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.
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/29 18:50:42
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/29 19:26:00
Ikasarete Iru
Graffiti from Pompeii: VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1882: The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
Xenophanes: "If horses had Gods, they would look like horses!"
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/29 19:20:12
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/29 20:32:40
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Still no Lt. Pike at a Taco Bell like a requested. You are a "NO GO" at this station EE
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The moral of the story is that even if you are somewhat outraged, something can still be good for a laugh.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
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.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
