You are viewing bradhicks

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Brad @ Burning Man
You know how every time somebody in law enforcement does something that looks bad, we're told that we should "wait until the facts are in" before passing judgment? Well, after Lieutenant Pike of the UC Davis Police Department became an internet meme by using high-pressure pepper-spray on peaceful resisters, the campus hired an independent consulting firm to interview everybody they could find, review all the videos and other evidence, review the relevant policies and laws, and issue a final fact-finding report to the university. The university just released that report, along with their summary (PDF link), and the final report is even worse than the news accounts made it seem.

You probably weren't aware that the protesters warned the university that they were going to be protesting two weeks in advance, were you? The campus, and campus police, had two weeks' notice to plan for this, and yes, on day one, one question they addressed was, "What if the protesters set up an Occupy encampment?" Two weeks in advance they planned, well, if they do that, then we'll send in police to remove the tents, and to arrest anybody who tries to stop them. Now, under California law, when planning an operation like this, there's a checklist they're supposed to follow when writing the operational plan, specifically to make sure that they don't forget something important. Had they done so? They would have avoided all four of the important steps they screwed up. When asked about it? Nobody involved was even aware that that checklist existed.

The most important thing that the checklist would have warned them about was do not screw up the chain of command. Let me make clear who was in the chain of command. Under normal circumstances, it runs from university Chancellor Katehi, to campus police Chief Spicuzza, to campus police Lieutenant Davis, to his officers, including one I'll call Officer Nameless. (The report refers to him by a code letter.) Once the cops arrive on the scene, there's supposed to be one and only one person in a position to give orders to the other officers on the scene, including any higher-ups who are there (if any). Officer Nameless, who wrote the plan, was put in charge of the scene by Lt. Pike. By law, the officer in charge of the scene is not supposed to get directly involved. He or she (in this case, he) is supposed to stand back where he can see the whole scene, and concentrate on giving orders, and everybody else is supposed to refrain from giving orders. Officer Nameless instead ignored his responsibilities, and waded in, and so did Lt. Pike; Chief Spicuzza sat in her car half a block away, communicating with the radio dispatcher by cell phone, and at one time or another, all three of them, Officer Nameless and Lieutenant Pike and Chief Spicuzza were yelling out contradictory orders.

But before it even came to that point, the student protesters had, with the help of Legal Services, gone over all the relevant state laws, city ordinances, campus ordinances, and campus regulations and concluded that no matter what the Chancellor thought, it was entirely legal for them to set up that camp. When the university's legal department found out that Chancellor Katehi was going to order the camp removed, they thought they made it clear to her that the students were right.

I kept having to stop and slap my forehead over that one repeated phrase in the report: (this person or that) was under the impression she had made it clear that (some order was given), but nobody else present had that impression. Anybody who is "under the impression that they made it clear" that some order was given who who didn't put it in writing and who hasn't had that order paraphrased back to them? Should be slapped. Or at the very least demoted. Unless you actually said it, you didn't "make it clear."

It turns out that it is illegal for anybody to lodge on the campus without permission, but the relevant law only applies to people trying to make it their permanent dwelling. The law prohibits non-students from camping on campus for any reason, but neither student affairs nor the one cop sent to look could find any non-students who were there overnight. A campus regulation says that students can't set up tents without permission, but that regulation is not enforceable by police, only by academic discipline. Campus legal "thought they made it clear" that the law was on the students' side, but according to multiple witnesses, what they actually said was "it is unclear that you have legal authority to order the police to do this" and Chancellor Katehi heard that as "well, they didn't say I don't have that authority, only that it's not clear."

Chancellor Katehi, on her part, "thought she made it clear" that when police ordered the students to leave, they were (a) not to wear riot gear into the camp, (b) not to carry weapons of any kind into the camp, (c) were not to use force of any kind against the students, and (d) were not to make any arrests. But all that anybody else on that conference call heard her say out loud was "I don't want another situation like they just had at Berkeley," and Chief Spicuzza interpreted that as "no swinging of clubs."

Chief Spicuzza "thought she made it clear" more than once that no riot gear was to be worn and no clubs or pepper sprayers were to be carried. What Lieutenant Pike said back to her, each time, was, "Well, I hear you say that you don't want us to, but we're going to." And they did, including that now-infamous Mk-9 military-grade riot-control pepper sprayer that he used. Oh, funny thing about that particular model of pepper-sprayer? It's illegal for California cops to possess or use. It turns out that the relevant law only permits the use of up to Mk-4 pepper sprayers. The consultants were unable to find out who authorized the purchase and carrying, but every cop they asked said, "So what? It's just like the Mk-4 except that it has a higher capacity." Uh, no. It's also much, much higher pressure, and specifically designed not to be sprayed directly at any one person, only at crowds, and only from at least six feet away. The manufacturer says so. The person in charge of training California police in pepper spray says that as far as he knows, no California cop has ever received training, from his office or from the manufacturer, in how to safely use a Mk-9 sprayer, presumably because it's illegal. But Officer Nameless, when he wrote the action plan for these arrests, included all pepper-spray equipment in the equipment list, both the paint-ball rifle pepper balls and the Mk-9 riot-control sprayers.

The students set up their tents on a Thursday night. Chancellor Katehi ordered the cops to (a) only involve campus police, because she didn't trust the local cops not to be excessively brutal, and (b) get them out of here by 3 AM Thursday night. Chief Spicuzza had to tell her that that wasn't physically possible, they couldn't get enough backup officers from other UC campuses on that short notice, it was going to have to be Friday night at 3 AM. Chancellor Katehi said "no can do," that they had to be out of there before sunset Friday night, so that the camp wasn't joined by drunken and stoned Friday night partiers that would endanger the camp and even further endanger cops trying to deal with them -- arguably an entirely reasonable objection. So she ordered Chief Spicuzza to get them out of there by 3 PM Friday afternoon. Chief Spicuzza "was under the impression" (oh, look, there's that phrase again) that she made it clear to the Chancellor that for one thing, it couldn't be safely done, at 3:00 PM the protesters and passers-by would way outnumber her officers, and for another, it couldn't be legally done, because there was no way to legally arrest someone for "overnight camping" in the middle of the afternoon. Nobody else who was in that meeting thinks she made that clear, only that she made it clear that she didn't want to do it but couldn't explain why not. Still, when she gave the order to Lieutenant Pike, he very definitely did raise the same objections, clearly and unambiguously, backed up by multiple witnesses, who all agree that Chief Spicuzza told him, "This was decided above my level, do it anyway."

So, there's Lieutenant Pike. (Who, by the way, for obvious legal reasons since he's still being investigated by internal affairs and, last I heard, still being sued by his victims, refused to be interviewed by the consultants, so everything we know about his side of this comes from what he told other people and what he wrote in his reports.) As far as he's concerned, he's been given an illegal and impossible order: take 40 or so officers - unarmed and unarmored officers - into an angry crowd of 300 to 400 people who aren't doing anything illegal and make that crowd go away without using any force or getting any of your officers injured. For reasons Stanley Milgram could explain, it does not occur to Lieutenant Pike to disobey this order, so instead, he does the best he can, using his own judgement to decide which parts of his orders and which parts of the law to ignore. Unsurprisingly, it goes badly. Backed into a corner by an angry crowd (which has, by the way, demonstrably left him room to retreat, even with his prisoners, contrary to what he says in his report) that is confronting him with evidence that he is the law-breaker here, not them, he snaps. And rather than take it out on the more-powerful people who put him in this situation, he takes it out on the powerless and peaceful people in front of him, using a high-pressure hose to pump five gallons of capsacin spray into the eyes and mouths of the dozen or twenty people in front of him ... and he would have used more if he'd had it, he only stopped when he did, halfway through his third pass down the line, because the sprayer emptied. When he gets back to the station, Chief Spicuzza (who has no idea what's just happened) congratulates him in front of half the department for how well he just did. And now, as far as he's concerned, he's being hung out to dry. We're apparently supposed to ignore the fact that multiple video sources contradict almost everything about his after-incident report because apparently, in his opinion, he was only following orders.

