Vanguard Identifies Second Officer Involved in Pepper Spraying on November 18

secondofficer

There has been much effort spent, both in attempting to identify and attempting to prevent disclosure of the identity of the second officer who was an active participant in the pepper spraying of protesters on the UC Davis Quad, November 18, 2011.

The image of Lt. John Pike has become an “internet meme” emblazoned across the nation, and indeed around the world, as a symbol of this event.  However, efforts to keep the second officer’s identity secret have been strong, in part because of fear of harassment, threat and retaliation.

The officers’ union argued in court on March 16 that, while normally the names of officers would not be considered confidential, the union wanted them withheld because of threats that Lt. Pike has apparently received.

It turns out the identity of the second officer should have been known for quite some time.  A photo on the popular Davis Wiki website was posted on November 29.

The image clearly depicts Officer A. Lee of the UC Davis Police Department, identified as Alexander Lee.

Even with that information it was not easy to identify the officer or learn details.  A phone call by the Vanguard to the department last week confirmed the existence of Alexander Lee, and the efforts by the department to avoid disclosure of the fact that Officer Lee is, in fact, suspended.

The Vanguard also notes a duty roster that shows both Officer Lee and Officer Pike working on the day in question.

UCD-Duty-Roster

It is clearly believed that the public, despite the ruminations, should be entitled to this information.

Originally the judge wrote, “At present the Petitioners can have little or no expectation of privacy regarding the Incident given that the Incident has been the subject of public scrutiny and videos of the demonstration and the UCDPD’s use of pepper spray have ‘gone viral’ on the internet.”

He added, “As police officers paid by the public and authorized by the public to exercise authority over individual members of the public, the Petitioners could not reasonably expect that reports of their actions in the news media, the internet, and other public sources of information would be shielded from public scrutiny by a statute whose purpose is to protect the confidentiality of personnel records and information.”

However, it appeared that the university at the last hearing was willing to consider keeping the second officer’s name out of the public light.

The university had originally backed full disclosure, however, backed off that as university attorney Nancy Sheehan told the judge that the university would be willing to withhold the identity of the second officer involved in the actual pepper spraying in order that he avoid the threats that Lt. Pike had received.

Last week the Vanguard made a public records request to UC Davis requesting a copy of all previous requests and the university’s response to them.

Of particular note was a December 12, 2011, request from the Davis Enterprise‘s Cory Golden, which requested “the roster of officers on active assignment – available for duty – for the week of Nov. 14-18, as well as the same roster for Nov. 21-25.”

The university would release the active roster for the week of November 14-18, but not for the following week.

As a December 23, 2011 email from Chief Counsel Steven Drown to Debbie Davis, Editor of the Davis Enterprise, indicates, there was a meeting between staff of the Enterprise, along with CalAware’s Terry Franke and UC Davis officials to “discuss Cory’s request for the name of the second UC Davis Police Department officer who used pepper spray during the November 18, 2011, campus conflict.”

Mr. Drown argued that, under the circumstances of this case, the officer’s name is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Mr. Drown would argue “that the disclosure of the officer’s name, given other publicly available information, would indicate that the officer is the subject of a University internal affairs investigation concerning the November 18 incident.”  He adds, “It was my view that this information is a confidential personnel record under Penal Code section 832.7 and 832.8, which cannot be disclosed to the public unless a ‘Pitchess Motion’ has been granted by a reviewing court.”

So here you have a case where the UC Davis Chief Campus Counsel argues that this is protected under Penal Code Sections 832.7 and 832.8 and a few months later, at least initially, UC’s General Counsel Charles Robinson is arguing the opposite.

Mr. Drown added, “As you know, the name of one of the officers, Lieutenant John Pike, became widely known due to his identification by onlookers and widely broadcast electronic media. The name of the second officer is not widely known.”

“To disclose the name of the second officer now would disclose the fact that the officer is subject to an internal affairs investigation, which is confidential personnel information exempt from disclosure under the authorities described above.”

Mr. Drown then went on to cite Copley Press v. Superior Court of San Diego County, where the “California Supreme Court found that the name of a peace officer who was subject to disciplinary action was protected from disclosure.”

An ACLU staff attorney, in an interview with the Vanguard, strongly disagreed with that decision, however.

Michael Risher indicated that he has formally requested all of the names of the involved officers from UC, and has not received those names.

Mr. Risher indicated that the ACLU was involved in a case where the court decision came down about a month ago, reaffirming “a position that I certainly think has been the law since 1997 in the state, that the government cannot withhold the names of officers involved in a shooting or a criminal incident like this one, as a general matter.”

“They can withhold those names if they think there are specific reasons to believe that the release of those names would endanger the officers’ safety,” he said.  UC maintains that there have been threats against Lt. John Pike since the November 18 pepper-spray incident.

There is, therefore, a fear that if other officers’ names would be made public, they would also be subjected to such threats.

Mr. Risher indicated that he does not know the specific nature of these threats, but noted that oftentimes these are not credible threats.  He did not completely discount the possibility of safety concerns, though he agreed that the distance in time from the initial incident would mitigate against such a direct and heated environment as Lt. Pike faced in the days and weeks immediately after the pepper-spray incident.

“That’s a very fact-specific determination as to whether the public interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the interest in disclosure because of the potential threat to the officers,” he added.

Mr. Risher also agreed that, while UC can argue for its non-disclosure, it will be difficult to prevent the public from knowing which officers were involved.  There are a number of ways that can become public.

