Pepper Spray

Thanks to Howard on his No Talking Heads blog for this link.

The good folks at United for Peace of Pierce County have extensive info on use of pepper spray on nonviolent subjects, specifically in regards to recent Oly events.

Also check out their 'Olympian' hypes 'chaos,' fails to name police violence; officials praise police

Comments

Please remember

that arresting protestors is not always an option. The jails are overcrowded and hauling people off, even just to book and release them, is man power that they may not have. Read the policy I posted above, non-lethal weapons can be used for non-compliant subjects. You are required by law to follow a police officer's order. If you choose not to leave the area, or stay linked in by pvc pipes, city policy says you can be pepper sprayed.

Instead of waiting for arrest, why not help out the court systems by going to the protest and following orders when asked to?

Here is what I picked out of the policy

D. Defensive tactics - Defensive tactics include the use of impact weapons, chemical agents, attack defense (i.e., use of personal weapons to punch/kick) and less lethal weaponry aimed at primary or secondary targets [see 1.3.3(III.A.1-2)].

I would have to beg the question of "defensive".  Other than a couple of idiots that rushed the police, I didn't see them needing to defend themselves.

The Anonymous ThurstonBlogger

as far as I know,

You are not required to follow a cops orders unless you are under arrest. If I'm standing in the street, just me, no protest, and a cop comes up and says "Hey, you, get outta the street." and I say "No." He'll place me under arrest. If I don't comply at that point, he can use force.

I'd like to know where you get the idea that cops can tell people what to do.

In that situation it's easy

In that situation it's easy to believe that more of the crowd will follow. Ask the police in Northern Ireland what happens when they get caught in the wrong crowd during powder-keg moments.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Red meat is NOT bad for you. Now blue-green meat, THAT'S bad for you!
Tommy Smothers

If you're standing in the

If you're standing in the street, by yourself, no protest, and refusing to move, not only would you be creating a traffic hazard but your mental condition would be suspect. It would seem that being committed for observation would be in the future for that.

It's the same old story - Everywhere I go, I get slandered, Libeled, I hear words I never heard in the bible

Red meat is NOT bad for you. Now blue-green meat, THAT'S bad for you!
Tommy Smothers

Pepper Spray Policy of NYPD

The Civilian Complaint Review Board of NYPD studied the use of pepper spray and produced a report in October 2000. You can read the whole report here.

Here is a short version regarding an appropriate policy for use of pepper spray from page 4, 5 and 6 of that report:

 

The NYPD’s Patrol Guide Procedure Number 212-95 governs the circumstances in
which pepper spray can be used and the proper procedure for using the spray.5 The purpose of Patrol Guide 212-95 is “to inform uniformed members of the service of circumstances under which pepper spray may be intentionally discharged and to record instances where pepper spray has been discharged, intentionally or accidentally.”6 Patrol Guide 212-95 lists five situations in which an officer may use pepper spray. Pepper spray may be used when a police officer “reasonably believes” that it is necessary to: 1) protect himself, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault); 2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest; 3) establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody; 4) establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP); and 5) control a dangerous animal by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons or animals present. The Patrol Guide states that officers should aim and discharge pepper spray into a subject’s eyes, nose, and/or mouth in two short one-second bursts at a minimum of three feet for maximum effectiveness.

7 The Patrol Guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who passively resist e.g., going limp, offering no active physical resistance). It further cautions that if possible, pepper spray should not be used against persons who appear to be in frail health, young children, women believed to be pregnant, or persons with known respiratory conditions.

In situations where pepper spray is used, the Patrol Guide stipulates several guidelines to ensure the safety of the subject. Officers are required to request the response of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) once the situation is under control. If tactically feasible, according to the Patrol Guide, the subject should be removed from the contaminated area and exposed to fresh air while awaiting the arrival of EMS or transportation to a hospital or station house. The Patrol Guide warns that the subject should be positioned on his/her side or in a sitting position to
promote free breathing and that he/she should “never be maintained or transported in a face down position.”

8 Additionally, officers should not sit, stand, or kneel on a subject’s chest or back. If water is readily available, officers should flush the contaminated skin area of a subject with profuse amounts of water. Lastly, officers are reminded that subjects should be transported to the emergency room of the nearest hospital if he or she is “demonstrating difficulty breathing, or exhibiting signs of severe stress, hyperventilation, etc.”

