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

[CountDeMoney]

Berkut, can you suggest any reason why it's acceptable to pepper spray someone who's sitting down in a public place, taking no aggressive action? Beyond "they did it, so they must've had a good reason to and none of you are qualified to question that," I mean.

That's going to be kinda tough to do, since pepper spray is a defensive tactic, not an offensive one.

[Berkut]

Berkut, can you suggest any reason why it's acceptable to pepper spray someone who's sitting down in a public place, taking no aggressive action? Beyond "they did it, so they must've had a good reason to and none of you are qualified to question that," I mean.

I don't know - do you mean in this particular instance, where it seems pretty clear that there were not enough of them that physically removing them one by one was an option? Then judging by CDMs info, that seems like the better choice.

On the other hand, I can understand how history has resulted in that becoming the first option in a SOP for dealing with people protesting illegally and refusing to be dealt with absent some measure of force.

But like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.

[Berkut]

Of course - there are lots of books out there, and it is certainly the case that police departments should be evaluating how they've handled protests, how others have handled them, and figuring out what needs to be adjusted.

Yes but there's a difference between the police evaluating what's the operationally best way of dealing with protests and general limits that us laymen should be involved in setting.

That is true to an extent, but the means by which that is effected is already in place. People hire legislators who right laws which we then demand that the police enforce. Which is exactly what happened. Prior to the protests, there was some SOP for handling this. The question is, was that SOP followed, where is there discretion, and if it was violated, who made the decision to step outside of it?

Or perhaps it was not violated at all, in which case the bitch is not with the officer, it is with the SOP.

My point is that everyone bitching don't even know the answer, but that isn't going to stop them, and they mostly don't even seem to care, which suggests to me that their complaint isn't really about the tactics, but the result. They want to complain about the fascist pigs, so this is their chosen means of doing so. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.

The only person in this entire thread who actually has any idea what the typical SOP is or was is Seedy. And even he only knows from the standpoint of what is typical in his past experience.

As more information is presented, it seems likely that the protesters sitting there being sprayed in the iconic photo are NOT being dealt with by the normal SOP - on the other hand, the complaints are not limited to them. The 84 year old woman, for example, was part of a Seatle protest that blocked several streets and refused to leave when the police told them to - they were not sitting down. Was that done properly? Do you know? I don't. I would like to know before I condemn the people doing their job though. I guess that makes me some kind of asshole.

  It's up to us not just the police to establish what are the acceptable boundaries of policing - such as when force should be used - and then it's up to the police to work operationally within that framework.  Appealing for special knowledge or a 'what would you do' doesn't seem helpful.

Asking what the boundaries are and whether some action fit within those boundaries first of all, and what ought to be changed as an alternative doesn't seem helpful? Really?

I think complaining without knowledge or any suggestion for an alternative is what doesn't seem helpful myself, but YMMV I guess.

I just don't think this is as easy as you guys want to make it out to be, and that desire to make it seem trivial seems driven by the need to exaggerate the injustice of the police. And had the police simply "dragged them away", I am sure much of the same people would be complaining about that as well.

But there have been hundreds of sit-ins over the years that have had people getting dragged away and I don't think they've had a flood of litigants costing the police a lot of money or that they've caused any major controversy.  I can't think of any example where there has been outrage over that.

Miami protests saw the police beating the crap out of people with batons and those body shields who refused to disperse. Lots and lots and lots of people complained about that.

[garbon]

Police are often assholes. Shock!

[Jacob]

I don't know - do you mean in this particular instance, where it seems pretty clear that there were not enough of them that physically removing them one by one was an option? Then judging by CDMs info, that seems like the better choice.

Yes, I mean in this particular instance.

On the other hand, I can understand how history has resulted in that becoming the first option in a SOP for dealing with people protesting illegally and refusing to be dealt with absent some measure of force.

Is using pepper spray on sitting, non-resisting demonstrators SOP? It seems to me that the controversy about this is precisely because the UC Davis police did not follow SOP. If it was SOP, I'd expect we'd have heard about it by now, but maybe not. Do you have any particular sources or previous incidents in mind that make you conclude that it's SOP? Because for my part I can't think of any similar incidents.

On a different note, was the students' protest illegal? I was under the impression that there was a pretty strong right to assemble in public places in the US.

But like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.

I think more people are bitching about police brutality than normally would, because this particular police action seems uncommonly brutal given the circumstances. CdM is not generally noted for being easily riled up about police brutality; CC for his part has made his loathing of the various occupy protesters quite clear as well. I don't think you'd hear either of them complaining if the police had simply removed the protesters one by one and someone had dislocated a shoulder or something like that.

[garbon]

But like I said before, if the police in this particular case had physically removed those people by hand, and someone was hurt as a result, I think the same people bitching about police brutality would still be bitching about police brutality, and probably saying they had no right to touch those peaceful people who were just sitting there.

I think more people are bitching about police brutality than normally would, because this particular police action seems uncommonly brutal given the circumstances. CdM is not generally noted for being easily riled up about police brutality; CC for his part has made his loathing of the various occupy protesters quite clear as well. I don't think you'd hear either of them complaining if the police had simply removed the protesters one by one and someone had dislocated a shoulder or something like that.