It is our purpose and hope that this disclosure does not subject Officer Lee to any sort of harassment or threat.  He seems well-protected within the department as it is, and with the passage of more than four months since the incident, cooler heads should prevail.

Nevertheless, we hope that this will render the identity of the officer moot by putting his name into the public arena and move the process of release of the report forward.

Undoubtedly, some will disagree with this decision, but those are the reasons that we have chosen to move forward.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

73 Comments

  1. 91 Octane

    vanguard: “It is our purpose and hope that this disclosure does not subject Officer Lee to any sort of harassment or threat.”

    considering the nature of the article, I find this statement to be highly disingenuous.

  2. rusty49

    vanguard: “It is our purpose and hope that this disclosure does not subject Officer Lee to any sort of harassment or threat.”

    So will the Vanguard accept responsibility if Mr. Lee is now subjected to threats or bodily harm?

  3. roger bockrath

    Now we have the published name of Officer Alexander Lee, the second officer who needs to be prosecuted for violation of State Penal Code Sec. 149. That is one less excuse for the people who would choose to protect these criminals from prosecution for their abuse of power under color of authority. Seems to me that they are just about clean out of excuses for not releasing the Reynoso/Kroll Pepper spray Incident Report.It will be great to finally see how far up the pecking order blame will be appraised.

    rusty49 wrote, [i]”So will the Vanguard accept responsibility if Mr. Lee is now subjected to threats or bodily harm?” [/i]
    I think the real question here is, [i]will Officer Alexander Lee, who was photographed assaulting peaceful protesters on public property while on the University payroll, finally be forced to take responsibility for his illegal actions.[/i]

  4. 91 Octane

    I think the real question here is, will Officer Alexander Lee, who was photographed assaulting peaceful protesters on public property while on the University payroll, finally be forced to take responsibility for his illegal actions.

    we have been over this many times, but I’m not lettning the vanuard, nor you, get away with it – you can call them “peaceful protestors” a hundred times over but you are no more correct the 100th time than you were the first.

    I would also like to see members of that crowd prosecuted for threatening officers, because that is what they did:

    crowd: “if you let them go, we will let you leave!”
    crowd: “if you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully!”

    note the use of the word “if”. in other words, we wont let you leave if you arrest them, and we will become violent if you don’t let them go.

  5. eagle eye

    Great work, Vanguard!

    Good to hope Alex Lee will be held accountable professionally and publicly.

    Funny how cowardly these officers are when they’re not attacking people.

    Apparently 91 Octane is a police ofcr – he claims to know exactly what
    occured and didn’t like it.

  6. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]It is our purpose and hope that this disclosure does not subject Officer Lee to any sort of harassment or threat. He seems well-protected within the department as it is, and with the passage of more than four months since the incident, cooler heads should prevail.

    Nevertheless, we hope that this will render the identity of the officer moot by putting his name into the public arena and move the process of release of the report forward.[/quote]

    I would say the Vanguard could care less about the welfare of Officer Lee, despite hypocritical/insincere words to the contrary. The Vanguard’s true motive is to throw the officer under the bus, in order to further the Vanguard’s pet agenda to move the process of releasing the Reynoso report forward. In other words the life of the officer is of less significance than the release of a report that is likely to come out soon anyway. And it was up to the courts to decide the date of the release in a lawful manner, not the Vanguard. I cannot agree with the Vanguard’s priorities here (which are certainly at odds with its professed sympathy in the criminal justice arena – or is this just furthering a vendetta against law enforcement/DA?) – for shame…

  7. Ryan Kelly

    Thank you for releasing the name of the 2nd officer to the broader public (though this picture and the name of the officer has been available on the Davis Wiki for some time now.) Maybe now the report can be released and we can start to put this behind us. Time to man up and do the responsible thing, guys. Believe me, prolonging this is not a good strategy.

    I don’t think chanting during a protest can be prosecuted, regardless of the content of the chant. There is a little thing called the US Constitution that allows people to speak their mind. 91 Octane keeps going on and on about the crowd chanting “If you let them go, we will let you leave” as evidence of a violent crowd. What hogwash.

  8. eagle eye

    There’s really no basis for claiming the officer’s life is endangered by
    release of his name. Who’s going to do what to him? Nobody and nothing.
    But law enforcement likes to hide behind the idea that someone’s going to
    come after them after they needlessly kill or injure someone.

  9. rusty49

    “There’s really no basis for claiming the officer’s life is endangered by
    release of his name. Who’s going to do what to him? Nobody and nothing.
    But law enforcement likes to hide behind the idea that someone’s going to
    come after them after they needlessly kill or injure someone.”

    As the article states: “the university would be willing to withhold the identity of the second officer involved in the actual pepper spraying in order that he avoid the threats that Lt. Pike had received.”

    Do you think it’s right that Pike received threats? When threats are made do they not sometimes come to fruition? Now having Lee’s name out there is it not easy to also find his phone number and locate his address?

  10. roger bockrath

    91 Octane writes,
    [i]”I would also like to see members of that crowd prosecuted for threatening officers, because that is what they did:

    crowd: “if you let them go, we will let you leave!”
    crowd: “if you let them go, we will continue to protest peacefully!”

    note the use of the word “if”. in other words, we wont let you leave if you arrest them, and we will become violent if you don’t let them go”.[/i]

    So, did the crowd let the officers leave?
    Did the crowd continue to protest peacefully?

    The answer is a resounding YES!
    So where is the threat? The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizen’s right to protest. Always has, always will.
    91 Octane needs to go try life in Syria for a while.

  11. rusty49

    “91 Octane needs to go try life in Syria for a while.”

    No, the protesters should try life in Syria right now. Tell the Syrian Army “if you let them go, we will let you leave” and see what happens.

  12. JustSaying

    I can think of two reasons to have decided not to run this story:

    1. A state law prohibiting the release of names of police under investigation, thoroughly described and discussed here in the past, and

    2. UCD’s Nancy Sheehan’s determination (based on the union’s pleading) that releasing the name could endanger the life of the second officer.

    Neither of these applies to the question about whether the [i]Vanguard[/i] (or any other journalism outlet) should have pursued and published the information.

    The law doesn’t apply to the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s decision, and the union’s supposed fear is manufactured in order to discourage publication of the report. Timely issuing of the complete report is in everyone’s interest; we can argue about the findings and recommendations once it’s out.

    If authorities really take the threats seriously, they should be investigating the sources of any credible, law-breaking threats.

    This combination of serendipity (stumbling across the “Davis Wiki” photo call and id?), David’s follow-up reporting (confirming w/UCD police the officer’s identification and status) and his decision to inform the public is in the best of journalistic tradition. Excellent work, David.

  13. Phil Coleman

    With peace officers, the reality is that people in this profession receive direct and implied threats frequently. Officers are threatened when they issue citations, arbitrate a dispute, direct traffic, make an arrest, or even issue an necessary but unpopular policy statement. It just comes with the territory.

    Unlike citizens, police officers do not get relief through criminal prosecution, except in extraordinary circumstances. Peace officers are assumed to be able to protect themselves, and that is essentially true. If you are going to take on a cop, bring your A-game. I’ve been threatened hundreds of times, with no successful follow-through. Off-hand I can’t think of a single instance where a peace officer was directly threatened with physical harm and it later happened.

    No public servant should be shielded from identification for what they say and do. Only bloggers are afforded that protection. If you serve the public, you should be accountable to the public. The Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights protects your personnel records and discipline records, not your name tag.

  14. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]I don’t think chanting during a protest can be prosecuted, regardless of the content of the chant. There is a little thing called the US Constitution that allows people to speak their mind.[/quote]

    Freedom of speech is not unfettered. From wikipedia:
    [quote]In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.[/quote]

  15. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]With peace officers, the reality is that people in this profession receive direct and implied threats frequently. Officers are threatened when they issue citations, arbitrate a dispute, direct traffic, make an arrest, or even issue an necessary but unpopular policy statement. It just comes with the territory. [/quote]

    And sometimes those death threats are carried out. See: [url]http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/Articles/Print/Story/2011/10/I-m-Going-to-Kill-You.aspx[/url]

    It was not for the Vanguard to legally decide to release this information…

  16. David M. Greenwald

    “It was not for the Vanguard to legally decide to release this information… “

    The Vanguard didn’t. We legally obtained the information, it was publicly available, we followed up using legal means, we have the right to do that under the constitution.

  17. David M. Greenwald

    “Do you think it’s right that Pike received threats? When threats are made do they not sometimes come to fruition? Now having Lee’s name out there is it not easy to also find his phone number and locate his address?”

    I don’t think you have to worry, it was next to impossible to even verify the information we had, much less find out contact info.

  18. David M. Greenwald

    “No, the protesters should try life in Syria right now. Tell the Syrian Army “if you let them go, we will let you leave” and see what happens.”

    I’m confused by your point. Isn’t that why we’re better than Syria? Is that even a point in dispute?

  19. JustSaying

    [quote]“It was not for the Vanguard to legally decide to release this information…”[/quote]I disagree on several counts. There is no law that covers the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s decision to publish this, am I correct? David is on the right side of anything that could be involved (prior restraint, the Constitution, etc.)

    Since he had no legal restrictions, the only questions would be moral ones. Whether somebody has carried out a threat in the past has almost no weight in this general issue, and I question the sincerity (and disagree with the validity, for sure) of the union’s argument on this one. And, I think UCD is erring on the side of caution.

    I can’t think of a way to say it that approaches Phil Coleman’s dedication and elegance: [quote]“No public servant should be shielded from identification for what they say and do….If you serve the public, you should be accountable to the public. The Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights protects your personnel records and discipline records, not your name tag.”[/quote]

  20. David M. Greenwald

    JustSaying:

    “1. A state law prohibiting the release of names of police under investigation, thoroughly described and discussed here in the past”

    I expect this kind of contorted thinking by the others here, but not you. This is not law against the press printing a name as long as we came about it by legal means – which we did. The laws that exist *MAY* prevent the agency from releasing them – *MAY* – we never found out the answer to that question.

  21. David M. Greenwald

    “If you serve the public, you should be accountable to the public. The Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights protects your personnel records and discipline records, not your name tag.”

    Thank you Phil and amen.

    And guys, that is from a retired Davis Police Chief.

  22. 91 Octane

    bockrath: “The answer is a resounding YES!
    So where is the threat? The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizen’s right to protest. Always has, always will.
    91 Octane needs to go try life in Syria for a while.”

    I’m well aware of what the first amendment says and its implications. Apparently you are not. Otherwise, you would recognize why threats don’t count as protected speech. There is a difference between speech that is intended to persuade vs speech intended to incite. Threats against others whether they are a cop or not arent protected. Nice try thou.

  23. 91 Octane

    and as for the vanguard’s excuses:

    whether they have a legal right to release the name? Lets assume for arguments sake that it does, and technically speaking it was “public record” (though no one had really paid much attention till now.)

    what was the vanuard’s purpose in releasing the name? why is it so important that we know who and his identity is drawn attention to?

