A few weeks ago, a version of the pepper spraying was posted on YouTube by “UCDCollegeRepublican” which purports to show a different vantage point of the incident than what was previously aired. I was a bit skeptical about this purportedly new video, because I had watched the full 25 to 30 minute version on AggieTV.
The first problem is that it is no more of a complete version than other videos. In fact, it intentionally clips out nearly 22 of the 30 minutes of the confrontation. We are left at the mercy of the editor’s discretion to know if key things were omitted, but more importantly we immediately lose context as to duration of time. And when assessing a perceived level of threat, duration matters.
There are three things we will specifically assess in this analysis. First, the level of threat issued verbally by students. Second, whether the police were surrounded. Third, whether the police had options with less force to resolve this situation.
After an immediate arrest – the narrator claims for resisting arrest, though we never see enough of it to know – the students chant: “Let’s march peacefully as one towards where they are being held.” Note the use of the term “peacefully” because while the students use their numbers to their advantage – a tactical error by the police allowing themselves to be outflanked – there is never a hint of violent confrontation between police and protesters.
This occurs in minute 2 of the video, which by my calculation is about seven minutes into the raw footage of this event.
The students then get up and march, chanting “Set them free.”
Now the video sideswipes into an alternate perspective that the narrator claims show the police being completely surrounded.
This happens around four minutes into the video, but the video perspective does not show the event from a good vantage point, instead it’s in amongst the trees.
Now around 4:50 of this video, the students chant: “If you let them go, we will let you leave.”
The implication is that this is a threat, but the reality is that, at worst, the students are in a circle around the police with a large buffer in between them. It is only at this point when the students move into “a position intended to prevent the police from leaving.”
The problem is that we only see the front side of the confrontation and cannot tell if the police can exit the rear.
And then at around the 5:36 mark you hear the chant: “From Davis to Greece, f- the police.” This is where I think the video clipping process actually harms the understanding of the event. The editor skips forward three minutes where the students are basically demanding the police off the Quad. Then they skip again, to Lt. Pike calmly warning the protesters.
It is only at the twenty-minute mark of the video, a full 13 minutes of real time after the most threatening statement, that we hear, “If you let them go, we will let you leave.” The students at this point are seated, and while loud and obnoxious, there is no clear elevation of threat to the officers.
Now we can view these stills from this sequence.
First we see Pike calmly walking up to the students, informing them that they will be pepper sprayed if they do not move.
Now we see the students ducking as Lt. Pike shakes the can for about a minute in an effort to warn the students.
Now we see Lt. Pike calmly walk between the students to pepper spray them from the front – the students are not making an effort to impede, or presenting a threat to him in any way.
This shot is particularly telling, because it shows the police on the other side of the line, calmly clearing room for Lt. Pike. They could have just continued to walk off the scene – but chose not to.
Now here is the Enterprise photo shot from the other side of the crowd. Whereas the video we saw was filmed from about where the trees are to the other side of the walkway, this photo shows the other side and it shows a fairly open space, with the police on both side of the protesters.
This vantage point is actually better because it shows that the protesters are actually spread out very thinly. The people sitting and interlocking hands are clearly separate and distinct from the group of onlookers who are standing and mostly filming the event.
So let us back up a few steps. The first question is whether the students are making verbal threats to the police. There are really three utterances, all of them far removed in real time from the actual commencement of the spraying.
First, the students chant “Let’s march peacefully as one towards where they are being held.” That was probably the moment of greatest uncertainty for the police as they had a large group of moving students. But while the students marched around the police, they never marched at the police, and they prefaced their movement with the phrase “march peacefully.”
The most threatening statement was uttered, it appears, 13 minutes prior to the pepper spraying and that was “If you let them go, we will let you leave.” However, again their actions showed that their efforts would be to simply use their numbers to surround the police – they made no move on the police and again it was a full 13 minutes prior to the pepper spraying.
Finally, you have the most vulgar display, the “From Davis to Greece” episode – which while vulgar and unnecessarily antagonistic, does not justify pepper spray or an escalation of the use of force.
From that evaluation, we believe the actual utterance of threats by the protesters is minimal and relatively far removed in time from the use of force.
Remember, the use of force must be unavoidable and used as a defensive posture against imminent threat. The video shows the protesters were seated and not advancing for at least thirteen minutes prior to the use of pepper spray.
The next question is then whether the police were surrounded. We never see the rear flank here and so it is difficult to tell. But the Davis Enterprise vantage point shows a thin strand of seated protesters. Not only are their backs turned, but the police had no problem walking among them.
The students neither reacted to the movement nor attempted to obstruct. Lt. Pike was calm, as were the police who cleared out the path with minimal effort, and there is no evidence that the students were attempting to advance.
That leads us to the alternatives, and from what we see, there was no reason for the use of force. The police could have left at this point. Or they could have stayed and allowed the students to grow bored. There was no threat.
If they were concerned about the large numbers of protesters compared to police, there is no reason that they could not have called for backup and bolstered their numbers.
One thing we do not know, from watching the video, is what the orders of the police were at this point. That will be key for understanding ultimately who is to blame.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“if you let them go, we will let you leave.”
I agree that this is the most “threatening” of the protesters chants. But let’s consider what is actually being threatened. The threat is not of physical violence. It is of a stand off. Which speaks to two aspects of a credible threat. First, it’s feasibility. Does anyone actually believe that a crowd estimated at around 200 students, most of whom were merely curious and photographing ( as can be seen directly from these and other clips) would have the ability so stop police in riot gear with the possibility of calling back up, from leaving. Secondly, is the issue of imminent threat. Since there is no threat of physical violence, at any point in the entire 40 minutes of continuous taping as I first saw it, apparently unedited complete with ground shots and people’s backs and legs as the camera was moved and jostled, I do not see how a claim of imminent threat could be made.
Bad behavior, absolutely. Breaking the law, yes. So issue citations or arrest them. An imminent physical threat warranting the use of a chemical weapon ( yes, Jeff, I’ll stand by calling it by its actual name), no,as demonstrated by the visible evidence including the presence of other, presumably reasonable officers who felt no such need.
Good points medwoman, and again 13 minutes between that chant and the pepper spray.
“We are left at the mercy of the editor’s discretion to know if key things were omitted . . .”
An honest, profound, and unwittingly ironic statement. The protesters’ comments were detailed and quoted excessively, the police comments were few and summarized. Editor’s mercy, indeed.
The “police were surrounded” argument is a myth. A trained formation of armed police with a purpose is a formidable force. I can absolutely guarantee you that if the police formation was surrounded and in peril, this group would have formed up into a phalanx by its field commander and extracted itself. And it would be very messy and one-sided.
When the numerical odds are 10-1 or more, enough of this “tactical error” nonsense. Never do the police have numbers remotely close to prevent flanking in a crowd control situation. Police rely on their training and organization to off-set numerical inferiority and geographic disadvantage.
Look at the police body language in the photographs. Nothing suggests a threat to their personal safety. For that matter, the same for the protesters.
The verbal (actually, oral) “threats” is very mild stuff in the lexicon of protester vocabulary. None of these remarks even remotely approaches the the very high legal standard for a criminal threat to a police officer. There is an axiom in legality that “a police officer’s peace cannot be disturbed.” Police are regarded as agents of the government and verbal abuse comes with the job description. In the fabled (and grossly romanticized) history of California college protest, the verbiage here is surprisingly mild and certainly not threatening.
A different perspective:
As seen in your stills the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd forming an enclosure for the police. We agree that the cops were able to walk over or squeeze through the line, but they were escorting protesters whose hands were bound. If the police had tried to bring them through the line in the same manner who knows what could have happened as the police would’ve been putting their safety at risk. All Hell could’ve broken loose. Then the headlines would’ve read: What were the UCD Police thinking trying to squeeze arrestees though a line of protesters who had just been screaming “if you let them go, we will let you leave”?
Thank you, Phil Coleman . Mario Savio, the fabled Willie Brown and a few thousand of us old timers fought and won that battle almost a half century ago . Mild language, indeed and more media savvy than their armoured foe .
Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago? Certainly such students would be comfortable with offensive speech, but really, are they dumb enough to produce this don’t believe your lying eyes video when it was the Chancellors support of the cops that destroyed her credibility. At least Kaiehi might be able to claim she didn’t know how bad it was when she made her first, after the fact, remarks.
The big story that needs more play is did the Chief or Vice Chancellor okay the spraying? Did Pike go rouge because he got pissed off or did he get permission from Meyer? Its the question Katehi wouldn’t answer at the legislature according, I believe, to the Sac News and Review.
Thanks David. The not so young Davis College Republican authors of the video have learned a great deal from Andrew Breitbart and his school of demagoguery through provocative cherry picking.