This is not better than the initial media reports. This is worse. This is an epic textbook in official-violence failure.

Comments

( 118 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
nebris
Apr. 16th, 2012 02:40 am (UTC)
Sounds like a new Rule is in order: "Ignorant Authoritarianism is indistinguishable from overt Fascism."

~M~
(Anonymous)
Apr. 21st, 2012 07:43 pm (UTC)
And the next rule to follow would read something like, "ignorant protesters with small brains who have no clue what they are talking about..."
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Apr. 29th, 2012 09:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lumbarlaser - Dec. 28th, 2012 01:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
livejournal
Apr. 16th, 2012 02:50 am (UTC)
Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report
kimchalister
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:17 am (UTC)
Lack of communication is the root of most violence....
Sounds like a tragic version of the Keystone Kops with all those miscommunications.
jlindquist
Apr. 22nd, 2012 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Lack of communication is the root of most violence....
This "miscommunication" doesn't sound like incompetence. It doesn't even sound like recklessness. This was malicious.

They all pretended they didn't hear what they were told, so they could do what they wanted to do anyways.
livejournal
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:23 am (UTC)
that UC pepper spray incident
xiphias
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:39 am (UTC)
In all honesty, Officer Pike kinda has a point that he's been hung out to dry. While our society's method is to put the most blame on the person at the sharp end of the fuck-up, with less and less shit sticking on the people the higher up the chain of command you go, it SHOULD be the other way around. That level of screw-up and ignorance requires incompetence as far up the chain as you can climb. Sure, Officer Pike really DID have a responsibility to know what he was legally allowed and not allowed to do -- being issued a badge of ANY kind really comes with the responsibility to know what said badge does and does not cover -- but the people who gave him the badge had even MORE responsibility to make sure that the people they gave badges to know what they are and are not legally allowed to do.
theweaselking
Apr. 16th, 2012 12:59 pm (UTC)
If by "hung out to dry" you mean "he's the only one of many responsible people being held responsible", then yes.

If by "hung out to dry" you mean that his personal prosecution should in any way be even slightly less stringent and that he is being treated in a way that he should not be treated, then no.

The fact that he's the only guy being held responsible doesn't change that he's responsible. There just should also be other people being hanged with him.
(no subject) - xiphias - Apr. 16th, 2012 01:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Apr. 18th, 2012 07:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - xiphias - Apr. 19th, 2012 01:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 19th, 2012 04:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Apr. 20th, 2012 07:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - griffen - Apr. 18th, 2012 06:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dncingmalkavian - Apr. 18th, 2012 04:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
reverancepavane
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:52 am (UTC)
There is an old aphorism in the British military that goes along the lines of "the general breaks wind, the colonel makes a joke, the major dispatches a messenger, the captain assembles the troops, the lieutenant forms a firing squad, the sergeant says 'fire,' and the private pulls the trigger."

Consequences can get seriously out of control if communication at all levels is not clear and concise.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 20th, 2012 09:43 am (UTC)
That's what I learned in the U.S. Army over twenty years
From first to last, constantly repeated, never fully learned, we were taught, "When you give an order be very sure your meaning is so clear nobody could possibly misunderstand it. Then think of how to find out what they thought you said, because they will certainly find a way to misunderstand."
ionotter
Apr. 16th, 2012 04:58 am (UTC)
It sounds as if Lt. Pike is being one very smart cookie and keeping his mouth SHUT. The only thing that can save him at this point, is doing just that, and clamming up. If he stays quiet, then the gaze of Justice will seek answers from his chain of command.

