Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Berkut]

I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.

If they had brought in a couple dozen guys and physically moved them, resulting in some 84 year old with a broken rib, then the outrage would be all "ZOMG! Fascists! They didn't have to attack those people - they could have just used pepper spray instead!".

I don't think there is any "nice" way to deal with protesters who refuse to comply with the law, other than simply abdicating enforcements and letting them be in the hope they get bored and leave. And I think that is pretty much what was attempted, right? These things have been going on for a rather long time now, and the stated intent has been that they would stay "as long as it takes" or "for the long haul", whatever that means.

Hell, they used to use fire hoses, right? I get that wasn't considered very nice either.

So, for those outraged at some pregnant woman getting pepper sprayed, what would have been the right way to deal with her? Should the police have asked if anyone was pregnant before dousing them? If she was worried about the safety of her child, why didn't she just leave when told to do so? Does she bear any responsibility for what happened to her, or is it solely the responsibility of the police who told her to stop her illegal activity?

I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.

[Capetan Mihali]

I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.

[Neil]

I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.

Especially from Mihali, who hates the police no matter what they do.

[Berkut]

I am open to the idea that using pepper spray on this large group of people indiscriminately was poor police work, but I haven't heard a single actual suggestion about what should have been done instead from anyone complaining.

OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.

OK, fair enough.

Why?

Why is physically assaulting them a better solution? When the 84 year old woman gets a broken hip from being dragged along the ground, I suspect you would be here saying "ZOMG what fascists! They attacked a poor old lady! Why did they have to even touch her???"

And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"

You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.

[Capetan Mihali]

OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.

OK, fair enough.

Why?

Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?

And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"

You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.

  You asked for a single example and I gave it to you.  This is hardly the first passive resistance sit-in since 1961.  Examples abound.

I'm not arguing any of the things you tell me I am.  If I was arguing anything it would be that the police should take off their badges and sit down alongside them.  Maybe save the spray for collective self-defense.   

[Berkut]

I cannot help but suspect that the "outrage" over the pepper spray is really just standard outrage over anything the cops do to try to handle these things.

Especially from Mihali, who hates the police no matter what they do.

He does?

Whatever - I don't hate the police, nor do I assume they are right.

But I do assume that they did what they were trained/instructed to do, until someone provides evidence to the contrary.

And if they are doing what they are trained and instructed to do, and people don't like it, then it behooves them to come up with an alternative, and one that adresses their stated concerns *better* than the existing practice.

I don't see how the claim that not using pepper spray, and instead physically assaulting and dragging away each protestor, necessarily results in a better outcome for the canonical "84 year old pregnant woman" that everyone seems so worried about.

Which makes no sense - how is pepper spraying someone who is 84 somehow more egregious than someone who is 24 anyway? It isn't a matter of their threat (they were no threat, no matter what the police say), it is a matter of trying to enforce compliance with the least risk of doing actual harm beyond simple pain.

[Capetan Mihali]

There are ebbs and flows in the policing of demonstrations.



This article in The Atlantic (which you should be reading anyways if I recall your agreement with Yi), makes the argument that the Seattle WTO protests and then 9/11 radically changed SOP for dealing with protestors.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/why-i-feel-bad-for-the-pepper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/

[Ideologue]

Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?

Pepper spray is still a physical assault, Berkie.

[Berkut]

OK, so your argument is that they should have physically dragged each protester away instead.

OK, fair enough.

Why?

Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?

And the next question then becomes - if that is the better solution, why isn't it the standard practice for these police officers. I am assuming that they knew what they were getting into when they showed up to break up the protests, and used whatever their defined SOP stated for handling crowds of non-complying protesters. So they have some manual somewhere that some expert presumably put together, and it said "pepper spray them!"

You are arguing that that SOP should be different - why? Instead of complaining about what happened, perhaps you could tell us your expertise on crowd control, and why you feel that your suggested practice is superior to what they have now.

  You asked for a single example and I gave it to you.  This is hardly the first passive resistance sit-in since 1961.  Examples abound.

Indeed, and I thank you. But as I pointed out, your single example doesn't actually address the supposed issues that people have raised. It fails to actually respond to the complaints. So we are still left with nobody actually giving a workable solution, other than "do nothing".

I'm not arguing any of the things you tell me I am.  If I was arguing anything it would be that the police should take off their badges and sit down alongside them.  Maybe save the spray for collective self-defense.  

Ahh, that is a valid argument, but it is an argument that has nothing to do with 84 year old women or pregnant chicks. It is irrelevant to the complaint that the police used unreasonable or excessive force, since your argument is that they should do nothing, and hence no argument about appropriate force matters at all.

If you presume that the police are going to use some level of compliance to get protestors to stop illegal activity, then I do not see how the complaint that pepper spray is excessive works. It seems safer than the alternatives provided, certainly safer than sending in a couple dozen police officers to physically assault the group of protestors.

