It doesn't make it para-military.

Clearly the Isle of Wight Ferry is a paramilitary organization. Jeez KK try to keep up, ranks and uniforms=paramilitary, there are no other criteria. Like the IRA those guys can't be para military because they didn't (don't?) have ranks or wear uniforms. Don't mind that they use military training and weapons, that doesn't pass the litmus test for paramilitary on Dakka.

Scrabb wrote:Agreed, to an extent. I really took issue with the people who dismissed the tea party using the same tactics we're seeing now against OWS.

Actually, one of my favorite aspects of this is people who dismissed the tea party that are so protective of OWS, despite some significant similarities in goals. ie not caring much for the federal reserve, government not looking out for the best interests of the people, etc.

They aren't quite so similar in regard to public defecation and law breaking, however.

Jihadin wrote:How similiar are the fire arms they carry?

Most British police don't carry frearms.

Tea Party vs OWS check list

http://dougpowers.com/2011/11/20/checklist-of-the-day/

Quick question: If the cop had simply pulle dout his night stick and started wacking kids to disperse them would that have been acceptable?

What is the line between the use of pepper spray, tasers, or night sticks? Are some considered violent assaults and others aren't? If a civilian used pepper spray, batons, or tasers on another civilian, would it be a crime?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions and want to know more. I have a feeling some of you have experience with law enforcement first hand. Outside of speeding tickets and security pat downs, I don't.

Jihadin wrote:They wear standard uniforms to....do they not stand in formations? Do they have a rank structure? How similiar are the fire arms they carry?

Yeah I have to weigh in and say that police are clearly paramilitary. By dictionary definition and by common sense.

They have ranks, wear uniforms, they even train for aggressive actions. Not wars perhaps, but they do proper training for riot situations, they even have similar criteria tests to the military when it comes to POT. (Public order training)

I did some in Northern Ireland and they teach them how to form up in ranks, use the 4 and 6 foot shields, they do baton training, correct use of the HK baton gun, how to deal with molotov cocktails and correct arrest techniques. Add to the fact that some of them DO use firearms, the ones that wield sub machine guns wear the same uniforms don't they? They don't get forced to leave the Police and join the Army if they want to use a gun, they just do a bit more training.

Also, a great many people join the police after they leave the military, it is extremely common. I think that pretty much nothing else in civilian employment is as much like the professional military as the Police force is. Uniformed, trained, organised, ranked, equipped, disciplined. If the police arent paramilitary, then the West Side Boys arent are they!? Who looks the most like the actual military?

Here are some Royal Tongan Marines..



Heres some London coppers.



Here are some West Side Boys!




I mean, I know that the two Sierra Leone paramilitaries are both wearing the same type of string vest, but I would have to say that the police look more like the professional soldiers.

If a civilian used pepper spray or a taser on another civilian, without provocation or cause, it would be a crime. If a civilian used a nightstick or collapsible baton on another civilian, it would be a crime as well.

Pepper spray and tasers in the hands of civilians are considered to be for "self defense". Unless you're actually being attacked and your health is in immediate danger, you're likely going to get a stern talking to about them. Feasibly, you're not even supposed to use them if someone picks your pocket and runs off with your wallet--but that generally gets overlooked by police.

Pepper spray in the hands of police is considered to be a "compliance tool". Before going too far down this road:
It's not allowed to be used during interrogations or to obtain confessions. It is supposed to be used during arrests or the execution of search warrants when a potentially violent or volatile situation is underway. The whole point of pepper spray in police hands is that it's the "least lethal" option, and has a measurable effect on individuals and we understand how said effects work. Hitting someone with your hands or a baton can potentially cause more damage than you intend; simply because of factors like your stance when swinging, how the blow hits the individual, etc.
Pepper spray lasts 5-7 minutes normally, and while it stings like a motherfether it won't generally cause permanent damage. There's a potential for it if the individual has respiratory issues or an allergy, but in situations like the one we saw at UC Davis there is usually at least one officer who has trained as an EMT and the patrol car usually has the solution they use to cleanse pepper spray from the eyes and respiratory system. You don't want to use water as it actually can make it worse.

Tasers are a different story entirely. They're meant to be used as a "last resort" if the officer is being assaulted by an individual who does not pose a life threatening risk but potentially could. Biggest problem with tasers is that if an individual has a heart condition or pacemaker, it can cause serious damage. They're also not too smart to use on juveniles(as in under 16 years old) as they could have an adverse reaction.

Nightsticks fall into that same category, but are generally just ignored by officers as I mentioned because the force used isn't really "measurable". You could make what appears to be a leisurely swing on video, but in reality were applying enough force to crack someone's skull because of the impact site.

Thanks for the info.

At least...well...damn...sometimes its bad to be a professional....a strap of fething cloth to hold 2 clips together...wonder if the RPGer knows there's a pin to pull to arm......

Jihadin wrote:They wear standard uniforms to....do they not stand in formations? Do they have a rank structure? How similiar are the fire arms they carry?

Firemen wear uniforms and stand in formations, as do school pupils.

What makes an organisation paramilitary is possession of weapons and tactical training while not being the official military (Army, etc.)

By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.

school pupils.

And the ones in Military shool?

mattyrm wrote:
Heres some London coppers.

Trafalgar Square 1980

London Fire (Southwark Brigade)

London Fire 2011 (Tottenham)

WHERE ARE THE SUB MACHINE GUNS?! I thought uniforms and ranks meant that they were paramilitary and clearly demonstrated that the police have not been militarized in recent years.

Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.

If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.

Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.

Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.

The guys in the bottom pic are firemen.

Kilkrazy wrote:The guys in the bottom pic are firemen.

so are the guys above them. Fire helmets, in formation in front of ladder trucks, came up in a google image search for "London Fire 1980" and then lifted from flickr.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.

If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.

Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.

Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.

DOD defines paramilitary forces as “forces or groups distinct from the regular armed
forces of any country, but resembling them in organization, equipment, training or
mission.”
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS22017.pdf

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.

If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.

Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.

Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.

You're right. Everything is more paramilitary than it was before.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
By that measure the British Police have been made more paramilitary over the past 30 years. They have more armed units, more armour and armoured vans, etc than they did.

If THIS is your criteria for becoming more paramilitary, then literally everything ever is more paramilitary than it was at any time in the past.

Cops EVERYWHERE didn't even used to HAVE guns. They used to have swords.

Just having more advanced weapons does not mean some deep dark slide into despotism is occuring.

You're right. Everything is more paramilitary than it was before.

It explains the length of wait in the queue at the Post Office.

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