bradhicks
Apr. 16th, 2012 05:36 am (UTC)
... who are going to insist, based on this report, that they ordered Lieutenant Pike not to take the pepper spray with him, and he disobeyed that order. Won't save him, any more than it saves Lyndie England when she was ordered not to torment prisoners, and was then put in a situation where the only way she could obey the rest of her orders was to torment prisoners. The jury will say "he should have known better!" just like they did with her.
Just following orders... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 17th, 2012 03:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Just following orders... - rmjwell - Apr. 18th, 2012 03:42 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elizilla - Apr. 18th, 2012 03:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
lysystratae
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:26 pm (UTC)
Where did they get the illegal sprayer from is what I want to know; unless the cop bought it privately (which would add another level to both his responsibility and the shitstorm), special weapons have to be requisitioned - and why would they do that with an illegal weapon?
bradhicks
Apr. 16th, 2012 03:54 pm (UTC)
Why they got it? I can guess why they got it: somebody saw one at a trade show and got a hard-on. To say the same thing less sarcastically, somebody saw that there was a 5 gallon sprayer, looked at the 1-gallon sprayer that's what he's been issued and thought that well, obviously, the 5-gallon sprayer is better!

I have been arguing about the subject of "more ammunition is always better than less ammunition" ever since the cops in this town replaced their six-guns with 10-shot pistols back in the 80s. Cops constantly say that they have to have the maximum possible amount of ammunition in the weapon because it would be a disaster if, in the middle of a fight, they ran out of ammunition. But every after-action report shows that yes, they still ran out of ammunition in the middle of a fight. And they all give the same reason, basic human psychology. No matter how you train them, once a cop decides to pull that trigger or push down on that sprayer button, he's going to empty the weapon as fast as humanly possible. Just like Lieutenant Pike did here. If someone had offered him a 55 gallon drum of pepper spray, he would have wheeled that into combat "in case we need it" and he would have used the whole drum on those protesters. That's not a guess on my part; that's how police encounters that involve weapons fire nearly always go.

As to where they got it? Who processed their requisition and didn't turn them down based on California law? My bet is Homeland Security. I could be wrong. But I'll bet I'm not. Cops all over the country are getting all kinds of military-grade weaponry from Homeland Security ever since 9/11. They're supposed to be saving it to use in the event of a terror attack, but nobody stops them from using it to ticket jaywalkers or whatever.
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 16th, 2012 04:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bradhicks - Apr. 16th, 2012 10:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 17th, 2012 12:12 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
Tool... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 18th, 2012 04:22 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Tool... - drewkitty - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Apr. 17th, 2012 02:45 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dr_memory - Apr. 18th, 2012 04:18 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lightcastle - Apr. 18th, 2012 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Apr. 18th, 2012 08:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bradhicks - Apr. 19th, 2012 12:13 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 19th, 2012 04:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - aelfie - Apr. 18th, 2012 04:53 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mastadge - Apr. 16th, 2012 03:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bradhicks - Apr. 16th, 2012 10:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nothings - Apr. 19th, 2012 08:35 am (UTC) - Expand
silveradept
Apr. 16th, 2012 04:07 pm (UTC)
Of course, nobody is going to look at this and say, "Y'know, maybe it's a problem that we tell police to treat peaceful occupying protest as terrorism and insurrection, that we give them riot gear to be used at the slightest provocation, and we believe the when they say they needed to have and use all of this equipment."

If we're lucky, we'll be willing to have the charges and consequences roll all the way up the chain, instead of sacrificing the people who carried out the orders to protect those that gave them.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 17th, 2012 11:11 pm (UTC)
Can we stick to the facts please
"using a high-pressure hose to pump five gallons of capsacin spray"