[Josephus]

Those Syrians really have to stop doing that to their own...wait....that's not Syria is it?

Yeah, because pepper spray and bullets are the same thing.

They both tend to prevent people from exercising their  rights to demonstrate and protest.

[Berkut]

Why is physically assaulting them a better solution?

Pepper spray is still a physical assault, Berkie.

Yes, but I think you know what I mean. Why is using physical contact somehow less likely to do actual permanent harm? I bet dollars to donuts that it is LESS likely to actually injure someone, which is almost certainly why it is used instead.

[Capetan Mihali]

I got the chance to do a "ride along" with a sheriff's officer in a rural county of East Tennessee last summer.  He was a very nice guy and we made a lot of awkward conversation about classic rock, etc.  Nothing much going on that night except one sub-COPS level domestic dispute and one guy passed out in the field behind a bar. 

We ended up talking about his non-lethal weapons.  Using physical force was by far his preferred method of subduing someone if he thought he could.  More nuance in the level of force, more psychological pressure, more humane.  The tazer was the next best choice, and then finally the spray.  I asked something like, "Why not use the spray more?"  At the time, I thought I'd much rather be sprayed than tazed (having been neither).  The main reason was that the spray tends to blow back into the officer's face.

To get certified to use these non-lethal weapons, you had to get blasted once with each.  Getting tazed, he said, was horrible but ended immediately.  Getting doused in the face with spray, on the other hand, he described as the worst experience of his life.  Hours of burning agony, feeling like you are going to suffocate to death, the total helplessness of not being able to get it off no matter what you do (I think water makes it worse), etc.

I only offer this anecdote to emphasize how nasty the spray is. 

[Berkut]

There are ebbs and flows in the policing of demonstrations.



This article in The Atlantic (which you should be reading anyways if I recall your agreement with Yi), makes the argument that the Seattle WTO protests and then 9/11 radically changed SOP for dealing with protestors.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/why-i-feel-bad-for-the-pepper-spraying-policeman-lt-john-pike/248772/

See, that is exactly the point - if you want to bitch about the tactics, at least understand why they are what they are, and argue that they should NOT be what they are, but something else.

So you think the police should go back to...what, exactly? Water hoses? "Negotiated Management"? If the latter, how do you address the problems with it, that resulted in it no longer being the paradigm? Specifically, that even when you negotiate reasonable accomodation, some people may decide to be unreasonable anyway, and sit in public places engaged in illegal activity and refuse to negotiate at all? And some of those people might be 4'10" 84 year olds or pregnant?

The article is quite good, but his conclusions make no sense. He states the problem, and then just assumes that the current "solution" is deficient, but does not provide any alternative, just like everyone else.

Your comment that you think the cops should join the protesters really proves my point. Your objection and faux outrage ar enot about what they are doing, but that they are doing anything at all. If they used some other technique to enforce compliance, THAT would be outrageous as well, because the problem is not the tactics, it is that they are doing anything at all.

[Berkut]

I got the chance to do a "ride along" with a sheriff's officer in a rural county of East Tennessee last summer.  He was a very nice guy and we made a lot of awkward conversation about classic rock, etc.  Nothing much going on that night except one sub-COPS level domestic dispute and one guy passed out in the field behind a bar. 

We ended up talking about his non-lethal weapons.  Using physical force was by far his preferred method of subduing someone if he thought he could.  More nuance in the level of force, more psychological pressure, more humane.  The tazer was the next best choice, and then finally the spray.  I asked something like, "Why not use the spray more?"  At the time, I thought I'd much rather be sprayed than tazed (having been neither).  The main reason was that the spray tends to blow back into the officer's face.

To get certified to use these non-lethal weapons, you had to get blasted once with each.  Getting tazed, he said, was horrible but ended immediately.  Getting doused in the face with spray, on the other hand, he described as the worst experience of his life.  Hours of burning agony, feeling like you are going to suffocate to death, the total helplessness of not being able to get it off no matter what you do (I think water makes it worse), etc.

I only offer this anecdote to emphasize how nasty the spray is. 

I've never been pepper sprayed, but I did do the tear gas thing in the army. It is pretty damn miserable.

Again, I don't really know if pepper spray is or is not the right level of force. My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."

[Capetan Mihali]

My basic argument, however, is that the majority of the people "outraged" are really just on the side of the protesters, and are going to be outraged if the police do anything other than "take off their badges and sit down alongside them."

Well, I'm not the one to argue the other side.  I don't accept the moral legitimacy of the laws that make police action permissible in the first place, the laws that ludicrously criminalize the capacity of citizens to use the space that surrounds them (since very little purely public space is left) for political expression.   Once you've got those laws, the police have a mandate to enforce them, and then, jeez, it's hard to figure out what exactly they should do.