9 Upon the subject’s arrival at the station house, desk officers are responsible for ensuring that prisoners who have been pepper-sprayed are properly monitored. A Command Log entry is to be made stating whether the prisoner has had his/her skin flushed with water, been examined by EMS, or been transported to the hospital. Officers are then required to prepare an Online Booking System Arrest Worksheet (PD 244-159) and Medical Treatment of Prisoner (PD 244-150) in arrest situations. In non-arrest situations, an Aided Report Worksheet (PD 304-152b) must be prepared and the box “OC Spray Used” checked. If applicable, the time, doctor’s name, and diagnosis is also noted in the worksheet.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

I believe you are correct Merwyn.

The situation you describe is a party of one, no threat of injury to another or substantial harm to property.  The situation you describe does not appear to meet the terms that are required for a police officer to order you to disperse.  You probably are going to be cited for jay walking, or traffic impediment or something, and you may get an interview with a mental health professional, but I don't think you can be convicted of the the crime of failure to disperse.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

Try coming up with one a

Try coming up with one a little closer to home. NYPD has a very different lifestyle than Olympia. It's like comparing Elma pd and LAPD.

Norm

you need to come up with a better arguement then that.

NYPD

is also the same department that had 4 cops shoot a man because he drew his wallet wrong. They aren't exactly the yardstick to measure a good department by. I stand by my argument, the world is different in NY, you won't have an NYPD type department in Oly....ever.

Let's hear it for

NYPD's humane policy that ensures they do not violate the constituional rights of its citizens.

Not correct

Look here 

(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse if:

     (a) He congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and

     (b) He refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law.

     (2) Failure to disperse is a misdemeanor.

Failure to disperse

Part 1 of the crime of failure to disperse requires that there be a group of 3 or more (that was met at the port this past week) and that there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person or substantial harm to property (that was probably met at times, although if we are talking about harm through deliberate injury by moving vehicles against a crowd, I do think there is a duty on the part of the driver to mitigate, it then becomes incumbent on the police to arrest for trespass, jay-walking, whatever, but the risk of injury to a crowd of demonstrators who are not posing a threat of injury or serious harm to property that comes from the police force itself or drivers who behave irresponsibly would not meet the standard in my opinion.)

As always in law, the facts of the situation are important.  Facts about jail crowding, police officer frustration with crowd control are not likely to be compelling at court.

It appears to me that if there is no substantial risk of causing injury or substantial property harm, then there is no lawful order to disperse.  Roll the videotape as they say. 

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

How about more?

RCW 46.61.250

 

Pedestrians on roadways.

 

 

(1) Where sidewalks are provided it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway. Where sidewalks are provided but wheelchair access is not available, disabled persons who require such access may walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway until they reach an access point in the sidewalk.

     (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking or otherwise moving along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk or move only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction and upon meeting an oncoming vehicle shall move clear of the roadway.

 

 

 

RCW 46.61.240

 

Crossing at other than crosswalks.

 

 

(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

     (2) Where curb ramps exist at or adjacent to intersections or at marked crosswalks in other locations, disabled persons may enter the roadway from the curb ramps and cross the roadway within or as closely as practicable to the crosswalk. All other pedestrian rights and duties as defined elsewhere in this chapter remain applicable.

     (3) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

     (4) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

     (5) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.

     (6) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits such crossing.

 

RCW 9.66.010
Public nuisance.

 

A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state. Every place

     (1) Wherein any fighting between people or animals or birds shall be conducted; or,

     (2) Wherein any intoxicating liquors are kept for unlawful use, sale or distribution; or,

     (3) Where vagrants resort; and

     Every act unlawfully done and every omission to perform a duty, which act or omission

     (1) Shall annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of persons; or,

     (2) Shall offend public decency; or,

     (3) Shall unlawfully interfere with, befoul, obstruct, or tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, highway, or municipal transit vehicle or station; or,

     (4) Shall in any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of property;

     Shall be a public nuisance.

 

That's what I thought too...

I re-read that OPD general order Norm posted and basically if a police officer gives you a "lawful direction" and you don't comply you are subject to the use of force tools. I don't see anywhere where it says an actual arrest is necessary.

I also don't see any definition in the document on what a "lawful direction" is. Before everyone jumps in and says it's just something to be taken literally, please notice there are 26 other clearly defined concepts at the beginning of that document.