    I can think of only one (or two) reasons and that is because the vanguard is a malicious individual

  24. 91 Octane

    but if the vanguard thinks it is so important to release the name fine, but don’t bullsh*** us in the next breath and say you are concerned about the officer’s saftey, when clearly you are not. We aren’t that stupid.

  25. David M. Greenwald

    “I can think of only one (or two) reasons and that is because the vanguard is a malicious individual “

    I would caution you that this is at least approaching libel. You are welcome to disagree with the decision to publish this, you are not welcome to call me or anyone else a malicious individual on this site.

    I told you the reasons why we decided to do it in the article, they really are not going to change each time someone asks the same question repeatedly.

  26. JustSaying

    [quote]“I expect this kind of contorted thinking by the others here, but not you. This is not law against the press printing a name [u]*as long as we came about it by legal means[/u]….”[/quote]You’ve never given me credit for non-contorted thinking before, thank you. I expected you’d read my whole post–the way you want us to read your complete stories before we go get all weird.

    I simply acknowledged that an editor could have considered “two reasons to have decided not to run this story.” Neither is legitimate, I tried to say, as I supported your decision to publish.

    I forgot to compliment you on the slick way you phrased your public records request (“copy of all previous requests and the university’s response to them”).

    ———-
    *Now, I’m obligated to question your suggestion that coming about information “by legal means” has anything to do with this issue. I’ll bet Elaine would agree that the state couldn’t keep the press from publishing information regardless of how it might be obtained. See [i]New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)[/i].

  27. David M. Greenwald

    “but if the vanguard thinks it is so important to release the name fine, but don’t bullsh*** us in the next breath and say you are concerned about the officer’s saftey, when clearly you are not. We aren’t that stupid.”

    That’s not exactly what I said, now is it?

    What I actually wrote this morning:

    “It is our purpose and hope that this disclosure does not subject Officer Lee to any sort of harassment or threat. He seems well-protected within the department as it is, and with the passage of more than four months since the incident, cooler heads should prevail.”

    Bottom line is this:

    1. We believe that the public has the RIGHT to know the identity of the officer, we can point to case law on this, we can point to Coleman’s argument that the PC protects personnel files not name tags

    2. As we mentioned the passage of time reduces any real risk.

    3. As we mentioned obtaining the identity is one thing and was quite difficult, finding his whereabouts seems near impossible.

    In short, it’s a simple balancing test and we believe the right of the public to know outweighs the risk to the officer.

  28. David M. Greenwald

    Just Saying:

    “Now, I’m obligated to question your suggestion that coming about information “by legal means” has anything to do with this issue. I’ll bet Elaine would agree that the state couldn’t keep the press from publishing information regardless of how it might be obtained”

    I agree with you that the state cannot keep the press from publishing information regardless of how it might be obtained. However, it makes it cleaner from the moral standpoint to argue that the information was actually publicly available and legally obtained.

    I’ve used the technique in PRA before to good effect. The city once sent a response to a public records request reminding me that public records requests were themselves subject to the public record act, so of course I promptly filed for all public records requests. I’m sure this is where I got the reputation that HPIERCE often alludes to.

  29. Ryan Kelly

    [quote]In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.[/quote]

    The student’s chants did none of these things. The chant by seated protestors, “If you let them go, we’ll let you leave” could be interpreted any number of ways but not as slander, not obscenity, nor an incitement to commit a crime. 91 Octane’s complaint about this “threat” wasn’t prosecuted is unfounded and, well, whiny.

    Why don’t we all read the Investigation Reports and recommendations to clarify who did what, when, and why and see what the recommendations are? Oh, because the police officers don’t want us to.

  30. Jane

    I am really enjoying the fantasy world being generated by a handful of commenters here. Here is the fantasy: UCPD riot cops are at risk of physical harm from campus protestors and their supporters. Hilarious counterfactuals ftw!

    But of course like all fantasies this doesn’t just serve to stimulate a certain kind of bootlicker, but to conceal the actual situation. It is a perfect inversion of the facts, reality, empirical record, all that good stuff: the only record of physical harm during campus protests at UCD is that meted out by the cops to the protestors. Repeat: only. The chance that someone injured during a protest is a protestor injured by a cop: 100%. The cops can’t even get a conviction for resisting arrest from incredibly sympathetic Yolo County juries. It’s sort of pathetic, really, except for the actual injured humans.

    So you can keep expressing your concern for the safety of cops here from the threat of protestors; I’m sure it helps you, somehow. But it has nothing to do with reality, and in your hysterical indulgence of this fantasy, you are revealing far more about yourself than about the world. Have at it, bootlickers!

  31. Anne

    Good investigative work Vanguard. As taxpayers, as member of the public we have a right to know the names of the “peace” officers who chose to use pepper spray on students who were exercising their rights.

    The students were not armed. The officers were.

    I believe you are concerned for the well being of all parties and concerned with getting the report released. For someone on the blog to say that you are not concerned with the officers well beings just because you included his name in your story is simply foolish.

  32. Ryan Kelly

    [quote]but if the vanguard thinks it is so important to release the name fine, but don’t bullsh*** us in the next breath and say you are concerned about the officer’s saftey, when clearly you are not. We aren’t that stupid.[/quote]

    @91 – But the picture and the name of the officer has been available on the Davis Wiki for some time now. Any true Wiki-savy Davisite has had access to this information and known the identity of the officer for quite awhile. For the media to keep referring to the officer as the “2nd officer,” was a little silly, but no one said anything. But, because we are not allowed to read the full report by the Union because they want the officers identity redacted, it was time to stop the charade that we don’t know who the officer is.

  33. 91 Octane

    vanguard: “I would caution you that this is at least approaching liable. You are welcome to disagree with the decision to publish this, you are not welcome to call me or anyone else a malicious individual on this site.”

    that charge is quite the irony considering the contents and implications of this article.

  34. David M. Greenwald

    You obviously do not know what libel means: “A published [u][b]false [/b][/u]statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”

    Key word is false. Please show me which statement is false.

  35. Rik Seyman

    I am IRKED, to put it civilly, by the focus of this article, and by most of the rest of the media coverage, upon what the University is doing or not doing about the cops– as if that were the most crucial aspect of the entire chain of events. It is not– unless you have suffered amnesia about the original purpose of the protests– an amnesia the University would like to see spread as widely as possible.

    The protests were not about the right to peacefully protest. ???
    They were about the University’s actions– raising tuition by 3000% over the last 30 years. If that gets lost, covering the aftermath amounts to little more than good, ole info-tainment journalism. Go interview the Chancellor and find what she is doing (and be specific on this point) DIFFERENT from what she has done in the past to get the State to come up with more money for UC. That is the real story– the one with the larger policy implications.

  36. Anne

    Having read the Vanguard for some time I see that you are a big supporter of free speech, freedom of information and civil rights. So even of it was a group that espoused unpopular views (non violent) and protested peacefully you would still write the article as you have with the group of students.

    Keep up the good work David. Those that disagree with you log on to read and debate with you daily.

  37. 91 Octane

    the vanguard gave four bullet points, and in those bullets it simply argues for the public’s “right to know.”

    it doesn’t say why the public NEEDS TO KNOW. Why was it so important to draw attention to his name? So far the vanaguard has not addressed that.

  38. 91 Octane

    ryan, the wiki claim is a total cop out. many people don’t view wiki, and the vanguard just helped push the information along which you admit was largely not available.

    I’m not addressing the rest of the posts which mostly amount to the usual pro – protest left wing drivel.

  39. Robin W

    Rik – I beg to differ. The issue of tuition increases is one story, but far from the only story. It does not require us to ignore that those in power attempted to stiffle peaceful protest through use of violence on the protestors. It also does not require us to ignore attempts to bury a report on this violence by trying to paint those who perpetrated the violence as victims.

    Elaine — Citing Wikipedia as legal support? Seriously?

    @91 — You do not need to state your position 50 times in regard to each article David writes. Once per article is more than enough.

    David — Good investogative follow through. Thanks for the excellent work.

  40. David M. Greenwald

    Octane:

    It’s called open government. It’s called transparency. It’s called accountability. I’d even suggest that it is justice. It’s the raison d’etre of the Vanguard. If you don’t get that, you haven’t been paying much attention these last six years.

  41. civil discourse

    91 Octane: “ryan, the wiki claim is a total cop out. many people don’t view wiki, and the vanguard just helped push the information along which you admit was largely not available.”

    No it isn’t. It was on the front page for months. There are more people reading that than the 20 or so people here. I think most thought it was already known.

    I say: who cares? The picture of his name tag on his uniform has been out there for months. So now we have “confirmation that A. Lee does exist” and that he was on duty that day. I don’t think this was the result of a months long investigation, with the weight of public vs. private knowledge weighing heavily on the back of the investigator.

    More like: “huh, this photo has been out for months, someone named Ryan Kelley has been mentioning it on this blog for a while, maybe I should see if this guy exists”

    Viola!

  42. 91 Octane

    It’s called open government. It’s called transparency. It’s called accountability. I’d even suggest that it is justice. It’s the raison d’etre of the Vanguard. If you don’t get that, you haven’t been paying much attention these last six years.

    No, it is was and always been THE VANGUARDS DEFINITION of open govt, trasparency, and accountability, and justice. We have a right to know when it suits the political desires of the vanguard. When it doesn’t, its called “the right to privacy”, the freedom of speech, yada yada. and yes, that has been how it has been since the vanguard’s inception.

  43. civil discourse

    “There are more people reading that than the 20 or so people here.”

    >You do realize more people read this site than post?

    Oops, my bad. Well, I overstepped a little. The wiki does have 2958 registered users however, which is quite a few. That doesn’t count the anonymous comments or posts, which is allowed on that site.

    Generally speaking, I think many UC Davis student know about the wiki before they learn about the Vanguard, on account of the burrito reviews.

    I think it is blissfully ignorant to claim that information on the wiki is somehow hidden from view. Google “UC Davis Pepper Spray 2nd Officer” and it is the 5th response. Not exactly hidden, unless one considers anything except the top google hit as hidden.

  44. David M. Greenwald

    It’s hard to compete with burrito reviews. We actually last I checked had 1300 registered users, though our daily readership is well over that.

    That said, I think it is noteworthy that even UC did not realize that the pictures were on the Davis Wiki and learned of them with our article – for whatever that is worth.

    As High Beam told me today, she knew about the picture but it slipped out of her mind and I’m sure many others as well.

  45. Phil Coleman

    A couple of relevant points not yet posed. The Wiki post has been in existence for quite some time. Anybody wonder why the police union attorney has not written a cease-and-desist order to remove that photo from the website?

    The second point involves the civil suit on the alleged improper actions by various components of the University. Let’s conceptually follow the route of this civil suit and see if officer identities have a chance of remaining concealed.

    Plaintiffs will use the power of subpoena and deposition to find all the information they need. A police duty roster is subpoenaed and all the named employees are subpoenaed and deposed under oath. Under penalty of perjury probing questions from a skilled cross-examiner are asked on “who did what and when?” Pictures from the event (there must be scores of them) are presented to the witness employees and they are told to identify themselves and fellow employees.

    Everybody on scene would be eventually identified, and everybody’s performance would be recorded and summarized. Plaintiff attorneys probably have much of this information already, from supportive bystanders, and quite possibly police personnel.

  46. Anne

    91 octane, If you have such hate for the Vanguard then why do you read it and comment? I’m most certain there are many online media sources that have your views. I can imagine you blood pressure rising as you read. Take a deep breath.

  47. davisite4

    According to this page ([url]http://localwiki.org/first_year/[/url]), “During the week of the [pepper spraying] event, over 25,000 people visited pages on DavisWiki related to the pepperspraying, and the page about the event was edited over 700 times by over 100 different residents.”

  48. medwoman

    “‘m well aware of what the first amendment says and its implications. Apparently you are not. Otherwise, you would recognize why threats don’t count as protected speech. There is a difference between speech that is intended to persuade vs speech intended to incite. Threats against others whether they are a cop or not arent protected. Nice try thou.

    And what speech do you think was “intended to incite”. There were clearly not enough protesters present, even if you were to count those who clearly were observing only, to effectively detain the police on the quad.So incitement to detain the police was clearly not realistic. You might make the argument that this chant was an attempt to persuade the police to not arrest protesters, in which case it would be constitutional But a credible threat ? Hardly .

  49. davisite4

    The Enterprise has now (finally) picked up on this: link ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/ucd-wont-name-second-pepper-spray-officer/[/url]).

    However, they have posted their own photo, clearly showing the nametag of “A. Lee” on the “second officer.” So, they’ve known for a long time that the second officer was A. Lee, and yet did nothing about it, until (apparently) you forced their hand. Good job.

  50. JustSaying

    I read this on a website this evening:[quote]“UC mentioned the posting of A. Lee’s name by a blogger in a brief filed with the court on Tuesday. Drown said that a name being posted online ‘does not change our calculus’ about making it public.”[/quote]I’m not at liberty to mention the name of the website since it chose to redact the name of the “blogger” whose actions today paved the way for their own story (which they’ve been sitting on for God-knows-how-long.

    davisite4 was able to elucidate and correct the record through his posts on both of the unnamed media outlets tonight.

  51. David M. Greenwald

    JustSaying,

    I didn’t get the point of that websites article.

    I also find it interesting tension between the campus council and the UC general counsels position. Although I think they are dealing with different laws. In one case the PRA and the other pc 827

  52. JustSaying

    [quote]“‘Lt. Pike was the subject of horrendous, terribly threatening messages, to the extent that he had to change his personal circumstance in response to the extraordinary harassment,” (UCD Campus Counsel Steve) Drown said. ‘We made a judgment that (under the California) Public Records Act the public interest in preventing the harassment of this officer outweighed the public interest in knowing his individual identity.’

    ‘John Bakhit, an Upland attorney representing the union, told the judge that Pike received more than 10,000 text, voice and email messages per week after the incident, some of which were threatening, after hackers posted Pike’s personal information online’.”[/quote]Here is more information from the aforementioned website.

    Most anyone can tell that Lt. Pike’s situation was a “perfect storm,” one that wasn’t repeated when UCD named Chief Annette Spicuzza and won’t happen again when they release Alexander Lee’s name. The “text, voice and email messages” got fired off in response to the high-quality, unique video of a surprising action by Lt. Pike. Disclosure of his name and other information was part of the initial reporting.

    Concern about Chief Spicuzza and Officer Lee was minimal compared to the compelling video coverage of Lt. Pike’s actions.

    That Lt. Pike needed to “change his personal circumstances” (change phone numbers and email addresses) to avoid nasty messages from around the world.should not surprise anyone, given the video’s spread.

    To equate Officer Lee’s situation and potential safety concerns with Lt. Pike’s exposure and what followed is a little strange. No one cares. Release the report.

  53. JustSaying

    [quote]“In response to reporter requests dating from the days after the incident, campus officials have refused not just to name the officer, but also have refused to say on the record why they would not do so. UCD did comply with a public records request for UCD Police Department duty rosters, but blocked out the names of officers.”[/quote]I wonder if someone screwed up when they gave you the unredacted duty rosters, David.

    I think [s]Debbie[/s] the other website must have agonized over the decision tonight. If they didn’t know about Officer Lee, they look incompetent and foolish. If they did know and couldn’t come up with a story to get it to their readers, they look foolish and incompetent.

    Either way, might as well get it out as quickly as they could after you published to avoid looking too incompetent and foolish. Even if Cory Golden had to squeeze in your credit in such an awkward manner: “UC mentioned the posting of A. Lee’s name by a blogger….” Good for a laugh, I’d say.

  54. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]The Vanguard didn’t. We legally obtained the information, it was publicly available, we followed up using legal means, we have the right to do that under the constitution.
    [/quote]

    Just because you can doesn’t mean you should…

  55. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Elaine — Citing Wikipedia as legal support? Seriously? [/quote]

    The law is the law… is there anything I cited on wikipedia that is incorrect? I think not…

  56. davisite4

    [quote]If you find UCD police officers pulling another “USB” by refusing to act, thank the Vanguard…[/quote]

    Riiiiiiiight. It’s the Vanguard’s fault for reporting on the public actions of our public “defenders.” Police should be allowed to pepper spray students anonymously without having to take responsibility for their actions. We’ll all be much safer that way.

    ????

  57. medwoman

    Elaine

    Several of your posts lead me to believe that you hold the protesters responsible for their actions, but that the police are somehow not to be held accountable for their actions but somehow the protesters, and now David are responsible for the actions of the police. I cannot believe that is truly your position. Can you clarify your comments ?

  58. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Several of your posts lead me to believe that you hold the protesters responsible for their actions, but that the police are somehow not to be held accountable for their actions but somehow the protesters, and now David are responsible for the actions of the police. I cannot believe that is truly your position. Can you clarify your comments ?[/quote]

    Sure, I can clarify.

    I hold all to blame in the protests – students (got carried away and said and did things they shouldn’t), university (did not present a unified front nor coordinate properly with their own police force), university police (the pepper spraying was over the top). However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the university and the university police are gun shy, hesitant to do anything – bc 6 officers are under fire and may be disciplined; Chancellor Katehi doesn’t know at this point if she is going to hold on to her job. So rather than take a chance, the university/university police are choosing inaction. The USB debacle is proof positive that this is the case.

    What I don’t know is if the inaction is purposeful or situational. Police officers have been known to refuse to act when complaints are lodged against them for being too tough – almost like a “work stoppage” in defiance of public complaints. It may be the reason the university/university police failed to act in the USB debacle. “Accuse me of too much force, then I’ll show you, by letting you stew in your own juices without the university interfering/offering protection for a little while! See how you like that!” This is pure speculation on my part, but it has been known to happen, and not all that infrequently.

    It would seem to me the more logical thing to have done was to stay calm, wait for Reynoso’s report to come out, and see what changes in policy are recommended. Give the university the opportunity to implement appropriate change. Instead, the ACLU and the Vanguard have poured more fuel on the fire to further their own agendas, at the expense of the safety of the police officers and the public. I see nothing to be gained from fanning the flames, when a little patience would yield the same/perhaps better results. I hope that explains my position…

  59. civil discourse

    Elaine, really. Give the University the opportunity to implement appropriate change before reporting on the incident?

    How much time would you give them? How many committees need to be formed, and reports to come out? How much money has to be thrown at this problem and the public relations surrounding it?

    Should the use of military grade pepper spray in ways it was never intended be excused? Should students on a public campus where they pay to be in a safe environment be abused by those entrusted with their very safety? What exactly was the threat those in power felt needed to be subjugated that day? At what point does an authority get to decide that authority itself is more important than nonviolence?

    Do you honestly believe that any “policy” could be implemented by those that brought this upon their very own students? Is that justice enough for those abused?

    It is only through the efforts of everybody- including the Vanguard- that we will collectively as tax paying citizens see the way forward and press for it. If you believe the Vanguard has an agenda, believe me, it is nothing compared to the agenda of those in power.

  60. Edgar Wai

    I have been following Davis Wiki since November. I knew of the second officer’s Initial and Last Name as well as his suspected full name. However, from my perspective, his name was irrelevant. Given that the reaction by the public was not a rational discussion but a form of bullying, I found it unfortunate that Pike’s name was known. No one could predict the consequence of social persecution, which could include death at its worst.The victim of this social persecution might not be those directly involved. It could be a relative or a friend.

    It would have been honorable for the officers to waive their protection and just disclose what they did. But the reaction of the public did not promote this conduct. Every communication from the Admin or the Police was dismissed as excused and annotated as lies. That was the environment back in November and December. Because the public didn’t behave itself, I would forgive the officers for their reluctance in disclosing their names.

    I don’t need to know their names to understand the report. They might as well be named JohnDoe1 and JohnDoe2. I have this stance because I have no intention to punish anyone. If you believe that the cause of Nov18 Pepper Spray lied in an inappropriate or inadequately understood protocol in dealing with non-violent protest, then you should understand that the names of the officer are irrelevant to the solution.

    I am not making a direct comment on whether Vanguard should disclose the full name of the second officer. All I know is according to the article, UC Davis is already addressing the Police Union’s concern to remove the name. The report is scheduled to be release in the first or second week of April. With no other foreseeable delay, that is good enough for me. Even with a delay, I don’t see what the hurry is.

    The clock is set by the protesters, if there is no protest, there is no deadline, because whatever protocol recommended would never be executed if there is no protest. If the concern is about wasting effort on law enforcement, we should discuss what alternative tactics Occupy should use. At this moment, there is nothing stopping us from discussing that other than the lack of a medium or the lack of intention from Occupy to have such discussion publicly.

    If this problem persists, the solution is for the general public to address Occupy’s concerns through discussion and beat Occupy to a solution. This means that we should start discussing and solving the tuition and other issues so that there is nothing for Occupy to protest.

    On Mar1 ([url]http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/messages/2012/nominations_study_group_030112.html[/url]), UC Davis asked for nominations for the study group on accessibility and affordability. As I have no expertise in that area, I cannot join that study group. The chancellor had initiated similar discussion like this ever since 2009 (started at UC Davis SmartSite/Sakai). I do not know whether Occupy (student members or faculty members) were actively involved in these discussions. According to UC Davis, students were involved in the decision to have a business contract with US Bank. Where was Occupy when those students took the time to find solutions to help solve the budget crisis? If Occupy sincerely believe that the contract with US Bank was a bad decision, Occupy should participate in the study group.

    This news should be publicized because protests should be last resorts compared to discussion. If we publicize this study group now, a future protest on the tuition should only exist if the study group is dysfunctional. The first line of defense against protest is not police protocol, it is the culture of problem solving by discussions.

    Does anyone know where in the community are people discussing that, where a layperson like myself could ask questions?

