The missing piece:rustycoonNovember 21 2011, 23:13:03 UTC
I haven't seen anyone arguing that Occupiers aren't violating a truckload of ordinances and even state laws in the process of exercising their first amendment rights. Indeed, they are deliberately breaking such laws in order to create conflict that draws media attention. (This is, in fact, Civil Disobedience 101
( ... )
Re: The missing piece:maniakesNovember 21 2011, 23:52:07 UTC
Without knowing the full details of the incident, I'm inclined to agree that the cops at UC Davis should have tried to arrest the perpetrators first, and only used pepper spray if the perpetrators were resisting arrest and the choice was between pepper spraying and hitting people with billy clubs. Indeed, that's one of the incidents I was thinking of when I wrote "I've seen video and heard firsthand account of several incidents where I strongly suspect the police used far too much force, far too soon."
I disagree with your claim that an arrest isn't use of force. If I, as a private citizen acting without justification, were to slap a pair of handcuffs on you and shove you into the back of my car and drive you somewhere, I'd be guilty of assault at the very least. I do agree, though, that arresting alleged lawbreakers for trial should be the by-far preferred form for use of force by the police, for precisely the reasons you mention.
Re: The missing piece:rustycoonNovember 21 2011, 23:56:05 UTC
Ah, I did not mean to suggest that arrest isn't use of force.
I meant to state that use of force absent intent to apprehend is not a legitimate police power except in circumstances where there is an immediate threat of harm to the officer or bystanders that originates with the perp.
Use of force to make an arrest is the proper course of the use of police power - but again, they must first ask the protester if they will go sit in the car quietly (most would, btw), or if cuffs will be needed, etc, etc.
Here in Boston, there have been arrests, generally only of protesters that have been making asses out of themselves, but there have been some. There was also some non-arrest force (though nothing like we're seeing in Oakland, Davis, New York, or Seattle), which I have a problem with.
Re: The missing piece:maniakesNovember 22 2011, 00:28:43 UTC
I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was punishment absent intent to apprehend. There were 52 arrests made at the UC Davis incident. My understanding is that the reason for the pepper spray was because the students in question were refusing to submit to arrest and were linking arms to make it harder for the cops to grab and cuff them. If this was indeed the case, the cops can still be reasonably criticized for escalating force too rapidly to break up the resistance to arrest: the resisting-arrest was passive, there were enough police on hand relative to the number of protesters that it's very unlikely that the police had a reasonable fear of being swarmed by the protesters if the crowd suddenly turned violent, and (as far as I know) there were no threats of violence made against the police, so the cops could and probably should have at least tried to wrestle the students apart and into handcuffs before escalating further to pepper spray
( ... )
Re: The missing piece:rustycoonNovember 22 2011, 01:34:19 UTC
Yeah, I'll confess: When I heard about Oakland I rolled my eyes and asked "Okay, and what did the protesters do?"
I'll grant that not all police departments, and not all officers, and not even all events to a given officer are incorrect uses of force.
But, for example, setting off flash bang grenades next to a guy whose skull you just caved in with a tear gas canister so as to prevent him from receiving medical care isn't cool.
The majority of stories hitting the news, however, are not of police acting gradually to make an arrest, they are of rapid escalation to the infliction of harm (and risk of death, remember you take your victim as you find him) upon legally innocent individuals. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to be very specific as to what you mean by 'force' here. :)
Re: The missing piece:maniakesNovember 22 2011, 02:21:07 UTC
It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to be very specific as to what you mean by 'force' here. :)That's the principle I was trying to illustrate with the speeding hypothetical
( ... )
Re: The missing piece:rustycoonNovember 22 2011, 02:45:02 UTC
you and I are close enough, here, that I don't feel a need to yell at you for being Wrong on The Internet(tm). ;)
I'm pretty generous with leeway when it comes to #5 and #6. But I have yet to see numbers 1-4 being consistently used in the areas where there has been so much youtube footage coming out of.
Re: The missing piece:maniakesNovember 22 2011, 03:06:16 UTC
I've seen a number of videos of the earlier stages of the list in a variety of incidents. In most of these videos, only steps 1-2 or 1-3 occur. In the videos I've seen of steps 5-6 occurring, they almost always start in media res, without context of what happened before. In any given incident, given the information I have available to me, it's plausible that steps 1-4 happened off-camera and only the "good bits" were recorded and uploaded, but it's also plausible that the police unreasonably skipped significant portions of steps 1-4.
If the former is the case, it's an argument for the police to set up their own cameras and make their own record of the entire event in context (they way most police departments now do for traffic stops with their dashboard cameras). If the latter is the case, it's a sign of something seriously wrong with either the way the police procedures are written or they way some individual officers are carrying them out (or failing to carry them out).
Re: The missing piece:rustycoonNovember 22 2011, 03:32:23 UTC
It's also just a fact (and this is why I choose to blame departments, rather than officers) that riot/crowd management training in this country is for shit.
Reply
I disagree with your claim that an arrest isn't use of force. If I, as a private citizen acting without justification, were to slap a pair of handcuffs on you and shove you into the back of my car and drive you somewhere, I'd be guilty of assault at the very least. I do agree, though, that arresting alleged lawbreakers for trial should be the by-far preferred form for use of force by the police, for precisely the reasons you mention.
Reply
I meant to state that use of force absent intent to apprehend is not a legitimate police power except in circumstances where there is an immediate threat of harm to the officer or bystanders that originates with the perp.
Use of force to make an arrest is the proper course of the use of police power - but again, they must first ask the protester if they will go sit in the car quietly (most would, btw), or if cuffs will be needed, etc, etc.
Here in Boston, there have been arrests, generally only of protesters that have been making asses out of themselves, but there have been some. There was also some non-arrest force (though nothing like we're seeing in Oakland, Davis, New York, or Seattle), which I have a problem with.
Reply
Reply
Correct article:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/18/4065739/uc-davis-police-arrest-10-in-occupy.html
The actual number of arrests in last Friday's protest at Oakland was 10, not 52.
Reply
I'll grant that not all police departments, and not all officers, and not even all events to a given officer are incorrect uses of force.
But, for example, setting off flash bang grenades next to a guy whose skull you just caved in with a tear gas canister so as to prevent him from receiving medical care isn't cool.
The majority of stories hitting the news, however, are not of police acting gradually to make an arrest, they are of rapid escalation to the infliction of harm (and risk of death, remember you take your victim as you find him) upon legally innocent individuals. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to be very specific as to what you mean by 'force' here. :)
Reply
Reply
I'm pretty generous with leeway when it comes to #5 and #6. But I have yet to see numbers 1-4 being consistently used in the areas where there has been so much youtube footage coming out of.
Reply
If the former is the case, it's an argument for the police to set up their own cameras and make their own record of the entire event in context (they way most police departments now do for traffic stops with their dashboard cameras). If the latter is the case, it's a sign of something seriously wrong with either the way the police procedures are written or they way some individual officers are carrying them out (or failing to carry them out).
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment