Wednesday featured a joint legislative hearing looking into UC and CSU system-wide policies and procedures regarding non-violent protests and campus police use-of-force rules.
“It is the responsibility of the university to provide a safe environment for our students to learn and participate in activities on campus,” Assemblymember Block said. “It is also the responsibility of the university to foster a climate that promotes free expression of ideas on campus. We as the legislature must ensure that the proper procedures are in place to protect both campus safety and student free speech.”
“Something is wrong with a system where our children and students, struggling peacefully to have their voices heard, are answered by the spray of chemical weapons and the sting of a truncheon. It is imperative that we have a unified policy on the appropriate response to peaceful campus protests and on the use of force by campus police,” Senator Lowenthal said.
Chancellor Katehi once again denied directing the police to use pepper spray, but acknowledged, “Something went terribly wrong that day” and that “we need to understand why pepper spray was used.”
“We need to know exactly what direction was given to officers in the field. We must determine if officers are trained sufficiently. We need to re-examine our campus policies and practices regarding crowd control and use of force,” the chancellor said.
At the same time she was denying issuing the order, she took responsibility for what happened.
“As chancellor, I am accountable for everything that happens on our campus, and I accept responsibility for this event,” the chancellor said. “I also accept responsibility for taking corrective action so this does not happen again. I realize it does not undo what happened, but I issued an apology to the students who were pepper sprayed and to our entire UC Davis community.”
UC President Mark Yudof in his prepared remarks said, “I am deeply distressed by images of University of California students being sprayed with pepper spray at UC Davis and jabbed with police batons at UC Berkeley. I of course never want to see pain inflicted on students.”
Much of his time was spent discussing the steps that he had taken, including the naming of former Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to undertake an independent fact-finding investigation of the pepper spray incident and the formation of a task force that is being chaired by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso.
Police practices consultant Barbara Attard made the suggestion that they establish citizen oversight of police actions on campus that would supplement the administrative review already underway. She noted that, to her knowledge, UC Berkeley is the only campus with an independent police review board.
She also said that the officers on the scene at UC Davis made serious errors in the lead-up to the pepper spraying incident. They should not, for example, have allowed students to form a circle around them, knowing they were outnumbered.
“It appeared clear that there were not enough officers to take action that day,” Ms. Attard said. “Officers need to be trained to know when they have enough officers to take actions.”
At the same time, while acknowledging some of her own mistakes, Chancellor Katehi put the onus on lawmakers.
“I do not mean to diminish the significance of the pepper spray incident, but we all need to work together to make higher education more affordable and accessible, or there will be continued frustration from students: Both from those who protest, and from those who only want to go to class without distraction,” the Chancellor said.
Student leaders pointed the finger as well. Sean Richards, a student at Sonoma State and vice president of the California State Student Association, said, “It’s plain and simple why this is happening. We’ve tried lobbying for the last 10 years.”
He added, “This is just the beginning of things to come if things in the Legislature don’t change.”
While lawmakers acknowledged that their fiscal policies, which includes slashing budgets while tuitions at the universities were doubling, were behind the demonstrations, they did not see how it could be avoided.
As Assemblymember Block argued, “Budget cuts have been horrible and frankly we are only dealing with the resources that the taxpayers of California give us.”
“Without additional revenues to help address these shortfalls, we can expect that the frustration that our students and our campus communities feel about funding for higher education will only be exacerbated,” Senator Lowenthal added.
Assemblymember Block asked Chancellor Katehi what she would have done differently that day.
Katehi responded, “If I knew the police could not remove the tents peacefully, we would not have removed them.”
While lawmakers and campuses leaders were offering little of substance, the show was stolen outside of the proceedings as Chancellor Katehi was confronted by Jerika Heinze, one of the students who was pepper sprayed back at the November protest.
Ms. Heinze told the chancellor, “I’ve been contacting you every single day, calling your office, sending you emails, and your assistants said they passed the messages along, and you’ve never responded to me.”
The chancellor responded that she had instructed her staff to set an appointment with her. But Ms. Heinze would not be denied on this day and she flat out denied that this had occurred.
Ms. Katehi’s chief of staff would pull her aside with more promises of an appointment.
But she would tell the media who had gathered to watch this spectacle, “”It’s so frustrating. I just feel that I’m owed for her to look me in the face, look me in the eye and explain that she understands the position of the students … I mean, we’re not dangerous people, we’re students. I’m not a terrorist, I’m not an anarchist. I’m not any of those things. I’m just a college student doing research at the university.”
Little was or could be resolved at this hearing. The investigations are ongoing. As we reported earlier, the Attorney General has punted the investigation into the pepper spraying back to Yolo County officials.
Following the meeting, Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, who sits on the Assembly Higher Education Committee and represents UC Davis in the legislature, issued a statement.
“Today’s hearing was the first opportunity for legislative oversight following the troubling events on various UC and CSU campuses over the past few months,” Assemblymember Yamada said. “There are numerous investigations currently taking place, with more planned, about how and why these incidents occurred. Due process will determine our next steps.”
“We must not forget these protests were born out of the outrage and hopelessness that many feel are due to the increasing disinvestment in higher education. This is just one system among many that is under the constant attack of diminishing revenue. These protests and issues will not change until we address the fundamental issue of funding for education,” she continued.
“Use of force is not just a campus issue, it’s a community issue. The question of force has been a concern in many underrepresented communities. The occupy movement and the events at UC Davis are not isolated,” Assemblymember Yamada added.
She concluded: “We must balance the discussion of public safety in the context of very difficult economic times and the widespread anger in our nation. Just as the protesters linked arms in solidarity, we need to link our arms and eventually shake hands to achieve a positive outcome and renew our focus on higher education, learning, and making our country and our state a better place.”