Funny, it doesn't look like the guy's holding a five gallon can of pepper spray, does it? Unless he's got a backpack the size of five one-gallone milk jugs on him the pictures out weigh the story. Lying about what happened is wrong no matter who is doing so and for what reason.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 19th, 2012 03:47 am (UTC)
Re: Can we stick to the facts please
The police chemical agents trainer is quoted in the report describing it as a five-gallon sprayer. It seems pretty clear that he didn't mean it literally. He says the Mk9 is like "a five-gallon gas can" compared to the Mk4 which is like a one-gallon can. I think that just means the Mk9 is bigger than the Mk4; the Mk9 is quite clearly much less than even one gallon. Nonetheless, it IS in the report that the expert called it a "five-gallon gas can" and no other specific information about its capacity is in the report. Brad didn't make that up.
Re: Can we stick to the facts please - Jim Strathmeyer - Apr. 19th, 2012 09:40 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Can we stick to the facts please - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 10:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Can we stick to the facts please - karmazain - Apr. 20th, 2012 12:38 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Can we stick to the facts please - karmazain - Apr. 20th, 2012 01:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 12:58 am (UTC)
There's a reason most children are taught the game 'telephone.' This is what happens when that lesson is forgotten. I think it's time that standard minimal I.Q. requirements become a part of all employment considerations, e s p e c i a l l y where office holders and decision makers are concerned. It's time to eliminate large portions of "education," starting with grade school, and replace them with lessons in Critical Thinking.
wordandreason
Apr. 18th, 2012 01:06 am (UTC)
There's a reason most children are taught the game 'telephone.' This is what happens when that lesson is forgotten. I think it's time that standard minimal I.Q. requirements become a part of all employment considerations, e s p e c i a l l y where office holders and decision makers are concerned. It's time to eliminate large portions of "education," starting with grade school, and replace them with lessons in Critical Thinking.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
Where I come from, we called it "gossip." Same idea, same result.
Higher IQs need not apply? - John Michael Sawyer - Apr. 22nd, 2012 08:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 01:30 am (UTC)
QUESTIONS...
First: How do you know its "High Pressure"? The Deftec (manufacturer) says that the minimum "Recommended " distance is 6 feet. Do you have any documentation that is is either "High Pressure" or that at distances less than 6 feet are forbidden by law?

Second: "Now, under California law, when planning an operation like this, there's a checklist they're supposed to follow when writing the operational plan, specifically to make sure that they don't forget something important." Specific Code and section please?

Third "By law, the officer in charge of the scene is not supposed to get directly involved. He or she (in this case, he) is supposed to stand back where he can see the whole scene, and concentrate on giving orders, and everybody else is supposed to refrain from giving orders."
Again specific code and section please.

Fourth:"Chief Spicuzza "thought she made it clear" more than once that no riot gear was to be worn and no clubs or pepper sprayers were to be carried. What Lieutenant Pike said back to her, each time, was, "Well, I hear you say that you don't want us to, but we're going to."

What peace officer in his right mind would follow this order? Go enforce the law but dont do anything to anyone??? California law AND the US Supreme Court have made it clear that force at a level higher than that encountered may be used to effect an arrest. (Ca Penal Code 835a)as long as it is "Reasonable" in the light of the circumstances and the events surrounding the arrest.

Fifth: "The person in charge of training California police in pepper spray says that as far as he knows, no California cop has ever received training, from his office or from the manufacturer, in how to safely use a Mk-9 sprayer, PRESUMABLY because it's illegal. " Who is this "Person in charge"? What is the Code and section?

Sixth: "acked into a corner by an angry crowd (which has, by the way, demonstrably left him room to retreat, even with his prisoners, contrary to what he says in his report) that is confronting him with evidence that he is the law-breaker here, not them, he snaps. " A Psychological diagnosis? Your credentials please?

Seventh: "he takes it out on the powerless and peaceful people in front of him, using a high-pressure hose to pump five gallons of capsacin spray into the eyes and mouths of the dozen or twenty people in front of him ... and he would have used more if he'd had it, he only stopped when he did, halfway through his third pass down the line, because the sprayer emptied." I didn't know the 12 oz mark 9 could hold 5 gallons.

My conclusion:

You are quoting half truths, innuendo and OUTRIGHT false statements. In addition, you have concluded, without any kind of documentation what was in the mind of the officer involved and have judged him guilty without the benefit of a trial or hearing.