  61. medwoman

    “What I don’t know is if the inaction is purposeful or situational. Police officers have been known to refuse to act when complaints are lodged against them for being too tough – almost like a “work stoppage” in defiance of public complaints. It may be the reason the university/university police failed to act in the USB debacle. “Accuse me of too much force, then I’ll show you, by letting you stew in your own juices without the university interfering/offering protection for a little while! See how you like that!” This is pure speculation on my part, but it has been known to happen, and not all that infrequently.

    If police were indeed refusing to protect the public because of negative repercussions of the pepper spray incident, this would seem to me to be totally unconscionable. This would not be the responsibility of any agency other than those making the decision to just plain not do the job they are paid to do, regardless of motive. If any police officer refuses to do his job, that is his responsibility alone, not the responsibility of the Vanguard or the protesters or any other media. One cannot expect individual responsibility on one side ( that of the protesters as in accepting arrest as a consequence of their actions) and then not hold the police responsible as individuals, and as a group given their command structure ,
    For their actions. Is it not a basic tenet of our society that each individual adult is responsible for their own actions ?

  62. Edgar Wai

    I forgot to mention an important converse:

    If the community as a whole cannot resolve the tuition issue through public discussion or other alternative, then that is a running proof that Occupy was necessary (the last resort) to effect progress. Please note that this understanding gives Occupy an incentive to disrupt any constructive discussion in order to justify their effort. Therefore, the constructive discussion would have to occur [i]despite[/i] potential intentional disruption.

    Intentional disruption of constructive discussions is unethical, although this is the tactic of Occupy according to their official commentary ([url]http://occupyucdavis.org/op-eds/where-i-think-occupy-stands/[/url]):

    [i]”Protesting with CalPIRG is protesting a system that is allowing you to protest with CalPIRG in the first place. As great as CalPIRG may be, that’s not a real protest at all. Let me make this very clear: the institutions you’re protesting should not like that you’re protesting them. If you’re doing it right, those institutions should hate your protests.”[/i]

    Occupy took a stance beyond the discussion and legal protest stages. They are in the illegal protest stage, also known as civil disobedience, but without the historical absence of a discussion medium. The tactic, as it is currently carried out, let Occupy take credit for any positive outcome, and dismiss any negative outcome as a necessary sacrifice to effect positive outcome.

    For the community, it is honorable to focus on solving the issues and forget about where credit is due or whom to punish. The community may not be able to dismiss Occupy’s claim that they are the cause of positive outcomes, but the culture of discussion survives, then Occupy will have no reason to exist again in the future. This is the cure.

    The most desirable outcome is that Occupy takes the lead to host the discussions and return to the discussion stage because they are directly affected by the tuition hikes. Occupy should take this opportunity when they still can to reclaim their credit. If Occupy does not then the community should take the lead. If that succeeds it will be too late for Occupy to reclaim. Occupy should take the lead before the community catches up.

  63. medwoman

    EW

    “The most desirable outcome is that Occupy takes the lead to host the discussions and return to the discussion stage because they are directly affected by the tuition hikes. Occupy should take this opportunity when they still can to reclaim their credit. If Occupy does not then the community should take the lead. If that succeeds it will be too late for Occupy to reclaim. Occupy should take the lead before the community catches up.”

    I also would very much favor this outcome. However, I see a number of obstacles to its successful implementation:
    1) The inexperience and lack of insider knowledge and influence of the occupiers
    2) The relative disdain with which the occupiers are viewed by those wielding authority. To support this, witness the actions of those in power, not
    their words.
    3) What would be honorable on the part of the community, namely, focusing on solving the problem, rather than assigning blame is extremely
    unlikely to occur in our highly adversarial society in which ideas are frequently not judged on their merit, but rather by who is proposing the
    idea

  64. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]I don’t need to know their names to understand the report. They might as well be named JohnDoe1 and JohnDoe2. I have this stance because I have no intention to punish anyone. If you believe that the cause of Nov18 Pepper Spray lied in an inappropriate or inadequately understood protocol in dealing with non-violent protest, then you should understand that the names of the officer are irrelevant to the solution.

    I am not making a direct comment on whether Vanguard should disclose the full name of the second officer. All I know is according to the article, UC Davis is already addressing the Police Union’s concern to remove the name. The report is scheduled to be release in the first or second week of April. With no other foreseeable delay, that is good enough for me. Even with a delay, I don’t see what the hurry is. [/quote]

    Well said!

  65. roger bockrath

    91 Octane 03/27/12 12:48 P.M. wrote,

    [i]I’m well aware of what the first amendment says and its implications. Apparently you are not. Otherwise, you would recognize why threats don’t count as protected speech. There is a difference between speech that is intended to persuade vs speech intended to incite. Threats against others whether they are a cop or not arent protected. Nice try thou.” [/i]

    The folks who were peacefully seated , arms linked, across the side walk when they were assaulted by UCD Cops were not threatening anybody. They were bent over, heads down,hands covering faces, trying desperately to avoid a trip the the emergency room.

    Weather Octane(real name withheld) likes it or not, UCD police officers, and perhaps officials who may or may not have ordered the attack, were violating their right to peacefully protest and grossly violating Calif. P.C. 149 which prohibits violating peoples civil rights under color of authority.They need to be identified and prosecuted.

    Any public employee who does not like seeing their name in the news for violating peoples civil rights might want to consider not violating peoples civil rights.

  66. AdRemmer

    PC opined thusly: [quote]No public servant should be shielded from identification for what they say and do. [/quote]

    Ergo, YOUR background is fair-game, huh “Teddy?”

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for