Is any direction taken from a police offer a "lawful direction"?

 

I don't think the logistical challenge of responding

appropriately to a large demonstration involving civil disobedience should justify moving from an appropriate and non-violent response of arrest to the use of pepper spray as a punitive measure.  The jail and court crowding are part of the community cost of bad public policy such as the use of the port to move military materials in support of an illegal war and the public health issues regarding depleted uranium contamination in the community. 

I think the bottom line is that the police were in the wrong if they used pepper spray against protestors who posed no physical threat to any other person.  I am thinking of the picture of the protesters lined up by the fence, someone had spread a plastic tarp under the protestors and a police officer was spraying an individual in the line against the fence.  This appears to be premeditated and criminal assault no matter what the police policies have to say about use of pepper spray or what the census is at the local jail.  

This is why we need an oversight board now. 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

Pre-Defensive tactics

they forgot the "c." 

Compliance controls - Compliance controls include use of personal weapons to affect pain compliance, hair controls, pressure point and counter-joint techniques, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray and conducted energy weapons.

according to that...

they could have also started tazering people and been in compliance with the general orders.

of arrest to the use of

of arrest to the use of pepper spray as a punitive measure

Not punitive, it's a compliance technique. You are inclined to have your own opinion on the matter, but if a board representing the city of Olympia is put in place, I'm betting most of them will disagree with you Mike.

Excessive force indeed...

...if this case is any measure. Pulling off the goggles of a seated, non-violent citizen and shooting them directly in the eyes with pepper spray is not much different than what happened in the Humboldt case. The United for Peace statement says the OPD violated their own policies on the use of pepper spray but they don't provide a citation. Does anyone know the actual policy? Regardless, any policy is superceded by constitutional prohibition against excessive force. I'm surprised this is still happening in the US. Then again...

What other tool?

Verbal communications were being ignored.  Many requests to move had been made.  Warnings were given.

What's the next logical step to remove someone who won't move and by law can be moved?  Everyone here realizes had the blockades moved we wouldn't be discussing any of this.  So I ask what tool should the police have used to allow the trucks to pass? 

It doesn't matter...

if there are policies in place. They obviously have a protocol that doesn't include spraying people with chemicals inches away from their eyes. Unless it's happened to you there's no way you can understand the pain this puts a person through. It really is cruel and unusual.

The next step would be to tell them they are under arrest, zip tie their hands, after they cut them free if their linked, and carrying them to the police wagon. After a police officer tells you that you are under arrest you are required to obey, and can be charged with obstruction or resisting depending on the circumstances.

???

"They obviously have a protocol that doesn't include spraying people with chemicals inches away from their eyes"

What's your question?

What's your question?

I went and started a new thread

Based on all of this. Here

The lack of a specific tool

does not justify excessive use of force, which is the current topic.

There's No Lack

of tools.  I was curious to know what you expected.  Now I know.  Hopefully TJ communicated this to the council last night.  Arrest them all next time.

I expect to talk about the characterization of pepper spray

as an unreasonable or excessive use of force. Alternatives to pepper spray are irrelevant to that particular issue. Norm thoughtfully started another thread on that.

OK

Non-lethal, temporary, and the police can protect themselves from it while discharging (for the most part).  I'm fine with the use of pepper spray and it seems many of the protestors were one step ahead with makeshift filtration devices and goggles.

We condemn Hussein for using

We condemn Hussein for using chemical weapons on his own people, they're illegal to use in war, but it's OK domestically? That doesn't seem like a double standard? It can be lethal if a person is allergic, and there's no way to know that. It affects different people different ways.

I prefer it to the violent,

I prefer it to the violent, physical alternatives, but not to arrests.  Arrest, arrest, arrest.  It's opinion here.

Pepper spraying people who are sitting down on the ground

doesn't make much sense. What does spraying people in the eyes who are sitting down with their arms linked accomplish? What not just arrest them? What Rob is saying is that the police force doesn't seem to have a problem arresting people who are on two feet and maybe confrontational with them....so why exactly do they need to use immobilizing force on people who are pretty much already immobilized due to sitting on the ground and not moving?

Arresting those breaking the law makes sense

and I would support it.  We can then haggle out in the courts whether the first amendment right to peacably assemble is trumped by a violation such as failing to obey an order to disperse.  There are important political and constitutional questions in that process. 

If the officers violated the department's own policies by pepper spraying protestors directly in their faces, eyes, nostrils the officers may have committed simple criminal assault and should be subject to criminal prosecution and civil remedies.  If the officers violated the department's own policies with the way that they employed pepper spray or any other law enforcement tool, the City should not extend any legal representation or coverage to the violaters.  Officers who do not follow the department policies regarding use of force are thugs and criminals. They need to be removed from the force and prosecuted.  As a special class of public employee who are authorized to use force, even deadly force, in the community they are subject to a very high standard of conduct.  

A lot of folks may not be able to discriminate between the standard of conduct required by this special class of public employee and the conduct of protesters, but there is a significant difference. 

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

OPD's use of force continuum

Read it here

III. Use of force model

The use of force model consists of a range of response options (including enforcement electives) that serve as the conceptual framework for the force management system [see Fig. A]. The model is dynamic in nature, recognizing that each situation may require a different path along this "ladder of force." Reasonable use of force includes: the ability to start at any level in the model, based on threat assessment; the ability to move in either direction in the model as a situation evolves; and the ability to bypass levels, if circumstances warrant. The key points in the use of force model are as follows:

A. Cooperative controls - Cooperative controls include command presence (color of authority), dialogue/reasoning, verbal direction or non-verbal direction (e.g., patrol vehicle emergency lights/siren).

B. Contact controls - Contact controls include guiding, escorting and other lightly physical means of gaining compliance. C.

Compliance controls - Compliance controls include use of personal weapons to affect pain compliance, hair controls, pressure point and counter-joint techniques, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray and conducted energy weapons.

D. Defensive tactics - Defensive tactics include the use of impact weapons, chemical agents, attack defense (i.e., use of personal weapons to punch/kick) and less lethal weaponry aimed at primary or secondary targets [see 1.3.3(III.A.1-2)].

E. Deadly force - Deadly force includes the use of firearms and less lethal weapons intentionally aimed at tertiary targets [see 1.3.3(III.A.3)].

Sorry for the large text, I can't seem to shrink it

Non-lethal

I see no mention of "how" to use the spray. I have never heard of "not" pointing it in people's eyes. Spraying someone in the eyes is the point. You always aim for the face, this includes cops, citizens, grandmas, whatever. Again, I can't seem to change the font size.

1.3.3 Less/non lethal weapons

I. Policy

A. The Olympia Police Department recognizes that combative, non-compliant, armed or violent subjects cause handling and control problems that require special training and equipment. The Department has a less lethal force philosophy to assist with the de-escalation of these potentially violent confrontations. The intent of this philosophy is to empower officers to utilize specially designed devices to render subjects non-threatening - with a low probability of serious physical injury or death - so that they are not able to continue behavior that is inappropriate or dangerous.

B. The potential for causing serious injury or death with less lethal weaponry is always present, and decisions regarding deployment of the weaponry must be made with that in mind.

Thanks Norm

I didn't think the OPD had a policy against spraying people directly in the eyes. So they didn't appear to violate there own policy in that regard. However, I don't see how people linked together through PVC pipe or sitting in front of a truck qualify as "these potentially violent confrontations." The use of spray in some cases actually escalated the confrontations this weekend. This leaves open the constitutional question: did OPD use excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment? I think an argument can be made that lifting the goggles of someone chained to other individuals and shooting pepper spray directly into their eyes is on shaky constitutional ground. At least it's worth investigating.

Holy crap people.People are

Holy crap people.

People are running amok in the city and it's the fault of the police.

If I were working for the Olympia Police Department, I'd seriously put the car in park and sit for the duration of my shift.

You do nothing (literally) one day and the tax-paying public is pissed because the working class can't do anything. You actually go remove people from the street the next and a group of people are chomping at the bit to take your paycheck, if not more for doing the job the majority of the City wants you to do.

One thing I've noticed every single time on this thread is that it's never the fault of everyone breaking the law. Critical Mass? Port protesting? Never!

Soylent green is people

But I do declare, very few if any people are saying that the police should not enforce the law. The disagreement is about HOW the police enforce the law.

You can watch The Olympian's

You can watch The Olympian's video and witness OPD telling everyone they needed to leave numerous times.

Decisions are being made to break the law and, in my opinion, pepper spray is as non-violent a method as there is. But people are still complaining and are still looking for someone to blame except for themselves.

But it's been great reading this before going to PT, because it motivates me a lot watching these videos and reading these comments.

