NYT wrote: To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent. “I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview. Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person. In New York, for example, a police commander who sprayed several women in an Occupy demonstration last month faced disciplinary proceedings. The New York Police Department says pepper spray should be used chiefly for self-defense or to control suspects who are resisting arrest.

 

I am referring to a lot of MLK's protesting in the southern (highly segregated) United States during the 1960's. He greatly stressed nonviolence to make the racist whites look like animals when they attacked and beat the blacks on camera, so that the rest of the country would see it on the news. They didn't result in a non violent arrest by the police, it resulted in dogs, beatings, National Guard, and fire extinguishers. 

And going hands on with someone is not a good idea when you are outnumbered that badly. Even non violent protests have the chance of becoming violent, more than likely at a perceived unjustified use of force. 6 on one is often viewed as excessive, even when that is the safest method for both the cops involved and the suspect. There is actually something in "hurting themselves".

I'm fairly sure those cops acted professionally. From all the video footage I've seen there were plenty of warnings given, even specific warnings as to the deployment of gas.

Don't wanna get gassed? Move. 

I'm also fairly sure they could see the cameras and they didn't want to be video taped roughing up non violent protestors. Honestly? tear gas was probably the best weapon they had avilable to them. They should have used a water cannon to break the chain. Then haul the individuals off to jail.

I still haven't seen anyone say why the cops shouldn't have moved them. I've seen some vague references to rights to assemble and rights to protest. I have not seen anyone say Because of X in document Y and paragraph Z because they were on property owned by A then they had to do S. It's just they should have left people to protest 'cos this is Amurica!

KBK

The students were engaged in active resistance. OC was excessive force by far. OC is saved for people who are becoming combative. 

Linus wrote: (Whether or not compliance had to be gained in the first place is not the issue at hand)

She was asked/ordered to leave the bus, and refused to comply. The police cuffed her and took her for a ride in a police car. Resulting in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, resulting in more fair treatment for blacks in the area.  

SSOK wrote: As a trained EMT, I would expect you to not advocate excessive use of force.

Paramedic, not EMT.

Second, I don't advocate excessive force, you and I just have differing opinions on what excessive force truly is.

I guess I wont argue that. I still stand by my belief that the police on hand could have handled the situation with less chemicals. Inevitably, they should have known that whiney college kids were looking for the police to escalate the situation. You can't tell me that if they cuffed and processed a good number of them that the whole situation would have blown over and we wouldn't be talking about this.

I wouldn't. 

That seems to not be connecting well in our conversation. 

I've seen this opinion presented (Typically by trolls, but occasionally by actual people) across various Internet boards following the Seattle, UC Davis, and NYC incidents. 

It has oft come across as a simplistically authoritarian opinion coming from an equally simplistic mind. This appears to be no exception. 

I wouldn't. 

That seems to not be connecting well in our conversation. 

If my job required something that I found to be egregiously unethical, correct, I would not hold that position beyond that unethical order. 

Perhaps I'm strange in that thinking. 

Granted, I completely understand that some people's line of ethics will be drastically different than mine. I just like to think not many people's line of ethics is such that it's acceptable to spray sitting and non-violent protestors with pepper spray. That's not the case, though. 

Have you ever taken an Ethics class in a College (or even Highschool) setting?

Would you have arrested them at all, or is your general complaint strictly with the use of OC?

A lawn is private property. 

Is this being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse about the social and legal ramification of the differences between private property and public property? 

It's a much more complex argument than is being presented by comparing a private lawn on private property to the land on a public university. 

Especially because of the various lawsuits and challenges to "free speech zones" on public universities, which often vary from state to state. 

I'm completely aware that the government is able to maintain public property, but I also am aware of the rationale behind having public land in the first place, as well as the rationale behind associating certain rights of speech to those parcels of land. 

The situation of someone's private lawn does not carry those same complexities. And therefore is simply not a very applicable analogy. 

My concern was, and is, that the threshold for use of chemical sprays could be lowered, particularly if the threshold was, as you put it, "We don't know if they're armed or not." 

Agreed, Rosa Parks was about unjust laws.  This is about excessive force.  

agentwhale007 wrote: Linus wrote: (Whether or not compliance had to be gained in the first place is not the issue at hand) Au contrare. It's the catalyst of the whole reason I disagree with the situation.

So we go back: How would you have forced compliance on the non-compliant, considering that was their job?

Get 4 or 5 of my police buddies that are standing around watching, pull someone off the end, cuff em, repeat. 

SSOK wrote: As a trained EMT, I would expect you to not advocate excessive use of force.

Paramedic, not EMT.

Second, I don't advocate excessive force, you and I just have differing opinions on what excessive force truly is.

evillepaintball wrote: Linus, these people were not on PCP and you can't treat everyone as if they were.

First, I did not say they were. Second, I added in the fact that the one I wrestled WAS on PCP for a specific reason. Third, and anyone in this field can tell you, ANYONE can hurt you, at ANY time, regardless of their size compared to yours and their mental capacity.

You used an example of a man on PCP to justify the actions against people who were not under the influence of drugs.  PCP Guy has no relevance to this discussion.  


People have bad views about pepper spray and Tasers simply because they cause temporary pain. Get over it. It, of ALL the options they had to force compliance, was the least likely to cause any actual harm to those involved.   They're being lambasted for causing someone to cry. That's stupid. There are bigger issues to be had than tears. Get some baby shampoo, take a shower, and be done with it.

That's an interesting litmus test for excessive force. 

I'll respectfully disagree, however.