But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.

[Jacob]

But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.

More than balanced out by you, I should think.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.

The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.

[garbon]

But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.

More than balanced out by you, I should think.

I think both the protesters and cops are at fault here.  I think on some level that's why New York is so tired of OWS. It was weird having to side with the NYPD which we typically dislike and then at this point the protest here seems more just a fight between the cops and protesters...with us just being the battleground.

[Barrister]

I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.

The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.

I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive.  Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.

[HVC]

Just pull a noriega and blast the collected works of william shatner at the protesters.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.

The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.

I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive.  Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.

Are you not a law and order guy? I'm all for protest rights, but if you're on private property or you are destroying public property or denying the public its use (by converting a for-public-use-park into a private colony, for example, that the rest of the public cannot use because you've erected residential structures), then there is a lawful need for the police to do something. This will involve moving people, sometimes against their will. For government to work it has to be able to use force on its people, and if we're at a point where we can't use pepper spray or TASERs because liberals get too offended by them, then we're back to cops wrestling people and carrying them off, and if those people get too out of control then you beat them with a baton or such. (And when properly done you don't hit them on the head or anything, but instead use it as pain compliance by targeting areas of the body where you aren't likely to cause permanent injury.)

The UC Davis pepper spraying isn't something I'm saying was right and is only being opposed because of knee-jerk anti-pepper spray feelings, that whole situation could have been handled differently. But generally speaking if property rights are to exist, or if public property for the enjoyment of the public is to exist at some point you may have to use force to stop recalcitrant bums and hobos from ruining things and that force is going to sometimes necessitate some pain, regardless of method.

[Barrister]

I think it's time police just go back to busting heads and physically thrashing people who resist them when they want to move them somewhere (based on legal orders.) If the police are told someone is trespassing, or that a crowd needs to be disperse, just use the old school sticks and hands.

The TASER and the pepper spray are almost certainly less harmful on a grand scheme of things, and result in fewer injuries. But they've become politically sensitive and now people act like you're running a gas chamber if you use either. So just go back to the old school methods which work fine, and then after people get back injuries or head injuries because cops thumped the shit out of them for resisting too much you'll see us go back to pepper spray and TASERs until the cycle repeats.

I don't really agree with what you're saying, but yes - TASER and OC spray have become very politically sensitive.  Which is unfortunate because as you point out they are far less dangerous than other, traditional police tools such as batons and other means of pain compliance.

Are you not a law and order guy? I'm all for protest rights, but if you're on private property or you are destroying public property or denying the public its use (by converting a for-public-use-park into a private colony, for example, that the rest of the public cannot use because you've erected residential structures), then there is a lawful need for the police to do something. This will involve moving people, sometimes against their will. For government to work it has to be able to use force on its people, and if we're at a point where we can't use pepper spray or TASERs because liberals get too offended by them, then we're back to cops wrestling people and carrying them off, and if those people get too out of control then you beat them with a baton or such. (And when properly done you don't hit them on the head or anything, but instead use it as pain compliance by targeting areas of the body where you aren't likely to cause permanent injury.)

The UC Davis pepper spraying isn't something I'm saying was right and is only being opposed because of knee-jerk anti-pepper spray feelings, that whole situation could have been handled differently. But generally speaking if property rights are to exist, or if public property for the enjoyment of the public is to exist at some point you may have to use force to stop recalcitrant bums and hobos from ruining things and that force is going to sometimes necessitate some pain, regardless of method.

Of course I'm a law and order guy.   

However my answers are pretty much the same as CdMs.  These protestros are displaying what is termed 'passive resistance' - they are not complying with police orders, but are not actively resisting police, and are not engaging in assaultive behaviour.  The proper police response is to use a soft physical response, and the use of any weapon is not authorized.  That soft physical response it of course to lift/remove the individuals involved away from the scene.

So no - there is a continuum regarding the level of force that can be used, and just because physical force is called for does not mean you can use any level of force you wish.

If they start to physically resist, then and only then can more hard physical responses be authorized, be it pain compliance or weapons.

I had a trial not too long ago - police arrived on the scene in the midst of a very loud and verbal argument.  They attempted to separate the two individuals to determine just what was going on.  The one individual refused to follow directions.  After a couple minutes of that, when police tried to physically escort him away, he then physically began to resist being moved.  The officer then gave him three warnings that if he did not comply he was going to punch him in the nose - and after he continued to resist that's exactly what he did.   Anyways, that officer gave one of the best explanations over police use of force I've ever heard on the stand.

For those who are curious, here is the RCMP Use of Froce guidelines, which are simialr to those of police forces across north America.

[Josephus]

When people took to the streets and protested in Libya we gave them air support. Here we pepper spray them. Bit of a double standard. NIMBY to the nth degree.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course I'm a law and order guy.   

Thing is, Otto isn't: he's military, so he's a search and destroy clear and secure guy.
And that's only reinforced as a Virginian and Yankees fan.