[quote]There are three things, we will specifically assess in this analysis. First, the level of threat issued verbally by students. Second, whether the police were surrounded. Third, whether the police had options with less force to resolve this situation.[/quote]
1) The Vanguard concedes the students uttered a verbal threat against law enforcement: “if you let them go, we will let you leave”
2) The Vanguard concedes the police were surrounded: “the students marched around the police”; “again their actions showed that their efforts would be to simply use their numbers to surround the police”; “The next question is then whether the police were surrounded. We never see the rear flank here and so it is difficult to tell. But the Davis Enterprise vantage point shows a thin strand of seated protesters”
3) The Vanguard insists the police could have used less force than pepper spraying to resolve the situation, which is probably true. But in light of #1, #2, the question really becomes did the police have the “right” to use the level of force they chose to use. Considering the police were surrounded and being threatened, both pts the Vanguard concedes albeit with great reluctance and rationalization, it would seem the level of force used was technically justified.
Now, do I think the pepper spray should have been used? No. But more from the vantage point of the administration fouling up tactically here. University officials should never have been sent in to remove tents at a time when many other students would be on the quad to watch and join in the fray. Better to wait until evening, turn the sprinklers on, and quietly remove camping protesters later at night when no one was around to give trouble. But to second guess law enforcement or the administration after the fact when it is clear the students were most definitely in the wrong is not fair IMO. No one in this debacle is blameless.
My hope is the university will think long and hard, and put some set policies in place on how better to deal with potential protesters that:
1) remembers students are our future but still young and act rashly at times;
2) is less confrontational;
3) is less physically dangerous to students; law enforcement; administrators and faculty;
4) discourages escalation of events;
5) but nevertheless does not infringe on the rights of students to speak out on issues they care about.
Just as a side note, it is interesting to see how different people can watch the same video footage and come to completely different conclusions…
Rusty:
“As seen in your stills the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd “
Actually what we see is that they are separate and distinct.
Moreover, Phil Coleman is a former Davis Police Chief, he knows better probably than all of us. There is no evidence that the police were at risk in this entire encounter. The former chief calls the verbal abuse and verbiage “surprisingly mild” and “certainly not threatening.”
“Actually what we see is that they are separate and distinct.”
May I suggest that you look at the photos you posted again, the seated protesters meld into the standing crowd forming an enclosure.
Elaine:
You fail to note the use of chemical agent protocols: They state: “Chemical agents are authorized for use when, based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer, lesser force would not reasonably appear to result in the safe control of the suspect.”
That’s why time is a key consideration here.
Toward your point one: the only use of possible verbal threat, one that a former chief calls mild at best, is 13 minutes prior to the use of force which effectively eliminates that claim.
Second, surrounded does not authorize the use of force as Chief Coleman notes, there are other ways to get unsurrounded if the police feel threatened, but their very demeanor seems to suggest that is not the case.
Third, you concede it is probably true that they could have used less force, that’s the standard of the protocol as well, therefore the use of force was not justified.
Rusty: Look at the Enterprise photo clearly they are not intermeshed with those standing.
“Katehi did not answer when she was asked if a vice chancellor authorized the pepper-spraying. Instead, she asked lawmakers to wait until the investigation is completed to make that determination.”
From the Woodland Daily Democrat 12-15-11.
David, looked at that photo too, the seated line appears to go right up to the standing protesters. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
No Rusty, you are wrong. In the video you can see Wayne Tilcock, the Enterprise photographer, at the other end of the line. He would have moved if the police had asked to go around that way if they were obstructed as he is an observer and not a participant. The fact that both the police could easily cross the line and the press could easily easily get in perfect position to photograph shows that egress was not an issue rather it has been argued as an excuse.
Like most people here, I have viewed and reviewed the various videos several times. One thing that strikes me each time is how quickly the chant of “From Davis to Greece F**k the Police” was quelled by other protestors. What this, the approach of sitting with arms linked, and the subsequent silent confrontation with Chancellor Katehi as she left the press conference the next day reveal is a strong commitment to non-violence by the leaders of the protest. Yes, they are rash, inexperienced young people but they have learned a few things about non-violent protest and they were attempting (and I would argue succeeded) to use non-violent approaches. I am not suggesting their actions were legal but they were engaging in protest non-violently. To me, this makes the level of force used all the more troubling.
[quote]Third, you concede it is probably true that they could have used less force, that’s the standard of the protocol as well, therefore the use of force was not justified.[/quote]
You can rationalize all you want, but I would argue from a technical viewpoint there is an argument to be made that pepper spraying was technically justified. From a tactical perspective I personally think it was a stupid move for any number of reasons, but I suspect in a court of law the police would pass muster in this case. But let’s see how it plays out…
But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.
[quote]But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.[/quote]
Not necessarily…
[i]Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago? [/i]
Toad, wasn’t that a peaceful protest? They were not breaking the law (got all their permits). They didn’t block the walkway or create any safety hazards. Yet you seem to froth at the mouth over their expression of their civil rights, and fully embrace the actions of the Occupy growd.
Ironic that the flood of illegal immigrants to this state over the last three decades are contributing to the state and local budget problems what are in turn contributing to rising tuition rates. The law-breaking Occupiers and the law-abiding UCD College Republicans should be working together on this.
Seems pretty obvious we all have our objectivity at least partially blinded by our worldviews.
Phil Coleman, an ex-police captain that I am related to and used to work for you told me that he thought the pepper spraying was an inappropriate use of force based on his observations and understanding of the circumstances. I asked him what he would have done. He said that he would have used pain compliance techniques to get the protestors to release their arms so they could be cuffed and removed. I told him that many people said they police should have just let the protestors alone. Of course he said that would not have been an option since the police were sent onsite to remove the camp and deal with the safety risks for blocking the entrance and exit of the building. I told him that I thought pain compliance techniques would have had a greater risk of injury and hence pepper spray seemed a good choice… after all it did the trick… the protestors got up and moved. His reply was very interesting to me… he said “yes, but pepper spraying looks real bad”. He also said that anyone getting sprayed is going to be arrested. He said then that too becomes a PR problem as the police look like the bad guy taking the protesters to jail.
I tend to forget that police decisions are constantly in the public eye and those prone to be anti-law enforcement will exploit every Kodak moment to the detriment of the police.
You seem to be 100% against the actions of the UC police on this day. As the police chief, what would you have directed your employees to do differently?
[quote]“Elaine: You fail to note the use of chemical agent protocols: They state: “Chemical agents are authorized for use when, based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer, lesser force would not reasonably appear to result in the safe control of the suspect.” [/quote]Actually, David, you failed to note that in your report.
Elaine is responding to what you reported here. You are adding additional information about someone’s protocols–what is the source?–in an attempt to discredit her evaluation of the information you provided in your “analysis.”
She explains why your information leads her to different conclusions than you got to. Tossing in an additional fact doesn’t mean her conclusions about your analysis are wrong. If the protocols are so critical to your opinion, how about noting them in your analysis instead of beating her over the head with them afterwards.
Even with you adding an additional consideration, I’m not sure that she’s off base in concluding that the police facing the situation have the right to make such judgement calls, even ones that, upon reflection, would have been made differently:[quote]“…based upon the circumstances perceived by the officer…”[/quote]Is there really anything here that proves your point that “the use of force was not justified.” Not in the slightest.
I agree with pretty much everything she’s said here, but obviously you’ve missed her point.
Most of the actions and initial responses to this event were made in the “fog of war” and were discredited or backed away from shortly after it happened. Even if not a single person would make the same decision knowing what we now know, it still doesn’t suggest that the officer didn’t have the right to decide.
Let’s not go overboard Zapruderizing this video of pepper-spraying law violators. People are killed in “righteous shooting calls” that the cop wishes he or she could have to do over with just one more piece of information or a few more seconds of perceived decision time.
Let’s wait until the investigations get done before we conclude whether heads will roll and, if so, which ones they should be. Unless you’d like to discredit the investigators ahead of time just in case they come up with different conclusions than you already have developed.
Elaine has listed a good number of suggestions to help assure that this doesn’t happen again. But, of course, something very similar certainly will. Sometime.
[quote]“I told him that many people said they police should have just let the protestors alone. Of course he said that would not have been an option since the police were sent onsite to remove the camp and deal with the safety risks for blocking the entrance and exit of the building.” [/quote]Interesting, Jeff Boone, that David happened to interview a bunch of “law enforcement people,” most of whom allegedly told him the authorities involved should have “done nothing” and left the scene of the demonstration.
It must seem like an outrageous commentary to Captain Coleman that the current crop of “law enforcement people” would cut-and-run (rather than serve-and-protect) in the face of such a minor display of resistance threatening a trained, well-outfitted band of Davis’s Finest.
JustSaying: You do understand that the job is “law enforcement”, right?
My guess is that David talked to people at lower levels of authority. That is why I am very interested in what Chief Coleman has to say.
“But in the court of public opinion it was both excessive and brutal. As such it will cost UC and Davis greatly until heads roll.”
“Not necessarily… “
Sorry, Elaine–it already has.
“Only the UCD College Republicans would be stupid enough to create such Orwellian nonsense. Are these the same people who played Capture the Immigrant Flag on the quad a few years ago?”
“Toad, wasn’t that a peaceful protest? They were not breaking the law (got all their permits). They didn’t block the walkway or create any safety hazards. Yet you seem to froth at the mouth over their expression of their civil rights, and fully embrace the actions of the Occupy growd.”
Jeff, excellent comeback. The Toad is in way over his head.
“Seems pretty obvious we all have our objectivity at least partially blinded by our worldviews.”
Jeff, that sums it up, David’s analysis of the video definitely shows his Occupier apologist slant just as we on the right will tend to see it more from the cops point of view.
“It must seem like an outrageous commentary to Captain Coleman that the current crop of “law enforcement people” would cut-and-run (rather than serve-and-protect) in the face of such a minor display of resistance threatening a trained, well-outfitted band of Davis’s Finest.”
Serve and protect whom? Seems to me that your major complaint is that most of Davis’s police eschew gestapo-type tactics. Time you moved to North Korea, if that’s what you prefer.
“David happened to interview a bunch of “law enforcement people,” most of whom allegedly told him the authorities involved should have “done nothing” and left the scene of the demonstration.”
(A) I spoke to them, I didn’t “interview” them
(B) They told me that they would have not wanted to have tried to clear the tent
(C) They felt that the use of pepper spray was inappropriate use of force
“just as we on the right will tend to see it more from the cops point of view. “
What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here.
“My guess is that David talked to people at lower levels of authority. That is why I am very interested in what Chief Coleman has to say.”
Actually the people I spoke to were either former chiefs or current people in comparable leadership positions.
“What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here.”
no, you took what you wanted from what they said and left the rest. you formed your opinion based on leftist templates…. who do you think you are fooling?
the vanguard then argues if the threats are thirteen minutes before the spray, they don’t count as threats…. they are threats plain and simple.
I saw the video, at no point after the verbal threats did the crowd tone it down a notch. Far from it.
I also noticed the vanguard left out part two of the threat:
“If you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully” – meaning the crowd would not be peaceful if the officers did not let detainees go.
[quote]The first problem is that it is no more of a complete version than other videos.[/quote]
B – I – N – G – O…..
Yet, you failed to so note when you crowed about the first ‘edited’ video..hhhmmmmmm
The threat is not of physical violence.
bull crap medwoman. bull crap.
medwoman, your emphasis on one point, in a matter that is fact bound and contextual is good — but does not make for the whole enchilada….
FYI, Coleman’s comment re: his method (pain compliance – if I recall correctly) is no higher/lower a potential response on the self-same continuum…
Phil Coleman’s post indicated the following [quote] The “police were surrounded” argument is a myth. [/quote]
Yet, case law is replete with issues revolving around reasonableness. Thus, the question is was it reasonable for the officers [whom the USSC said are the best judge(s) to decide what level of force is necessary] under the circumstances, to have such a minor mistake of fact, in a loud & large crowded area, when modernly, other protests have erupted into violence?
PC – “Look at the police body language in the photographs.”
USSC said no relevant….
rusty49 – kudos on your perspective noted above…
DG-[quote]a former Davis Police Chief, he knows better probably than all of us. [/quote]
ABSOLUTELY FREAKIN’ NOT!
Robb: [quote]…reveal is a strong commitment to non-violence by the leaders of the protest…[/quote]
Tell us exactly how officers would ‘know’ this monday morning quarterback analysis —->>> at the time if the incident?
BTW Coleman was Chief for ONLY about 6 or 7 years ’89 -’96. Many years have passed…
“What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here.”
So you supposedly say, I haven’t seen any names offered up. I’m sure there are many in law enforcement who see it differently.
Officers are trained in crowd control. There are in this country, and around the world, accepted ways of demonstrating non-violently. These include the tactics used by protestors in this case–including verbal instructions from protestors who implored their colleagues to act in certain ways. It is not Monday morning quarterbacking to assume that officers at this level would be trained to assess how crowds are behaving and the tactics they are employing.
Look, Mr Boone spoke earlier about being “blinded” by one’s worldview. I don’t agree that we are blinded by worldview but OF COURSE our world views inform how we view this event. It could not be otherwise. My worldview includes the following:
1) I deeply respect law enforcement officers and the role they play in maintaining order. That respect does NOT mean I believe they are infallible. When they err, they should be held to accounts.
2) Everyone involved in this situation is a human being–capable of great deeds and also capable of terrible errors of judgment. We dare not “dehumanize” any of them as we assess the situation. I oppose the dehumanization of Officer Pike: the pepper spraying “meme” turns him into an icon and makes him an object of derision but he is, in fact, a human being. I also oppose the dehumanization of the protestors. They are not merely faceless “agitators”. They too are human. I oppose the dehumanization of Chancellor Katehi. The fact that she is in a powerful position does not mean her actions were not constrained by the dictates of the institution of which she is a part.
The point is, we must, as a community, seek to more deeply understand the motives of the actors of that day. This is the only way we are going to move beyond it and strengthen our community. I see nothing to date that suggests we are committed to the hard work of really listening and creating spaces to listen to the people involved that day to find out what really happened.
3) We live in community and NEED community to accomplish things we cannot do along. Rebuilding a sense of safety and community in the aftermath of this event is going to be hard work but we have the tools to do it. Staying stuck on “blame” and condemnation will not help us move forward. A more appropriate response would be to work to bring the various parties together to listen to and ask questions of one another.
My world view is formed by faith convictions and also 25 years of experience traveling and living over 45 nations including some of the most violent places on earth. In places of great violence communities are using indigenous tools to create listening spaces to move beyond the brokenness. We don’t lack for examples. The question is whether we will benefit from these practices to find our way through this situation.
David, you made the point on how easy it was for the police to step through/over the line of sitting protesters. You still haven’t addressed how they were going to do that safely while escorting hands bound arrestees through a crowd of belligerent protesters. What if one of the arrested protesters got hurt during that process while in police custody? I’m sure you would of bellyached about that too.
I guess you guys fail to see the irony of people protesting one day and then supporting the oppression of protesters on another day. While I thought the Capture the Flag thing was offensive and failed to do anything positive except demonstrate the fading power of their privilege the same group’s support of the cops shows their fundamental misunderstanding of who the cops were protecting. I’m sure they don’t realize that they could easily be the next victims of police abuse of authority should this incident go unpunished.
The next time the cops come to your house and are abusive because your party is too loud remember College Republicans you stuck up for this kind of treatment of students in Davis.
I try and put myself in the shoes of a cop.
Getting the call to handle some lawless crowd provided limited or inaccurate information…
Trying to frame the needed approach and outcomes for this particular call relative to the information provided, previous training and experience, and understanding the general mission to protect the general public from unlawful actions and behaviors…
Thinking about how similar events have unfolded…
Deciding what equipment/tools to wear or bring…
Contemplating the risks and dangers and the required protocols…
Taking a deep breath to quell the anxiety inherent in the fear of the unknown… especially when crowds of unruly people are involved…
Then arriving and being surrounded… having threats chanted… have law-breakers refuse to comply… thinking about the role of law enforcement, the performance expectations for completing the intended mission of the call… thinking about the consequences of doing nothing or doing something and deciding that it is expected that cops do something in these circumstances…. looking at the people failing to comply and thinking they are the same age as sons, daughters, and other relatives… thinking about the tools available and what is more or less appropriate… probably NOT thinking about the public relations consequences since this is a job for chiefs, chancellors and other political-side entities… and not the working-class folk out in the field with their hides on the line.
Making what appeared to be a reasonable decision in the moment… and maybe regretting it later as being the wrong decision because of the public relations fiasco it caused.
I have much more empathy for the cops in this situation than I do the protesters. Mistakes were made on both sides, but the protesters brought it on. The cops didn’t go looking for someone to spray. Now the protesters and anti-law enforcement are now gorging on all the public relations benefit at the cops’ expense.
[quote]“Actually most law enforcement people I talked to think that’s exactly what they should have done – nothing and leave.”
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….What’s interesting is that I formed my opinion on what should have happened by asking police officers and other law enforcement what they should have done here….Actually the people I spoke to were either former chiefs or current people in comparable leadership positions.”[/quote]Time for me to retract some of my earlier observations, thanks to your clarifications here. I based my critical comments on your earlier, strong “do nothing and leave” supposed consensus from vague “most law enforcement people.”
Now, that you’ve attributed the comments and opinions to “former chiefs or current people in comparable leadership positions”–instead of insisting on complete secrecy about these mysterious sources–you’ve given us some basis for weighing the credibility and the significance of their thoughts. It also allows us to contrast their opinions with Chief Coleman’s somewhat contrary (and, apparently, minority) view.
If you’re also now admitting to overstating their comments (“do nothing and leave”) and correcting your initial report with the A.B.C. specifics listed above, I’m ready to give you a pass all around. It’s easy to get caught up in things if you’re starting your reporting with a point of view.
But, now, I’m able to move from complete disbelief that you ever had such conversations with “law enforcement officials” to thinking that you may have gotten much more refined (but not surprising) reactions from high-level Monday-morning quarterbacks than you initially claimed.
I still think you should make it a practice to be as open in your reporting as your sources will allow. And I suggest that when you’re talking to involved parties about topics your covering, they and you should consider that you’re “interviewing” them and they’re on the record unless you specifically agree otherwise.
Thank you for expanding on this issue. I see why you thought I was making too much of it. I hope you can see why you should realize that I wasn’t.
[i]”The next time the cops come to your house and are abusive because your party is too loud remember College Republicans you stuck up for this kind of treatment of students in Davis.”[/i]
First Toad, I don’t have parties that are too loud out of consideration of my neighbors.
Also, the cops knocking at your door would be doing so because someone in your neighborhood complained. Save your displeasure for your neighbor and stop killing the messenger.
Talk about irony, you still continue to poke angry sticks at the legal, peaceful and effective (apparently since you and others remember it so well) protest put on by the UC College Republicans… but stay all warm and fuzzy about the law-breaking Occupy protesters.
At least you wear your ideological bias on your sleeve. With that, I can call you my brother from the other side of the tracks.
Jeff Boone, what an excellent summary of something that gets way too little consideration in the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s musings.
Authorities have high standards and responsibilities we’ve established that are subject to our judgment–beginning the moment they act and continuing well beyond, for history’s long memory.
Demonstrators get excused for many reasons, some justified–even when their actions go awry and end up in death and destruction.
Authorities are charged to work on our behalf; demonstrators get to establish their own purposes for acting.
Authorities [u]have[/u] to go in not knowing what demonstrators will do; demonstrators [u]choose[/u] to go in knowing the rules of engagement established by law.
My party comment was directed at the College Republicans but in general I agree that the repression of students in Davis has a long history supported by the community and most exposed by the noise ordinance but could also include students on campus being excluded from voting in the city and the Davis model lease.
As for the cops i almost always support their efforts and understand how thin the line is between civilization and chaos, but, when it comes to the cops in Davis, both on campus and off, the notion of civil control of student activity is troubling. I agree it is sad that the nature of civil disobedience puts the cops in between the oppressors and the oppressed. I understand that yelling “Fuck the police” is provocative and that cops are humans full of emotions too, although their training should make them less disturbed by such actions. i get it all but the casual spraying by Pike was one of those moments of over reaction that shocks decent people to ask why is this happening and who is responsible? Those servile enough to defend such actions need to recognize that they are not immune to such abuse. It is always the most offensive speech that must be protected in order that all of our less offensive speech is protected too. Failure to appreciate this puts us all in danger included the College Republicans.
[quote]“Serve and protect whom? Seems to me that your major complaint is that most of Davis’s police eschew gestapo-type tactics. Time you moved to North Korea, if that’s what you prefer.”[/quote]Crilly, the UCD/Davis police are the ones under fire. I admire police who are able to display tolerance in the face of such resistance and antagonism. I think we are fortunate to have such people working on our behalf, and who are trained and are understanding about the demonstrators as well.
When they face the unknown and make decisions that they, themselves, might find wanting afterwards, I want us to support the difficult choices they are forced to make in untenable situations. Even if I don’t want a similar situation to have a similar result in the future.
I served in Korea. Thanks, anyway, I’m happy where I am.
Octane-
A few points first, I would suggest that you are misinterpreting that as threat when in fact within the context of the entire event it is clear that what that actually meant was they would no longer engage in the kind of passive disobedience that they had up to that point and they would continue to do for the duration of the event.
Timing matters because of the use of form guidelines which suggest a more immanent threat as necessary for escalating the use of force. You cannot base a use of force on a. Vague threat from nearly fifteen minutes prior when the protesters are seated and only passively resisting at the time of the spraying.
What necessitated the use of force escalation at that time other than the impatience and overreaction of lt. Pike?
Rusty- if the heart of the problem was really the transportation of those arrested they had a number of other options including taking their Ids and rearresting them later. Wich is actually a practice that they do when chases get too dangerous.
[i]”including taking their Ids and rearresting them later”[/i]
I understand that at least half of the law-breakers were not UCD students and were from outside of the area.
And, what if they refused to provide any ID?
And, how would getting an ID do anything to remove the safety hazzard?
So, are you saying the situation was too dangerous for the cops to deal with the law-breakers at that time? That opinion would seem to support the use of pepper spraying.
“I understand that at least half of the law-breakers were not UCD students and were from outside of the area. “
Yes its so much easier to demonize protesters as outsiders. Even if its so it doesn’t rationalize the disproportionate use of force unleashed upon them by Pike or Meyer or who ever.
[i]”Yes its so much easier to demonize protesters as outsiders.”[/i]
That was not my point. There was a suggestion that these people be ID’d and then arrested later, but you can’t easily do that if your jurisdiction is the campus, can you?
“I understand that at least half of the law-breakers were not UCD students and were from outside of the area.”
That’s not my understanding, what’s your source.
“There was a suggestion that these people be ID’d and then arrested later, but you can’t easily do that if your jurisdiction is the campus, can you? “
It’s fairly easy if you take their ID, it’s not like this was a crime that would have caused them to have bail or something.
Let me see if I’ve got this right. The police should’ve squeezed their way through any gaps in the belligerent crowd to the sides or behind them or wherever they might find a hole. Before cowering away the cops should’ve taken the info off of the arrestees’ ID’s and released them into the protesting crowd. Should they have dropped their weapons too?
Related to all those unemployed graduates of prestigious universities…
[quote]AMERICAN SKILLS GAP?
AAR Corp., an aviation-parts manufacturer in the Chicago area, has 600 openings for welders and mechanics but can’t find skilled workers to fill them. Do Americans lack the skills needed to get available jobs? Are our universities, community colleges and technical schools behind the times?[/quote]
Maybe instead of protesting wage gaps and over-priced college, they should take some welding classes and move to Chicago.
Interesting… but my guess is that they and their parents would prefer they stay unemployed protesting about all the class unfairness in this country instead of taking a job as a lowly welder.
[quote]I have much more empathy for the cops in this situation than I do the protesters. Mistakes were made on both sides, but the protesters brought it on. The cops didn’t go looking for someone to spray. [b]Now the protesters and anti-law enforcement are now gorging on all the public relations benefit at the cops’ expense.[/b][/quote]
What a great response! Especially this point, which unfortunately, is true.
[quote]“I understand that at least half of the law-breakers were not UCD students and were from outside of the area.”
“That’s not my understanding, what’s your source.”[/quote]David, did you ever verify whether Jerika Heinze was a pepper-spray target or not? Did you ever hear whether she got her time with the Chancellor?
I have an interview request with her, but she was a bit overwhelmed after the testimony so I will approach her after the holidays. I haven’t looked into the matter other than that.
‘I have much more empathy for the cops in this situation than I do the protesters. Mistakes were made on both sides, but the protesters brought it on. The cops didn’t go looking for someone to spray. Now the protesters and anti-law enforcement are now gorging on all the public relations benefit at the cops’ expense.”
As an aging Viet Nam war era protester, the first time I watched the 40 minute, unedited clip, I initially had more empathy for the police. Peaceful protest would ideally not include shouted profanities or indeed any action or chant that could even theoretically be construed as “threatening” no matter how lacking in credibility that threat might be.
This is a clear provocation and should not occur. However, these kids are clearly inexperienced and there were cooler heads amongst their numbers ratcheting down the tone by organizing the chants emphasizing the word peacefully over and over. That empathy dissolved with the use of the pepper spray. Lt.Pike’s demeanor was not that of a man who fears for his life, or the safety of his men. This was a cool, clear, deliberate action taken after consideration and discussion as can be seen clearly on tape from many angles.
There has been much discussion about the police needing to do their job to protect the public and restore law and order. I have no objection to this and have stated so on numerous occasions. My objection is solely to the decision to use a chemical weapon on a specific group of protesters who were posing no imminent threat. I agree that it is unclear at this point who actually made that decision.
“but the protesters brought it on, the cops didn’t go looking for someone to spray”
By the logic being expressed here, the voters of the state of California “brought it on” by failing to provide enough funding for the promised benefits of the public higher education system “thus causing the protesters to have an issue. The protesters didn’t ask to have their tuition raised.
The protesters are responsible for the existence of the protest. They are in no way responsible for the police reaction to that protest. Each act must be assessed on its own merits. Each individual involved is responsible for his/her own actions.
BTW, anyone who relies on the judgement of Coleman needs to consider his past — as a DAVIS employee….
“Gonzales had been selected to replace Chief Phil Coleman who resigned following being reprimanded for sexual harassment of female police employees. Indeed, the city had settled several civil complaints brought on by Chief Coleman’s inappropriate behavior.”
http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com/2007/01/formerly-fired-police-captain-nick.html
AdRemmer – classic ad hominem attack on Coleman. This is not helpful and has nothing to do with Officer Coleman’s views on this situation. Saying his entire judgment about police matters is impaired because of what he did is ridiculous. There is simply no place for this kind of comment here: it does nothing to further the dialogue and seeks to silence the voice of a member of our community who has something to say. If you disagree with Coleman’s analysis state your disagreements but please refrain from this type of attack.
Robb Davis
Kudos Robb. You said that better than I would have.
Well said Robb. I certainly go back and forth with Mr. Coleman on a variety of issues but it seems to me here he offers us some insight that we can evaluate.