The chancellor, while she may be very intelligent and well educated,Along with this investigating committee, does not have the knowledge, skills or training to conduct a criminal or procedural investigation. They may know much about their individual Fields of knowledge but they have little knowledge of law enforcement procedures and policies. Neither do you. For that matter when it comes to the policies of the UC police Dept dont either. But at least I research.

(Anonymous)
Apr. 19th, 2012 01:37 am (UTC)
Re: QUESTIONS...
If you read the report:

"UCDPD General Order No. 559 provides that pepper spray can be used, but specifically
refers to the MK-4 (a smaller canister). Furthermore, the investigation found no
evidence that any UCDPD officer had been trained in the use of the larger MK-9." (page 19)

Since you've failed to read the relevant documentation, its hard to argue that anyone is giving half-truths. Perhaps read the content before making an uneducated comment.
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 02:38 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:25 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:33 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:35 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - Alexander Coulter - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:37 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:52 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - Alexander Coulter - Apr. 19th, 2012 04:23 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 08:16 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 02:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - Ted Gideonse - Apr. 19th, 2012 03:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
OMG - (Anonymous) - Apr. 19th, 2012 08:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: QUESTIONS... - (Anonymous) - Apr. 22nd, 2012 09:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
aelfie
Apr. 18th, 2012 04:56 am (UTC)
Thank you for posting this...as an Alum...I've been waiting for this report to come out.

Time to start calling the office of the Chancellor again.
nowhereangel
Apr. 18th, 2012 06:48 am (UTC)
I now have a new tutorial example of catastrophic systemic failure...

There's fuck-ups all the way up and down the chain.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 07:24 am (UTC)
I anticipate that none of the important orders given that day were written down. In my experience, people

really believe that if they tell somebody else something, the listener will then know exactly what they

were thinking. The result is vast amounts of data loss and unintended replacement data entering the minds

of people down the line.

By "unintended replacement data," I mean situations like the Don Martin cartoon in Mad magazine, of the

man that fell into a well. His wife began desperately turning the crank to pull him out. He shouted

"whatever you do, don't let go!" but she couldn't understand what he was saying.
"What?" she shouted.
"Don't let go!"
"I'm sorry, dear, but WHAT?"
"DON'T LET GO!"
"I heard part of that, but...don't WHAT?"
"LET GO!"

So, mystified, she does. And so goes interpersonal and organizational communication, day in and day out,

and we still think it was somebody else's fault that they didn't understand us.

Clinton Crowley
Fort Worth, Texas

(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 09:37 am (UTC)
Questionable?
I'm sure the vast majority of what you're saying is true/correct. But where in the world did you get "five gallons of capsacin spray"? Look at the picture that you included. That's not even close to the size of a gallon of milk, let alone 5 gallons. A 5 gallon container is the size of one of those water fountain barrels that you turn upside down and press the little lever to get your water. Instead is it 5 ounces? I'm just worried that such an obvious error could mean a bias in the rest of the article...
Alexander Coulter
Apr. 19th, 2012 04:48 am (UTC)
Re: Questionable?
The MK-9 canister is sold as a 12-oz container, and I agree that the 5-gallon figure given is way off the mark, unless we're missing some details here. I wouldn't think that pepper spray is stored in larger source containers (that's strange for pressurized fluids), but I don't know. It certainly doesn't seem like he's holding anything bigger than maybe a pint, and for mobility purposes he surely wouldn't be carrying something like a 5-gallon tank around. If water is any valid comparison weight-wise, that's a whopping 40+ pounds.

So yes, that's an error. It reflects negatively on the article, but the other claims can be checked in the Kroll report linked in the first paragraph.
Re: Questionable? - karmazain - Apr. 20th, 2012 01:26 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Questionable? - Jim Strathmeyer - Apr. 19th, 2012 09:43 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Questionable? - (Anonymous) - Apr. 20th, 2012 10:05 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Questionable? - erk magosh - May. 8th, 2012 12:08 am (UTC) - Expand
e_moon60
Apr. 18th, 2012 12:29 pm (UTC)
Arrogance at the top; cowardice (unwilling to refuse an illegal order for fear of losing job) at the bottom.