If a law is being broken,

If a law is being broken, then arrests should be made.

Maybe you don't understand protest tactics as well as you do military tactics, so let me help. Every single person lined up to block a vehicle or road or whatever, made the decision before hand, probably during a strategy session well before the protest, made the decision to be "arrestable". They went into this expecting that the police would tell them to move, they would refuse in protest, and they would most likely be arrested. The police chose not to arrest people and instead used batons and pepper spray to move them out of the way. How is that response conducive to a peaceful protest. You accuse protesters of blaming the cops, yet you attempt to shift that blame over to the protesters. Things could have been handled better on both sides, TFI. It is the responsibility of the OPD to keep the peace, they should have zip-tied and arrested people, not used violence as step one.

No Offense Rob

but I seriously doubt anything the police would have done in containing the chaos created by the protesters would have been acceptable.  Even strapping on a plastic handcuff would have been viewed as brutality.

The protesters were not peaceful.  They were not nonviolent.  Peaceful and nonviolent to me means standing and protesting like the women in black do.  Never in the history of their protests has anything like this past week ever come out of it.  Police have never needed to be called and plastic and chemicals have never been used.

These people used the guise of war to wreak havoc in the streets of Olympia knowing what the outcome would be after several warnings and their behavior continued almost as if to entice and engage the police in reacting and now they're crying brutality.  I don't buy it, I won't buy it.  I commend the police for their restraint and their actions and feel the protesters should be glad worse didn't come out of their shenanigans.

No, I have never been pepper sprayed, batoned or tasered, nor do I ever plan to put myself in a situation to be.  I don't know how it feels or what it causes physically but I'm smart enough to know that I would never knowingly go into a situation where this result could be a possible outcome.

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

none taken

I think you are basing your opinion here on assumptions that are false. You are most certainly painting every protester as a criminal and every cop as a saint. It just ain't like that.

Spraying was enough

Rob, the protesters were not peaceful.

 

As a witness, they harassed truckers, took their equipment off their trucks, tried to mess the steering on one of the trucks, stole dumpsters and other property to make up their "barricades". They have glass bottles of urine in them. One of the pilot cars had a bottle thrown into it.

 

Protesters were harassing the supporters for the troops. This is behavior that should not be tolerated by a "peaceful movement". If it truly was peaceful, then they should have policed themselves. All of this occurred before they used any type of spray. That's what lead up to it and they wrote their own ticket.

 

To whine about the police is ridiculous. I was there and have video of them giving ample warnings. If they choose to stand in the way then too bad after warnings then too bad, you get what you get. They knew this was going to happen and after seeing the behavior first hand, I have no sympathy for any of them. TJ was the worst. He was justifying why it's OK to put children in front of a truck. He wouldn't do it but he felt it was OK. Those pictures have already been sent to CPS and they are circulated throughout the web. They get what they get and that's just too bad.

 

I just hope they don't run out of spray, time to go to Costco and get the jumbo size.

We've kind of moved past

We've kind of moved past talking about what happened this weekend and are now talking about the policy of use pepper spray in general.

Was the last sentence something that made you feel better?

lol when did we move past it?

Personally I'm gonna call OPD and ask which company they go through for OC. I want stock.

I Agree With Fire Inside

Our police department is damned if they do & damned if they don't. 

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

Why fo you think it is a dichotomy?

Damned if they do, damned if they don't? As I've said numerous times, this is not a debate about enforcing the law. It is a discussion about HOW the law should be enforced. We are not debating whether or not people should be allowed to run amok. We are talking about the possibility of preventing that or mitigating its effects more humanely. If you cannot see the possibility of something in between chaos and pepper spray we might as well stop talking right now.

I suspect that the protesters

would like nothing better than to see the Olympia cruisers part and sit for the duration of the shift instead of donning the riot gear to accommodate an illegal war.

The purpose of civil disobedience is to change public policy.  Getting arrested, getting clubbed, getting pepper sprayed is a risk and creates a problem for the social institutions that are supporting the challenged public policy.  All of the costs to a system for supporting the challenged public policy are tactical and strategic.  In this case, the public policy is the use of the port for transport of war materials coming or going. The opposition to the public policy of port use for transport of war materials includes the legality of the war and the potential that our community is being contaminated with depleted uranium.  

I don't think that the protesters, myself included, think of this as our fault, we are taking responsibility to oppose terrible public policy that we believe endangers this community and is in support of an illegal war.   

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

A citizen board

should consider whether OPD should have a policy regarding the use of pepper spray against a crowd or individual who is simply refusing to obey an order.  That's a different situation from spraying a person who is engaged in an assault.  In the assault situation, pepper spray might make sense.  In the instance of public civil disobedience the use of pepper spray against a person who poses no imminent threat to another person makes no sense.  

Arrest the protesters, fill the jail, fill the court. Let the courts decide if the right to peacably assemble is trumped by violation of a civil order to disperse.  Due process can be a beautiful thing.  The physical and criminal assault against people engaged in civil disobedience should be challenged. 

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

thanks wikipedia!

i don't know if anyone else researched pepper spray and it's application at all but wikipedia has a really good article on it. heres a quote:

"The US Army concluded in a 1993 Aberdeen Proving Ground study that pepper spray could cause "Mutagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities. There is a risk in using this product on a large and varied population".[9] However, the pepper spray was widely approved in the US despite the reservations of the US military scientists after it passed FBI tests in 1991. As of 1999, it was in use by more than 2000 public safety agencies"

 and here's the url (i'm a jerk who doesn't know how to link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

 

as for you guys AFI and JPO, people going to protests know that there will be a response from the police. the last time i checked though, it was still legal to hold a sign and chant from the sidewalk and these are the people getting sprayed most often.

as for those who are civily disobedient, thier motive is to get arrested so they can take thier grievences to the courts. all in all a pretty reasonable way to handle things if you can get over the fact that it was hard to drive for 15 or 20 minutes. when things get out of hand is when the police decide they need to punish people through, what i believe amounts to chemical torture (being shot and sprayed with chemical aents while imobile) for participating in the democratic process.

at no point, throughout this or an other port protest, has a protester attacked a police officer. the worst thats happened is an allegation of spitting. there is a history and commitment to nonviolence on the part of the protesters that should be recognized. 

what i believe amounts to

what i believe amounts to chemical torture (being shot and sprayed with chemical aents while imobile)

Chemical torture? Everyone who has served in the Armed Forces has had to take part in the "gas chamber."

Does it suck? Yeah, it sucks. Chemical torture? C'mon now.

if you can get over the fact that it was hard to drive for 15 or 20 minutes.

I know. It sucks putting on a rucksack and marching a few miles afterward, too. And then once you get back to the barracks, you conduct an afternoon PT session (which, in Basic, are all "smoke" sessions.)

Okay so you don't think it's torture

Courts have ruled that the use pepper spray under certain conditions constitutes a violation of the 4th ammendment. I hope some of these demonstrators take it to the court system. Then our opiniouns will no longer matter.

To arrest or to not arrest

So, for sake of this discussion, assume individuals engaged in civil disobedience are offered the opporunity by police to be peaceably arrested, and the individual(s) refuse ... then what?

It depends on how they are resisting

Active resistance and passive resistance call for different measures.

If a protester escalates a

If a protester escalates a situation away from being peacful then the police, I suppose, have the right to escalate with them.

This is so very rarely the case with these protests that you're bordering on fantasy. One or two punks might show up and throw things, but a hundred people are being peaceful around them.

If a protester escalates a

If a protester escalates a situation away from being peacful then the police, I suppose, have the right to escalate with them.

You don't "escalate with them." You use the amount of force necessary to put an end to the situation.

It's clear that what Olympia needs is armed social workers, not cops.

You are wrong

Police are supposed to deescalate situations. No protester this weekend or that I can remember from any action I've been to has physically escalated a situation like this. Usually, it's the police that do that, and they aren't supposed to. It's an inappropriate response to pepper spray someone who is standing or sitting being non-threatening.

It's an inappropriate

It's an inappropriate response to pepper spray someone who is standing or sitting being non-threatening.

You are running on opinions Rob. Read the OPD policy manual.

Norm

I believe this is a constituional matter, not an OPD policy matter. If the OPD manual said shot the buggers, it would not justify doing so.

I highly doubt it

I agree, it should go to court. OPD is not the only agency that uses this tactic to disperse unlawful crowds though. Has anyone checked if this has been challenged before?

Yes!

in California regarding the treatment of people who were linked together with pipes. The court ruled that the demostrator's civil rights were indeed violated. I'm not posting the link anymore dude. Another case went to the courts in Texas, but the court decided pepper spray was lawful becasue the crowd was becoming agressive. Sitting is not agressive.

So Texas vs California? The

So Texas vs California? The case in california involved the cops using qtips to apply the pepper spray right? Was it the use of pepper spray, or the way that it was administered? Pulling goggles off of someone seems very different to me. Do you think I could sue the police department if I robbed a bank with a kevlar vest and they figured it out and shot me in the head instead??? Just curious. They changed tactics because the goggles made their "lawful" dispersal tactic ineffective. What other cases do you have?

The point of the California case

was that the demonstrators posed no threat to anyone and the adminstration of pepper spray by any means was considered excesive. I'm not even going after your kevlar analogy.

To clarify

It was the use of pepper spray at all, not the way it was administered? And this was determined in CA supreme court?

I don't know how much the application method

was part of the deliberation. Not sure if there is a clinical or legal difference between swabbing and spraying within inches of the eyes. The US Supreme Court remanded this case back to ninth circuit court where a jury eventually ruled in favor of the plantifs, but awarded nominal damages. You can many of the legal documents here (a website biased towards the plantiffs).

I'd like to get away from the hyperbole of chaos in the streets and spitting and rock throwing. I'm not arguing about how the police should handle those situations.

So Spitting On Cops And

throwing rocks and trash and sitting in front of moving vehicles and strapping metal rods on your arms to prevent police from acting isn't a physical escalation by the protesters?  Seriously? 

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

Spitting is assault.

Is someone arguing otherwise? I'd be very supportive of the police arresting by any means necesary any person who spits on them. One spitter, however, does not justify pepper spraying the entire crowd. Straw man, really.

I Don't Get The Whole

Straw Man references you all always make!

I don't believe for one minute the pepper spray was used because of one spitter.  I believe it was the actions of many that determined pepper spray was necessary.

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

Okay

That's it then.

No protester this weekend or

No protester this weekend or that I can remember from any action I've been to has physically escalated a situation like this.

I'll just let The Olympian's video speak for itself.

I have a feeling that the vast majority of the local population outside of the TESC community is going to support the police response.

Along with the video TFI is

Along with the video TFI is talking about, I'd like to remind folks of the last protest where folks decided to throw things over the fence at officers. That one I can attest to personally. Good way to escalate the situation.

this is never going to end

Sooooo, you saw every protester throw something over the fence? How many things were thrown by how many people? We should blame the entire crowd for the actions of one or two or even five? What's the difference between what you're doing and someone saying all cops are violent murderers, and that we should hate all cops, just because a few on the force are violent?

Officer safety vs blanket statement

A crowd of folks is in front of you, 5 of the said folks are throwing things, you obviously can't get to the 5 because of the crowd, so you disperse the crowd. If you decide to do nothing then you write a blank check for anyone wanting to throw anything. Instead you take a non-lethal response and try to gain compliance. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Your scenario

does not cover the cases were no one is throwing anything, nor does it cover the cases where five people are sitting with ther arms stuck in PVC pipe. Given yr scenario, sure, I can see some justificaiton in that. But what about the other scenarios I described?

I was actually responding to Rob

My obvious answer, given the pvc scenario, is time. I assume that OPD's thought was that if pepper spray was deployed that it may be a deterrent and make them willingly let go of the other persons hand inside the pvc pipe (I'm not sure how they were setup) which would be quicker, and less hazardous than say, sawing the pipe in half. Lawsuit from pepper spray doesn't seem as high as a lawsuit from a missing finger, or lawsuit from being blinded by filings from the saw.

The people are joined together with carabiners

Leaving doubt whether some individuals even have the capacity to free themselves once sprayed.

The problem being that the

The problem being that the cops have no idea about the carabiners. Even if a protestor let them in on this little secret, they wouldn't listen for fear that the protestor is lying (who would blame them?). So, if I were in the cops shoes, given their continuum of force: I would ask them to leave....I would tell them to leave....I would pull on their arms to see if they give, all the while reminding them that they are breaking the law....if that doesn't work I would pepper spray them in hopes that if they can let go, that they will...if that doesn't work I would get out the saws to cut the pvc pipes, and hope that I didn't cut anyone's fingers off, or blind them from the saw filings, or get sued for either or both.

Pain compliance

comes with the promise that the pain will go away once you comply. That does not happen with pepper spray Norm. It just keeps on hurting no matter what you do.

No

Pain compliance can continue to be painful. I guarantee a smack to the leg with a baton will continue to hurt for awhile, but it is still considered pain compliance. If you comply, you aren't fogged down with more pepper spray, pretty simple concept.

Are you suggesting the police

should be smacking the legs of sitting, passive protesters with batons? I doubt you are. The pain compliance appropriate for moving someone who is passive is more likely to be a joint manipulation or pressure point, not a baton blow. People know that if they comply by standing up, the pain goes away.

NO

I don't advocate that. I honestly didn't understand the use of a baton in most instances. I'm assuming that joint manipulations are kind of tough to do through pvc pipes, what do you think? They also, probably, didn't have the man power to do it earlier, unless you intend to cuff and arrest every single protestor there. The second you pull them out of the way, they'd just jump back in for more.

I Support The Police Response

and I'm not ashamed to admit it and I won't be bullied into thinking or feeling otherwise.

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

Not bullying

Just responding to your comments.

I'm talking about a group of

I'm talking about a group of people standing or sitting in a line and getting pepper sprayed. I'm not talking about some punks who get tough in crowds throwing stuff, that's like two people out of a hundred, and I wish I knew who did it so I could talk to them about it. I don't condone their actions and if I see people doing things like throwing stuff or spitting I tell them to cut the shit. So do a lot of other people at these protests. There was a big push by PMR to keep the protest "not about the cops", anytime someone started some anti-cop stuff, there was a choir of voices reminding them why they were really there.

TFI, are you anti-TESC now? You're really going to throw crap like that out there? I'm a bit surprised, you usually don't fall into that kind of dualistic argument. I'm not going to argue with you about Evergreen.

TFI, are you anti-TESC

TFI, are you anti-TESC now?

I've never really been a big fan of TESC. I don't wake up hating the place, but I don't go out of my way to visit the campus.

I've been around Olympia long enough to remember TESC students tearing up the Capitol building to protest the 1991 Gulf War.

There's been a laundry list of stuff in Olympia that has happened between now and then that can be directly attributed to the "TESC mentality."

Rob...

I get the feeling that it does not matter if they are just standing there. It appears what matters to some is that the police remove them from the scene as efficiently as possible, without regrd to the constitutionality of the measure used. Does anyone know if anyone out there plans a civil suit?

Then I suppose..

they would be resisting arrest and that's a whole new ballgame.

If a police officer told me I was under arrest, and started reading me my rights, I'd comply. I expect that if I resisted, they'd start using some force to make me comply.

So anyone who was there, did the police give some instruction prior to using the pepper spray? Did they just order the crowd to disperse? Or did they declare something like "You are all under arrest, get in the van?"

In some of the photo streams and video I see what looked like the officer in charge making some statements that were being recorded on video.

Can someone fill me in on what those statements were?

 

Edit* My bad... it was mentioned before the Olympian videos covered some of this, so I'll go over there and watch them. 

Arrest?

It's really not an offer of opportunity for arrest.  The police can say, hey you are under arrest.  Show me your hands.  You make your hands available for zip-ties or not, the officer needs to get the zip ties on.  Then it's hey, get in the car, wagon, etc. for transport to jail and processing.  You get walk to car or you get dragged.  For the sake of civility a person being arrested ought to be offered the opportunity to walk to the vehicle before being dragged there, but if you are dealing with a crowd who have locked arms or engaged in other techniques to make the arrest more difficult, then maybe you get dragged for the safe of efficiency.  If the police are unnecessarily rough with the transport, they should be subject to scrutiny, dragging people to vehicle and bouncing them on the head off curbs and pavement to deal with your frustration about your job, your political differences with the protesters should open a police officer to some problems including criminal charges and civil remedy.  

This isn't rocket science.  It's easy to look back at the civil rights demonstrations where water cannons and dogs were turned loose on protesters and realize now that this response was wrong.  Removing masks and goggles to spray protesters directly in the face and maximize their injury is the same kind of abuse of authority. 

Was that a rhetorical question?  and if not, do you understand the answer provided? 

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 195

refuse how?

once you're under arrest you're under arrest. you don't have the option to refuse. if what you're asking is "what if protesters resist arrest, possibly through force" then the police are well within thier rights to use an incapacitating agent. no one is doing that though. it seems everyone involved wants a peaceful arrest except the police.