President Yudof told the legislators, “My intention in these undertakings is not to micromanage our campus police forces. The sworn officers who serve on our campuses are professionals dedicated to the protection of the UC community.”
“Nor do I wish to micromanage the chancellors. They are the leaders of our campuses and they have my full trust and confidence,” he added. “Nonetheless, the recent incidents make clear that the time has come to take strong action to recommit to the ideal of peaceful protest.”
The President told the body that William Bratton and his team from Kroll team arrived on campus Tuesday, November 29th
It is President Yudof’s expectation that Chief Bratton will report the results back in early January. His report will also be presented to Chancellor Katehi and to the task force chaired by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso.
“My intent in forming this task force is to allow the UC Davis community to take a fair and uncompromising look at what happened on November 18th,” he stated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
set people up and have the news report it. why didn’t someone think to ask: why wasn’t this student part of the pepper spray group that the chancellor [u]has[/u] met with?
Murphy, good question, I would think it’s because that doesn’t fit with the agenda.
“naming of former Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to undertake an independent fact-finding investigation of the pepper spray incident”
Having a Fox investigate this fellow Foxes is NOT an independent fact finding investigation !! You got to laugh at this BS.
Katehi is a big player for the police state. Jon Stewart was right to parody her as Hitler on his Daily Show.
Is officer Pike and his Captain fired yet? Noooooo. Cause Katehi thinks they were right to pepper spray non-violent students that were sitting on a sidewalk. Thank god for cell phone video. There is no dodging what happened.
I feel the full video does more to exonerate the police than incriminate them. Obviously there are many who it really doesn’t matter who investigates the incident because they won’t accept anything but the complete vindication of Katehi and the police.
Rusty: As Medwoman points out, what is being called the full video, actually is not the full video and you still have to explain why the target of the pepper spray were the people sitting on the ground who were clearly not a thread as Pike calmly and methodically walks through them and carefully pepper sprays them.
They should not, for example, have allowed students to form a circle around them, knowing they were outnumbered.
“It appeared clear that there were not enough officers to take action that day,” Ms. Attard said. “Officers need to be trained to know when they have enough officers to take actions.”
wow. yes, blame the police for being encircled instead of pointing the finger where it belongs – the students who encircled them. That is like blaming the victim of a crime for being at the wrong place at the wrong time instead of putting the blame where it is needed. unbelievable.
Great iconic news shot David ! You captured Katehi failing to even look at the victim of the pepper spray incident. I recall Chancellor Katehi promising about 5000 people, at the rally which occurred on the quad, that she would immediately meet with the pepper spray victims. Instead, she looks away when confronted by someone she had promised to meet with, but instead avoided, while one of her assistants runs interference and answers for her.
We all know that Legislative inquirys are grandstanding at it’s finest. Much talk and many generalizations, which ultimately result in zero action. Good for Jerika Heinze for adding a bit of reality to the legislature’s photo op.
Rusty wrote,
“I would think it’s because that doesn’t fit with the agenda.”
and…”I feel the full video does more to exonerate the police than incriminate them.”
You aren’t referring to the edited (not “full” as you put it) and agenda-driven (ie the editorializing included in the video, slanted against the protestors) footage on the bulletin board, are you? If so, your first statement (above) is a bit interesting re: fitting one’s agenda, preconceived notions and the like.
“wow. yes, blame the police for being encircled instead of pointing the finger where it belongs – the students who encircled them. “
It is interesting how you misunderstand this point. Your analogy is correct but you take the wrong lesson from it. In self-defense classes people are taught to avoid high risk situations. It doesn’t mitigate blame for the assailants, but it does reduce the risk if you adhere to certain rules.
Police have a higher onus because they are presumably trained to respond to these situations and they put themselves into a tactically disadvantageous position. That is an error regardless of whether students made their own.
91 Octane said,
[i]wow. yes, blame the police for being encircled instead of pointing the finger where it belongs – the students who encircled them. That is like blaming the victim of a crime for being at the wrong place at the wrong time instead of putting the blame where it is needed. unbelievable[/i].
Yes, I do blame the police for:
1. Taking down the tents at 3:00 P.M. on a Friday afternoon when the campus is crowded with onlookers, who gathered around the police and were outraged (peacefully) when police pepper sprayed passive resisters.
2. Allowing the crowd of onlookers to surround them when standard crowd control tactics are to flank the crown and keep control of the situation.
3. Demonstrating that they were not “surrounded”, as was claimed by, “protesters”, by repeatedly stepping over passive protesters immediately before casually pepper spraying them. It was quite clear that police were perfectly free to depart whenever they wished.Police should have simply stepped over the peaceful protesters and departed.
By the way, U.C. Davis Police officers were there, supposedly under orders, to remove tents, not Occupy U.C.Davis protesters.
U.C. Davis administrators, and the police they direct, turned a small peaceful demonstration into an international embarrassment! Heads should roll.
It doesn’t mitigate blame for the assailants, but it does reduce the risk if you adhere to certain rules.
you’re damned right it doesn’t. But you try to let them off the hook anyway.
“Police have a higher onus because they are presumably trained to respond to these situations…..”
let the protestors off the hook for their behavior…..
Demonstrating that they were not “surrounded”, as was claimed by, “protesters”, by repeatedly stepping over passive protesters immediately before casually pepper spraying them. It was quite clear that police were perfectly free to depart whenever they wished.Police should have simply stepped over the peaceful protesters and departed.
no, because the crowd chanted “If you let them go, we will let you leave!”
so that claim is highly questionable..
The protesters were guilty of passively resisting arrest, refusing to obey orders to disperse, however, despite efforts to selectively charge that the protesters got what they deserved, there is no evidence that force was required. If you actually read the use of force protocols, you see that they are not met. Nor is the use of force met in case law. You have to explain why the target of the pepper spray were the people sitting on the ground who were clearly not a thread as Pike calmly and methodically walks through them and carefully pepper sprays them.
Good article dmg! I don’t think anyone can take the moral high ground here, not protesters, not law enforcement, not the administration. Mistakes were made all around, if you watch ALL the video footage. The problem is twofold: 1) the state legislature has been eroding funding support for public universities to the point where a college education will only be available to the wealthy and poor, but not to the middle class; 2) there is no free speech zone created on the UC campuses (not sure if any UC’s have a free speech zone, but I know UCD does not), to clearly delineate a policy under which students can express their opinions that won’t interfere w other peoples’ rights to go to class and carry on the business of the universities.
Hopefully the full truth will eventually come out. In what meetings was the potential use of pepper spray discussed? Where is the record of those meetings? When Lt. Pike called someone before getting out the spray (see videos), who did he call? And what chain of command was involved in deciding to use pepper spray?
One thing is clear: the decision to use pepper spray was not some random reaction by Lt. Pike “in the field” and in the heat of the moment. There is no way use of pepper spray was not a strategy discussed ahead of time, and there is no way the use was a quick field decision.
I just hope the truth about this incident, and the background leading up to it, are eventually brought to light.
[quote]there is no free speech zone created on the UC campuses (not sure if any UC’s have a free speech zone, but I know UCD does not),[/quote]
The reason that UCD and other UC campuses do no have free speech zones is that they are likely unconstitutional.
That is because the entire US is supposed to be a free speech zone.
(I know about time and place restrictions, but that is not the issue here)
Attempts to set aside limited areas as “free speech zones” have been thrown out by some courts. See the discussion at FIRE [url]http://thefire.org/cases/freespeech/[/url] It’s an ongoing issue.
There are some examples of such zones that have not been challenged, but non, as far as I know at a public university. Public universities are held to higher standards, since the first amendment specifically prohibits government control of speech.
I think that the police were in a situation where they would have taken heat for doing just about anything other than simply doing nothing and/or leaving. From what many are saying, it seems like when police are confronted with large protests where they don’t outman the protestors in a manner where their sheer numbers will get protestors to backdown, they should simply leave, as using any form of force is not acceptable, no matter what the conditions. If you have more police there or have them dressed in riot gear to protect the police, people will complain that they overreacted or were too provocative. (If you don’t have enough, people complain that they didn’t have enough manpower to control the situation, so they lose either way. Seems to me that the fundamental question is whether the police or the university should ever have any interaction with protestors at all, including the ability to remove tents and/or arrest protestors for their behavior. This is probably more of a policy question than a legal question. Unfortunately, if one refuses to draw any sort of line, you have absolutely no control over the protestors and their actions, which could cause behaviors by protestors to escalate until they can get a reaction or a confrontation. Let’s be honest, the protestors weren’t there to be heard, they were there to get a reaction. I suspect in such an instance, protestors will continue to push until they disrupt things enough so that someone has to respond. At that point, any interaction is likely to end far worse than what occured that Friday. I think that is the judgment that someone made somewhere within the chain of commmand. It is a judgment call in my mind that tried to prevent the situation from getting out of control. I’m not saying that it was the right call, but I believe that the action was taken with the right intent in mind – minimizing students getting hurt.
What no one seems to be acknowledging, and correct me if I am wrong about this, but the police had arrested a number of protestors who had intereferred with their removal of the tents. I don’t know what the nature of the interference is, but I believe that the police have the right to draw lines of what they will tolerate in the course of carrying out their actions for the present and future safety of all (this is the issue of protestors taking more aggressive actions where they are not otherwise held in check). The police were trying to clear a path so that they could bring a squad car in and take the arrested individuals away. I don’t think it would have been wise to try to step over the protestors with the arrested individuals, but maybe others feel differently. Should the police simply have let them go? That sends a message that creates a more dangerous situation in the future. I guess the police could have forceibly removed the protestors rather than pepper spraying them. Would that likely have ended better? I really don’t know. I’m inclined to think that that would have been the better route to go. It may or may not have ended better for the protestors, but at least the police would have been directly reacting to an active use of force against them when they responded. What do people think would have happened if the police tried to walk over the protestors with the arrested students? What do people think would have happened if the police tried to forceably remove the wall of protestors blocking their path? Where did the police make their first mistake in your mind?
What could or should Katehi have done or said in advance that she did not already claim to have said or done? (I believe she is being truthful, and there are too many witnesses and too many people trying to cover their backsides for her to be able to get away with being untruthful on her comments once the investigations are completed.)
To J.R.: “Free speech zones” still exist, but are falling out of favor it seems. A nice discussion of the issue can be seen here if anyone is interested:[url]http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=78[/url]
From that website was the following conclusion:
[quote]Despite their name, campus “free speech zones,” at their best, tolerate speech but have little to do with actually encouraging lively and spirited expressive activities on campus. At their worst, by effectively fencing in campus speech — specifically including the distribution of newspapers and other printed material in some cases — and restricting such activity to a closed and limited physical area of campus, they represent a serious threat to the traditional model of a university operating as a “quintessential marketplace of ideas.” In such cases, the market may still exist, but it is only open a few hours a day in an inconvenient part of town.
Fortunately, recent victories — both in and out of court — suggest that the trend toward free speech zones may be nearing an end. While non-students may still sometimes have a tough time spreading their messages on campus, students of public colleges and universities have increasingly seen free speech zone policies relaxed or the zones themselves eliminated altogether. As students, courts and finally even some schools have begun to recognize, free speech on campus — if it is truly free — cannot be limited to a gazebo.[/quote]
Nevertheless, public universities need to come up w more standardized policies (reasonable time/place/manner restrictions) on how to handle explosive protest situations on college campuses, to keep order and yet allow free expression that does not disrupt campus business. And I would posit the notion that allowing students to camp on the quad or take over a campus building is not allowable free speech, as it takes away the rights of other students to use the quad and buildings in the normal course of the business of educating students.
“I think that the police were in a situation where they would have taken heat for doing just about anything other than simply doing nothing and/or leaving. “
Actually most law enforcement people I talked to think that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave. Why? Because neither they nor the University should have given a damn if the students wanted to camp on the quad. And for those of you who argue that it was a matter of safety, that’s ultimately exactly what the university did – allowed the students to camp on the quad and there were no incidents.
The protesters were guilty of passively resisting arrest, refusing to obey orders to disperse,
care to rephrase that? you forgot to mention the physical and verbal threats. would you like to address those or do I need to?
“.Why? Because neither they nor the University should have given a damn if the students wanted to camp on the quad.”
camping on property that doesn’t belong to them? maybe they should set up tents on your property. see how you like it.
David, just curious, why did you bury this more than halfway down your article? It’s the nut of the story, and it’s what the headline references. Should have been your lead.
Brian
“While lawmakers and campuses leaders were offering little of substance, the show was stolen outside of the proceedings as Chancellor Katehi was confronted by Jerika Heinze, one of the students who was pepper sprayed back at the November protest.
Ms. Heinze told the chancellor, “I’ve been contacting you every single day, calling your office, sending you emails, and your assistants said they passed the messages along, and you’ve never responded to me.”
The chancellor responded that she had instructed her staff to set an appointment with her. But Ms. Heinze would not be denied on this day and she flat out denied that this had occurred.
Ms. Katehi’s chief of staff would pull her aside with more promises of an appointment.
But she would tell the media who had gathered to watch this spectacle, “”It’s so frustrating. I just feel that I’m owed for her to look me in the face, look me in the eye and explain that she understands the position of the students … I mean, we’re not dangerous people, we’re students. I’m not a terrorist, I’m not an anarchist. I’m not any of those things. I’m just a college student doing research at the university.”
Little was or could be resolved at this hearing. The investigations are ongoing. As we reported earlier, the Attorney General has punted the investigation into the pepper spraying back to Yolo County officials.”
Octane:
“you forgot to mention the physical and verbal threats. would you like to address those or do I need to?”
I’d like to hear you address them within the full context of what was going on particularly in light of the Officer’s target group for the pepper spraying and his walking through and casual use of the spray.
Octane,
“camping on property that doesn’t belong to them?”
Who owns that piece of land?
“maybe they should set up tents on your property. see how you like it.”
How are UCD students (or whoever b/c I don’t know if all the campers were or are UCD students) camping on the campus quad and camping on a homeowner’s property comparable?
DMG,
“Actually most law enforcement people I talked to think that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave. Because neither they nor the University should have given a damn if the students wanted to camp on the quad.”
If the decision to order the tents and campers removed from the quad is decidedly wrong by whatever investigative body, does that mean that the use of force was unreasonable?
If the officers were encircled by the students (I couldn’t tell from the footage) and they wished to leave, how would they have? March up to and through the encirclement? If they would not permit the officers to leave, then what would the officers need to do?
“If the decision to order the tents and campers removed from the quad is decidedly wrong by whatever investigative body, does that mean that the use of force was unreasonable? “
Probably, but the decision to order the tents and campers removed was tactically and politically wrong, not legally so.
“If the officers were encircled by the students (I couldn’t tell from the footage) and they wished to leave, how would they have? March up to and through the encirclement? If they would not permit the officers to leave, then what would the officers need to do? “
Every angle I have seen is that the police were allowed to walk through the crowd. The other problem that the Pike apologists have is that Pike was not targeting the group that would have been obstructing their escape, he was targeting a group sitting on the ground in the middle. It’s hard to defend his use of force when at best he was targeting the wrong people with that use of force.
DMG said: “Probably, but the decision to order the tents and campers removed was tactically and politically wrong, not legally so.”
I think it is fair to discuss or argue whether the removal of the tents was tactically the right move or not. However, I’ve heard that one of the prevailing beliefs by many if you look at the Occupy Wall Street protests around the country was that it was important to try to prevent a permanent encampment from forming, as that occurence was thought to help tip the situation in the direction where it is no longer just a bunch of students exercising their free speech rights, but where other elements join in and are attempting to provoke confrontations and violence. If this is in fact true, it creates a different perspective within which to view the decision to try to remove the tents. Once you take that action, what do you do when a protester starts getting in your way and obstructing your actions – or worse? Do you arrest them, or ignore it?
DMG said: “Every angle I have seen is that the police were allowed to walk through the crowd. The other problem that the Pike apologists have is that Pike was not targeting the group that would have been obstructing their escape, he was targeting a group sitting on the ground in the middle. It’s hard to defend his use of force when at best he was targeting the wrong people with that use of force.”
As I mentioned in my previous post, it appears that the reason that the police were focused on the individuals who were pepper sprayed is that they were preventing the police from removing the arrested protesters. What do you think they should have done at that point? Release the arrested protesters so that the other protesters would “allow” them to leave? Or, should they have tried to walk through the protesters with the arrested students? I can’t imagine that the protesting students would have allowed this to easily occur – do you? From your comments, it is hard to tell if you really didn’t see the same videos that I have seen, or if you are intentionally ignoring what might not be supportive of the storyline you seek to advance. Can you let us know if you did not see this on the videos or if you saw it and still don’t understand why the targeted students were targeted? What if the protesters had said that they would allow the police to leave if they took all of the bullets out of their guns? What would your reaction have been if they forceably moved the students from the path, rather than pepper spraying them? If the students resisted such removal, would any action by the police other than leaving without the arrested protesters have been acceptable to you?
Finally, you say that the police should have simply not engaged and let everything run its course, and that the proof of that is that the protesters eventually packed-up when it got cold enough and it was time to go home for break. However, how do you know that this wasn’t going to go in the direction of OWS or what happened in Oakland or elsewhere? Sometimes its smart to pull a weed before it has a chance to establish itself and prevent an even bigger confrontation. While I agree that the UC Davis students are probably generally benign, there are anarchists and others out there that are intentionally trying to stir things up and trigger confrontations between protesters and police. No one got permanently injured through the actions that were taken. What if nothing was done and this got out of control after off campus anarchists started joining in, and many were injured when steps had to be taken? Would you have been OK with that? Also, a good outcome is not always indicative of a good decision being made, and a bad outcome is not always indicative of a bad decision having been made. Someone playing blackjack that hits on 20 and gets an ace made a bad decision and got a good outcome. Someone who has 16 facing a dealer’s face card and hits and busts made a good decision but got a bad outcome. If the police had not acted, while the pepper spraying wouldn’t have occurred that day, I don’t know what subsequent outcome that might have allowed. For the students it may have been far worse.
[quote]The other problem that the Pike apologists have is that Pike was not targeting the group that would have been obstructing their escape, he was targeting a group sitting on the ground in the middle. [/quote]
If that’s what the case against Pike is then the case is rather weak.
It looks to me like the video shows the group sitting on the path that leads to where the police need to go with the students that they arrested. They were not sitting at the side out of the way.
Now you could argue that the police could have walked around the group that were sitting and obstructing their progress. I’m not sure why they didn’t but perhaps they had a reason. That’s why we have investigations. But the assertion above is factually incorrect.
Newshound,
“as that occurence was thought to help tip the situation in the direction where it is no longer just a bunch of students exercising their free speech rights, but where other elements join in and are attempting to provoke confrontations and violence.”
Was it ever claimed by the OWS movement or reported that it was organized and/or consisted primarily of students originally? Are there examples of this happening at other UC campuses or colleges in general, pre-pepper spray incident…started out as just students, but later non-student misfits came along?
“As I mentioned in my previous post, it appears that the reason that the police were focused on the individuals who were pepper sprayed is that they were preventing the police from removing the arrested protesters.”
Why not first attempt to arrest or restrain them as opposed to pepper spraying the seated protestors?
JR,
“It looks to me like the video shows the group sitting on the path that leads to where the police need to go with the students that they arrested.”
Post-pepper spraying, how many of the student seen dragged out, through the very path that was blocked by seated protestors, were the protestors who were arrested/placed in restraints prior to the pepper spraying?
newshoundpm
“it appears that the reason that the police were focused on the individuals who were pepper sprayed is that they were preventing the police from removing the arrested protesters.
I attended many peaceful protests during the Vietnam Nam war so I have a few observations that may differ from others without this experience:
1) The protesters sitting on the ground did not present a significant obstacle to the removal of anyone arrested. A couple of options. With the number of police present, and only a single row of protesters , the detained individuals could have been walked off the quad in another direction
With the police forming a cordon or if necessary, there were a sufficient number of police to walk them through the line or even pass them over the heads of the seated protesters.
2) On a previous thread someone had mentioned the female protester who pulled her arm forcefully away from the police. The more I thought about this action, the more I realized how truly inexperienced as protesters these students were. Any experienced protester, and certainly any outside agitator, as some have suggested, would have known that the appropriate response to a police touching you is to go limp, not to attempt to pull away. During the hours of tapes I watched, I saw only two of those arrested ( not those sprayed) go limp. These were students, not experienced demonstrators or provacateurs. As Elaine said, mistakes were made all around. I do not think however, that the magnitude of the mistakes can be equated. The students are untrained, naive, and merely attempting to exercise their rights to free speech. This is also suggested by the fact that immediately before the spraying you can clearly hear what appears to be an older female voice repeatedly telling them to cover and protect themselves. most did not head this warning.They are clearly unprepared.
I would certainly hope that the police would be highly trained, not naive , and capable of assessing the risk, or lack thereof to themselves.
One of the most telling things in my mind is that on a number of clips you can clearly see non riot geared police who do not appear intimidated, merely appropriately vigilant. Much is made by some of the students chanting. There was no physical threat unless you think that chanting
” f…. the cops” was an inducement to rape.
So objectively speaking, the only ones armed were the police. The only ones making credible physical threats were the police. And the only ones who caused any physical injury were the police.
Do I believe that arrests were warranted ? Certainly. They were breaking the law.
Do I believe that the pepper spray was warranted, absolutely not.
Shouting “you can’t go” and “release them then you can leave” to anyone who is fair minded without an agenda and not a protester apologist would definitely construe those words as threatening.
thank you rusty, I was just about to say that too. the vanguard, Medwoman and others forgot to mention that little detail…. which makes the following questionable:
vanguard: Every angle I have seen is that the police were allowed to walk through the crowd. The other problem that the Pike apologists have is that Pike was not targeting the group that would have been obstructing their escape, he was targeting a group sitting on the ground in the middle. It’s hard to defend his use of force when at best he was targeting the wrong people with that use of force.
that is not what I saw. I saw the ones seated as forming a back door to cut the police off, and when you put that in context with rusty’s statment, it is questionable the police were allowed to leave.
[quote][i]”I think that the police were in a situation where they would have taken heat for doing just about anything other than simply doing nothing and/or leaving.”
“Actually most law enforcement people I talked to think that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave.”[/i][/quote]David, I guess I’ve missed your reporting of the “law enforcement people” that you’ve talked to who think the police should have done nothing at the scene except leave the area. I’m interested in their rationale for that viewpoint.
There are few people whose opinions would carry more weight (albeit still as Monday morning quarterbacks) than other law enforcement people. These folks would be the [u]only[/u] observers with training and responsibilities similar to that of the police who had to make the decisions on the ground.
The fact that many–and “most law enforcement people I talked to” suggests you interviewed quite a few–are speaking out to criticize their brother and sister officers (who are under international fire for their actions) should be a significant part of this story. Instead, it looks like a throw-away line you came up with to fit nicely against newshoundpm’s general observation.
I give special consideration to law enforcement people who make observations in cases like these. The rest of us can spout off our uninformed opinions without the slightest worry about how the matter affects us personally. However, these authorities very well could find themselves facing similar choices in the future (or already have personal experience with situations like the ones they’re judging now).
How many law enforcement people did you interview about how this incident was handled? Who are they? For what organizations do they work? What did they say? Was the percentage calling for no action and withdrawal from the scene (“most’) a close, or overwhelming, call?
I can see how pepper spraying into seated protestors’ faces is an easy action to question, but why did they say departing the crowd protest site should have been the police strategy? I don’t get it.
“Shouting “you can’t go” and “release them then you can leave” to anyone who is fair minded without an agenda and not a protester apologist would definitely construe those words as threatening. “
Taken outside of the context of the entire event, you are correct. However, by the time the pepper spray is applied the officers are clearly not under threat and the protesters are seated with their arms linked. The officers could have simply either walked through them or walked the other direction.
“David, I guess I’ve missed your reporting of the “law enforcement people” that you’ve talked to who think the police should have done nothing at the scene except leave the area. I’m interested in their rationale for that viewpoint. “
You have not missed anything, the people I have spoken to, I did so in private conversations and not on the record. As for their rationale, most simply believed that unless the protest itself actually represented a threat to public safety that they should have avoided the inevitable confrontation that clearing the quad would have created.
“The fact that many–and “most law enforcement people I talked to” suggests you interviewed quite a few–are speaking out to criticize their brother and sister officers (who are under international fire for their actions) should be a significant part of this story. “
It would be great if they were willing to go on the record, but most were not. I can’t really blame them for that. I’m sure you want to know exactly who they are and what organizations they work for, but unfortunately for the most part it just becomes part of the background information that I operate with.
JustSaying
” There are few people whose opinions would carry more weight (albeit still as Monday morning quarterbacks) than other law enforcement people. These folks would be the only observers with training and responsibilities similar to that of the police who had to make the decisions on the ground.
I have two thoughts about this point of view :
1) To me there is one set of people who were on the scene whose thoughts would carry much more weight than the “Monday morning quarterbacks”. That would be the other police officers there at the time. From numerous views, it can be seen that their actions varied widely from those who clearly felt at least uncertain or threatened, to those who were walking freely through and mingling with the students. Visibly, this was not a case where everyone made the same assessment about the degree of risk. If there is precedent for using what a reasonable officer would think, then clearly, there were at least some reasonable officers there who did not feel so imminently threatened as to pull their pepper sprays. Unfortunately I do not believe they are in a position to speak out publicly.
2) I do not feel so entirely comfortable with the judgements of police ( or any other group for that matter) to feel that their opinions should weigh more than others. This is why we have civilian oversight over groups of people that we entrust to “protect us” and allow to be armed and have special rules for their behavior. Having the societally sanctioned right to use force against others must carry with it extraordinary ability and willingness to refrain from using those weapons against the citizenry.
I think that there are two extremes that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum tend to worry about. Some worry a lot about lawlessness and anarchy. Others worry more about excessive use of state sanctioned force with the extreme case being a police state. Could we not agree that either would be an undesirable state in which to live and have the ability to recognize the legitimate concerns of each side ?
[quote]“Could we not agree that either would be an undesirable state in which to live and have the ability to recognize the legitimate concerns of each side ?”[/quote]I certainly am concerned when I see either lawlessness/anarchy or excessive force by authority.
I’m not willing to guess whether the officers at the scene who didn’t spray think that they should have taken no action and left their “posts” or what they think about the actions of those who acted.
If they speak, however, I agree their viewpoints should carry special weight because they were there and were under the same circumstances. Were they among those David was quoting? Probably not or he would have IDed them that way.
The point I made was that [u]any[/u] law enforcement people, particularly those who call for no action and for leaving the scene if they were facing the same situation, are worth listening to. But, I’d want to know more about their roles in law enforcement to judge their judgement.
One wouldn’t need to look to a civilian review board for the “excessive force” evaluation if David is accurate that “most law enforcement people…think that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave.”
The problem is that David’s interviewees appear to exist only in his own mind. “Most” were not “willing to go on the record,” yet he provides no information about the rest who [u]were willing[/u] to go on the record.
Were there lots of people who expressed their opinions to him or a few as three (which would seem to be the minimum needed to produce the claimed “most” majority)? Or were there any?
What was the rationale that law enforcement people had for supporting the “no action” alternative and withdrawal from the campus protest area? If they are fairly universal in their “best practices” views, as David proclaims, we should take some comfort that Pike led a few misguided or rogue cops and this isn’t likely to be repeated in the future.
I’m skeptical, however, without more from David than what appears to be his own rationale placed in the minds and mouths of some imaginary friends.
So, I have to conclude that there’s not much to base any conclusions about law enforcement views on appropriate force in a case like this because David’s report comes from: “unfortunately for the most part it just becomes part of the background information that I operate with.”
Too much in the background to be informative, I’d say.
JustSaying
I would agree with you about the questionable credibility of unnamed sources. However, I also can see that officers who have a different view of what actions were appropriate may feel professional and/or social pressure to keep those opinions to themselves.
[quote][b]”Confrontation Between Katehi and Pepper-Sprayed Student Steals Show At Capitol”[/b][/quote]Was Ms. Jerika Heinze one of those sitting in the line targeted by Officer Pike, or was she just collateral-damage sprayed? If she presented herself at Dr. Katehi’s office everyday without success, it’s certainly another indication of the Chancellor’s missed opportunities in dealing with the post-spraying matters.
[quote]“I would agree with you about the questionable credibility of unnamed sources. However, I also can see that officers who have a different view of what actions were appropriate may feel professional and/or social pressure to keep those opinions to themselves.”[/quote]I agree, that’s why I was surprised that David found the opposite to be true.
Plus, this is more than a case of “unnamed sources.” These “sources” are characterized only as “most law enforcement people I’ve talked to”–what’s to be made of a consensus opinion built on such a vague foundation? And with no further explanation when questioned?
….
“I agree, that’s why I was surprised that David found the opposite to be true.
Oops ! I am afraid I did not make myself clear.
I can see a scenario in which officers or public officials might strongly disagree with actions that were taken, and be willing to discuss them, but only under the condition of confidentiality due to professional/social pressures. This would be consistent with David’s reporting, but unfortunately, not verifiable.
JustSaying: there is a reason why put that comment into a post rather than the report itself. I think you are making too big a deal out of my expression of opinion in a comment.
Taken outside of the context of the entire event, you are correct. However, by the time the pepper spray is applied the officers are clearly not under threat and the protesters are seated with their arms linked. The officers could have simply either walked through them or walked the other direction.
like I said, the vanguard conveniently neglects to mention that little detail – and it makes the claim the protestors were not a threat questionabe – they use very threatening language. you cannot simply ignore facts because they don’t make one’s side look good. And the protestors who sat with their arms linked could have picked another spot – they were asked to move told they would be pepper sprayed if they did not – and given all the time in the world so cooler heads could prevail – but they chose to be sprayed anyway.
And it is not like they chose that location to sit randomly – come on – they could have sat anywhere else..
once the threats happened – that is when the protest stopped becoming peaceful – I don’t care if they had arms linked or not….
[quote]“JustSaying: there is a reason why put that comment into a post rather than the report itself. I think you are making too big a deal out of my expression of opinion in a comment.”[/quote]And what could that reason be?
In my opinion, your posts with additional information about a report you’ve made should meet the same standards as your report. We should be able to believe what you write.
There are reasons for standards in journalism. If you follow them, the [u]Vanguard[/u] will grow in credibility and influence. If you don’t care about them, the [u]Vanguard[/u] will be discounted as the questionable ramblings of a biased grouch. It wouldn’t take much more on your part–for all the time and effort you put into this enterprise–to dramatically raise the dependability and trustworthiness levels here.
It’s a “big deal” for me to be able to depend on your reporting as being as accurate and truthful as you can make it. You should be more more interested in these attributes for your reports and posts than I am–it never should be “too big a deal” for you.
“the vanguard conveniently neglects to mention that little detail – and it makes the claim the protestors were not a threat questionabe – they use very threatening language.”
The use of which was separated by a large amount of time and the posture of the protesters at the time of the application of the chemical agent is what is at question here. At that point, the police freely moved between the protesters sitting on the ground and calmly applied pepper spray. That the protesters were resisting at the time, does not condone the use of force in this matter.
“In my opinion, your posts with additional information about a report you’ve made should meet the same standards as your report. We should be able to believe what you write.”
I think you should believe what I write is accurate. However, when I express my opinions and their basis, that does not mean you will ultimately agree with me. I had conversations with law enforcement officials, these conversations were not on the record and therefore are not quoted or cited in an article. However, they are part of the basis for my opinion.
DMG, I don’t think that the police felt threatened just being there and not doing anything in particular. I think, from what little I saw in some of the videos that the police were acting to allow themselves to be able to safely extricate the arrested protesters from the area. I really don’t personally think that they felt threatened, but that is simply my opinion based upon a limited perspective of what happened. I also don’t necessarily disagree with you that not trying to take down the tents or simply stopping when they encountered any sort of resistance would have been the right or better thing to do. However, I don’t think at the time it was an “obviously” better or more appropriate solution. I think it was fairly a judgment call for that first choice of actions.
However, where I think it gets more interesting is what are the police supposed to do once they’ve begun to take the tents down and the protesters do something like obstruct or something perhaps more aggressive? Do you arrest them, like they did? Then what do you do when the protesters blockade the bath to remove the arrested protesters?
On the issue of the initial action, which was to take down the tents, I can’t say that I believe that the police made the wrong decision. If you feel you will need to draw a line in the sand, maybe better that it be done early. Would I have arrested those protesters? Hard to know because I don’t know what they actually did. Once arrested, would I have let them go because the protesters were demanding their release or making it difficult to depart? Absolutely NOT! I think that undermines their authority and severely damages their ability to effectively and safely do their jobs in the future, because the protesters and others believe that they can get away with pushing the police around a bit. This creates a more dangerous situation for everyone involved. Would I have pepper sprayed the kids? From what I have seen and heard, and that is a big qualifer, I don’t think so. Others have talked about trying to walk them off in a different direction. I don’t know if that is physically possible, but I would have tried that first. If that was unsuccessful, I think I would have begun removing the protestors physically one at a time to create a “safe” corridor to remove the other arrested protesters. If they continue to resist or not allow themselves to be moved and a safe path out created, I probably pepper spray them at that point with a warning first if things haven’t escalated too quickly and the officers don’t feel unsafe. I’d be interested to know what you would do at each of these junctures.
Sometimes you start out on a path and the path seems fine, but then as you start getting down it and you have to make additional choices, the situation and the choices start degrading and you no longer have choices amongst good options, but only choices amongst “least bad” options. I think that this is what happened that day.
On the issue of what the police have to say, I think that a statement that the officers did the wrong thing is more powerful and compelling because one would expect them to naturally side with other law enforcement. An officer saying that the police did nothing wrong is less compelling. Likewise, a protester that was there saying that the protesters were out of line and/or that the police should have acted in the manner that they did would be more compelling than a protester screaming police brutality.
[b]How About All Those Law Enforcement People Who Said ‘Do Nothing and Withdraw’? (Part 1)[/b][quote][i]”I think you are making too big a deal out of my expression of opinion in a comment….I think you should believe what I write is accurate. However, when I express my opinions and their basis, that does not mean you will ultimately agree with me. I had conversations with law enforcement officials, these conversations were not on the record and therefore are not quoted or cited in an article. However, they are part of the basis for my opinion.”[/i][/quote]Please don’t redirect this conversation. It is not about you expressing your opinions and their bases; it is about the accuracy of your purported facts. When you state something as fact in order to support your opinion, that doesn’t turn your supposed fact into your opinion.
Please don’t minimize my point by distinguishing between your reports and your posts. You know my point goes beyond this single sentence or two, that I’m referring to the [u]Vanguard[/u] standard practices. In addition, how “big” does a fact have to be before it’s important that it’s factual in your reporting? This is simply another example of what I’ve pointed out before.
You can kiss off my continuing concerns about accuracy in your reporting (completeness, objectivity, attribution, conflating, etc.), but I think it’s in the [u]Vanguard'[/u]s interest to consider those of us who ask more from your reports. I figured you knew by now that I generally “ultimately agree” with you.
It’s about the craft of your undertaking with the [u]Vanguard[/u]. I’m not questioning your right to have opinions before and after you research and write. But keeping readers requires building a trust with them, by you demanding dependable fairness and accuracy in everything you write. The [u]Vanguard[/u]’s history is not admirable in this respect.
I’ve pointed out several times the now-predictable pattern of leaving out inconvenient facts, cherry-picking portions, attributing the worst (or best) of motives without basis, generalizing when specifics are available–then, when questioned, followed by challenging, discounting the significance of the facts, claiming bias and misunderstanding on the part of the person who questioned, stating others’ points “misses the point” or are out of context, etc., pretty much anything to deny responsibility for any shortcoming in your approach.
So, it’s with this [u]Vanguard[/u] reader history that I’m considering your request that “you should believe what I write is accurate,” in this case, about your conversations with a bunch of “law enforcement people” who allegedly agreed with you that “that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave.”
It’s not credible that you didn’t find this an very unusual police reaction–to pack up and leave the scene. For the reasons newshoundpm just noted (their natural bias to side with colleagues and the compellingness of their contrarian position), this naturally would have cried out to become part of your reporting.
It’s not credible that you felt compelled not to report this in any manner because you conversations were “off the record”–actually, you said that:[quote][i]”It would be great if they were willing to go on the record, but most were not. I can’t really blame them for that.”[/i][/quote]It’s not credible that you wouldn’t jump at the chance to directly quote those [u]who (supposedly) were willing[/u]. It’s not credible that you wouldn’t report these police observations and opinions, then you would jump at the chance to use them as a statement of fact ([u]not[/u] of your opinion) in response to someone’s comment.
[b]How About All Those Law Enforcement People Who Said ‘Do Nothing and Withdraw’? (Part 2)[/b]
It’s not credible that you wouldn’t report these police observations and opinions, then you would jump at the chance to use them as a statement of fact ([u]not[/u] of your opinion) in response to someone’s comment.
It’s not credible that you kept finding agreement as you talked to numerous law enforcement officials–enough so that “most of them” agreed with your summary (“do nothing and leave”)–and didn’t find a way to describe their opinions and their associations without violating any “off the record” agreements you’d made.
It’s not credible that you refuse to expand at all when questioned on your incredible statement about “most law enforcement people….” Instead, you try to back away and deflect attention away from it, avoiding responsibility.
So, can I believe what you’ve claimed to be true: that you’ve interviewed a bunch of law enforcement people and most of them have told you that the proper police response should have been to do nothing and leave the demonstration and that you couldn’t report this finding to us because of journalistic ethics since most of them wanted your interviews to be off the record and somehow it was okay for you to reveal it when comments came up?
Sorry, I can’t buy it at all.
If my history with the [u]Vanguard[/u] was one that allows me to give you the benefit of the doubt whenever a question of fairness and accuracy comes up, that would be one thing. But, that never seems to be the big deal with you that it is with me. So, I have to conclude that these off the record interviews with a bunch of law enforcement folks are just fiction.
When I add in your constant, unrelenting criticism of law enforcement folks, it defies logic that you could find 8 or 10 of them willing to trust you to enough to have such candid conversations with you. Therefore, one has to conclude you’re not being truthful about them.
The last time I expressed similar concerns with one of your reports, you called “bullshit” and wrote that I just was looking for ways to criticize you because I disagreed with you. That, of course, is not accurate either.
So, why would I stick with you? As I’ve told you before, I respect what you’re doing and wish you success. I think you’d be more effective if you apply higher journalistic standards to your work. Instead, you seem to get caught up in the emotions of preconceived, anti-authority feelings (ones you’ve freely admitted).
You’ve had enough of my evaluations. (They come to you at no charge from one whose background includes journalism and communication undergraduate and graduate degrees, followed by reporting and editing work for decades.) They can go on your take-it-or-leave it shelf.
I’ve already decided (more than once) to withdraw from virtual-editing your “Judicial Watch” reports, and I’m making a new year resolution to refrain from giving free advice on how you approach general [u]Vanguard[/u] stories. I’ll do my best to get past these kinds of concerns and focus on the issues on which you’re reporting.