Yup, textbook case.

Everyone in what should have been the chain of command screwed up. The whole chain of command, top to bottom. They're all culpable. They're all responsible. They should all be held accountable.

(Anonymous)
Apr. 19th, 2012 09:08 am (UTC)
well said
You've summed it up quite nicely.
(no subject) - drewkitty - Apr. 19th, 2012 04:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
livejournal
Apr. 18th, 2012 12:33 pm (UTC)
[links] Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report
User natalief referenced to your post from [links] Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report saying: [...] ous Brad - Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report [...]
livejournal
Apr. 18th, 2012 04:15 pm (UTC)
Sometimes, When &quot;All the Facts are In,&quot; It&#39;s Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report
User ariadnemarie referenced to your post from Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report saying: [...] Sometimes, When "All the Facts are In," It's Worse: The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Report [...]
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 05:06 pm (UTC)
Charge the criminal cops!
The lawsuits are a good first step, but by themselves are inadequate. Despite the numerous precedents supporting the First Amendment, the abuses of protesters continue.

Criminal charges against the police and their enablers are needed. Police aren't above the law. When they commit assault and battery, false arrest, and violations of Constitutional rights, they're committing crimes.

There must be accountability, and these criminal cops must be charged with their crimes. It doesn't matter to a cop if the city will be sued years from now. It does matter if there are immediate consequences, such as prison or getting fired.

Charge the criminal cops!
McShauno
Apr. 18th, 2012 05:38 pm (UTC)
Umm, how is this "much worse"
It seems that there is still a lot to figure out and this is just grandstanding.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 05:51 pm (UTC)
hmmmm
While obviously there's some issues with how this was handled - if you look at the full video of what happened that day, none of what this report says excuses the actions of the demonstrators as well.

Peaceful protest is fine, but you don't get to surround the police and DEMAND the release of people who have been arrested. You don't get to tell the police "if you let them go, we'll let you go" and refuse to clear a path. I mean, you can - but you can't be surprised when you get peppersprayed.

People like to talk about brutality and authoritarian states and "rah rah fight the power!". Fine, but I think we still have to step back and look at the bigger picture. This guy (pike) was put in an impossible situation, and frankly handled it better than a LOT of other police around the country might have. I didn't see anyone being beaten, no rubber bullets, no nets set up to make mass arrests. Even if they were carrying the wrong cans of pepperspray, again if you watch the full video of what happened, using it was an absolute last resort. It could have turned out a lot worse.
drewkitty
Apr. 19th, 2012 03:50 pm (UTC)
Re: hmmmm
Paid commentors, check.

Police were not surrounded. I've been to UCD and viewed all 45 min of video. Pike stepped over and through the line for crying out loud!
Re: hmmmm - John Michael Sawyer - Apr. 22nd, 2012 08:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 06:22 pm (UTC)
We hung the Nazis at Nuremberg who were "only following orders." That excuse has not been valid for a long while.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 19th, 2012 04:42 am (UTC)
Yes, but there's somewhat of a difference of scale here.

It might still hold. But when following orders is using non-lethal force, it seems to me a different case than when it is mass murder. One is morally questionable, the other is plain evil.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 18th, 2012 09:29 pm (UTC)
Pressure is the same.
Both The MK 4 and MK 9 are the same pressure with options for stream or conical dispersion. They are pressurized around 100psi with a propellent that expands rapidly once exposed to ambient pressure. It is not a "high pressure" device.
Alexander Coulter
Apr. 19th, 2012 04:38 am (UTC)
Re: Pressure is the same.
The MK-9 canister sprays about 20 feet, contrasted to 12 feet by other products. There must be higher pressure in order to obtain that higher distance.

100psi is also ~7 times atmospheric pressure, about 3 times typical tire pressure, and the pressure at which many small "high pressure" pumps work - not sure how exactly you define "high pressure," but let us bicker about the semantics of the wording and ignore the physical capabilities of the canisters, shall we? Or maybe we shouldn't.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 118 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner