Forum Post: UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened
Posted 13 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 9:05 p.m. EST by OccupyGovernment
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhPdH3wE0_Y#!
No civil liberties or constitutional rights were infringed upon by the police that day. They were there to remove the camp set up on campus, and they were not stopping people from protesting. The university has a right to say no camping on campus. Otherwise anyone, including non-students, can pitch a tent and camp as long as they want. The police took down the camp and were leaving when students tried to stop them. If anything, the students infringed upon the officer's freedom. - Timasu
Keeping in mind the Chancellor did not do the students a favor by putting the police chief and officers on paid leave. This was done to allow them plenty of time to converse with the lawyers, compare notes and to work out the details needed ensure that the stories fit to cover themselves. Is it possible the plan all along was for the Chancellor to remove the then peaceful student protesters before the Regents were to be there. It does not look very good for a chancellor to have a bunch of pesky students protesting in front of the Regents even if they are peaceful . Especially with they are protesting the very things the Regents were there to do (like give themselves nice fat raises) and then in turn did. Is it possible that the orders came from above? After all the Regents are not asking for her to resign, but then lets not forget her ties to the FBI and involvement with the use of force going all the way back to Athens Polytechnic (Hence the students chant from UC to Greece). Currently the petition asking her to resign has over 110,221 people and the one supporting her has 206 (full disclosure the 206 were after the Regents meeting where the money was handed out).
Please be wary of the spin doctors.. The Chancellor/Regents just gave a 21% raise to her school lawyers on the Tuesday following the event and has asked a for a corporation to do the independent review of the event.. We all know how that works and how much money they are willing to spend to put just the right spin on it.
Technically your wrong when saying "they were not stopping people from protesting". Yes they were stopped. At that point the students were peacefully protesting the police manhandling and arresting of their fellow students and for this they were wrongly pepper sprayed.
Also keep in mind that 1/2 of the crowd were not even there protesting. They were there to watch/film or just to see what all the commotion was about. Just because you were standing there watching does not mean you were holding the police against their will. This has been another of the things that bugs me about the media reports. It's made out to sound like all the people standing there were active participants when in reality the number of real protesters was small and posed no threat by number or physical aggression to the officers.
this video , has already increased ows membership. and will be used to bring down this police state. they will live to regret, attacking our children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsAtaZXxJpk training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43
"As chancellor, I take full responsibility for what happened and have been reaching out to the entire UC Davis community to make sure we never subject any of our students to anything like that ever again." 12/02/11 - Chancellor Katehi
there are jobs people.. Mabey you think they are less than you deserve... Mabey your just a spoiled brat.. But this should be occupy white house He is the biggest crook in the history of this country... All that money, the stimulus oh wait sorry that's where your funding came from.. lmao You make no sense OBAMA IS THE ENEMY!!!!
there are jobs people.. Mabey you think they are less than you deserve... Mabey your just a spoiled brat.. But this should be occupy white house He is the biggest crook in the history of this country... All that money, the stimulus oh wait sorry that's where your funding came from.. lmao You make no sense OBAMA IS THE ENEMY!!!!
STFU
Using weaponized pepper spray and other chemicals as weapons is in direct violation of the Geneva conventions. Had that douchebag done that in Iraq he would be facing a court martial and probably going to Levinworth.
Please cite your source regarding Geneva conventions and less-lethal munitions. The military uses a variety of less lethal technologies over seas - otherwise they would have no options other than lethal force to deal with the citizens of those countries when they need to be dealt with, but not shot.
From the creator of the pepper spray used at UC Davis “The use was just absolutely out of the ordinary and it was not in accordance with any training or policy of any department that I know of. I personally certified 4,000 police officers in the early ‘80s and ‘90s and I have never seen this before. That’s why I was shocked... I feel is my civic duty to explain to the public that this is not what pepper spray was developed for.” Kamran Loghman,
Watch interview here. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/pepper_spray_creator_decries_use_of
That's not what you said in your post. You said it was a direct violation of the Geneva Convention and that a soldier would face court martial. I'm not trying to defend the use of pepper spray in this case - I just think people should have their facts straight. Besides, just because someone created something does not give them to authority to dictate how it is used.
Please forgive me. I wasn't aware your google was broken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on September 7, 1929
That's one of the biggest problems with the rampant use of "google it" on these forums. I can google what I think best describes what I want to find, and come up with a completely different response than you. Not to mention that there is a lot of misinformation on the web. If you link the actual source - then we can discuss the merits of your research rather than argue about who found what. I found several different sources on the "Chemical Weapons Convention" but didn't think that applied to this.
CS (tear gas), CN (mace) and OC (pepper spray) are not considered asphyxiating agents. They are described as irritants and OC is also a lacrimator (causes eyes to water and such). So they are not covered under the Geneva protocol that you cited. Which also explains why we don't have military personnel in the stockade for their use.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833315-overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray
Also - Marine 2 Star supports use of more less-lethal munitions in Afghanistan: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/02/marine-corps-afghanistan-tasers-nonlethal-weapons-020110/
And the Army on nonlethal force options: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/01/army_nonlethal_012609w/
Sorry but the Geneva conventions are the rules of war the world usually abides by so they trump the opinions you've listed. The fact is if what happened at UC Davis happened on the battle field it would be considered a war crime.
The fact is that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. OC is not an asphyxiating gas. In fact - it isn't a gas at all. Which is why they call it "pepper spray" and not "pepper gas." It is an oily mixture derived from extremely hot peppers. Read your 'protester handbook' you see that one treatment for OC is a 25% Dawn / 75% water solution. The dawn "cuts the grease" and gets the oily mixture off of your skin.
I would suggest you do your own research from verified sources and come to your own conclusions rather that just parrot what you have read from some biased website.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/240/1185/564832/
Maybe you need to brush up on your research pal. The use of pepper spray as "pain compliance technique" on PEACEFUL protesters was found to be illegal when used by police officers. The fact that it was used at UC Davis by Campus police makes this crime.
That has NOTHING to do with your first point about the Geneva Convention and court martial. I'd like to re-emphasize the point I made that I am not trying to justify the use of pepper spray at UC Davis.
To your new point. You should have read the decision. Here is what it says "Defendants' repeated use of pepper spray was also clearly unreasonable. As we recently concluded, the use of pepper spray “may be reasonable as a general policy to bring an arrestee under control, but in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of the weapon or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied). Because the officers had control over the protestors it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that it was unnecessary to use pepper spray to bring them under control, and even less necessary to repeatedly use pepper spray against the protestors when they refused to release from the “black bears.” It also would have been clear to any reasonable officer that the manner in which the officers used the pepper spray was unreasonable. Lewis and Philip “authorized full spray blasts of [pepper spray], not just Q-tip applications,” despite the fact that the manufacturer's label on the canisters of pepper spray defendants used “ ‘expressly discouraged’ spraying [pepper spray] from distances of less than three feet.” 240 F.3d at 1195, 1208. ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html)
As you can read for yourself, in this case pepper spray was found unreasonable because it was determined that the arrestees were already under the control of the officers. The students are UC Davis were not under control of the officers.
The fact that pepper spray was used by campus police could (and should ) be deemed as excessive force. But it is not criminal based on anything that you have presented in this forum.
No, friendlyopposition is right. Pepper spray is not covered in the Geneva convention.
This is all I could find in the Convention against Torture: "For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
When police are faced with a crowd of peaceful people in a situation like that they should just leave and come back later. I'm not saying the protesters were entirely within their rights and weren't doing anything illegal but it was clear that the only way anything bad would happen is if the police instigated it or directly caused it. The protesters weren't putting anyone in danger by being there. They weren't drunks rioting. They had well thought out reasons for being there. The safest thing to do in that situation is just back off in my opinion.
I think this was a matter of pride for them. They just wanted to show those kids that the police are tough but they ended up backing off anyway so it was entirely pointless.
I wasn't there though so maybe I am just talking out my ass.
I agree with you 100%. It could be unsafe for the officers to step over the protesters, had they decided to trip them or cause some other problems. You just never know what someone in that position might do. If I were the commander on the scene, I would just find the two smallest people in the chain and put my two biggest officers standing over them. I would then have the officers step over the seated protesters and proceed along their merry way. If, by some chance, the students wanted to escalate their "peaceful" protest into something more perilous - the officers would be on the ready to prevent it. Of course, I would also have someone videotaping the entire process.
You may well be correct, but there was ZERO reason to pepper spray students who represented absolutely no danger or physical threat to anyone.
Pepper spray isn't used 'properly' in that manner.
Pepper spray a passive non violent person is Against S1983 of the Federal code, a violation of 4th amd rights. Google it. OccupyGovernment is wrong.
+5...
I'd have given you a +10, if you'd have provided the link directly.
:)
20 years of good SCOTUS behind it, I researched and wrote it up: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/19/1038184/-Lt-John-Pike-violated-protesters-4th-Amendment-rights?via=blog_694100
+10... :)
The threatened the polices sense of dominance and control. It is arguable that the students were in violation of the civil rights of the police by "imprisoning" them. But that doesn't justify the employment of chemical weapons.
"imprisoning" them? Looked pretty clear that officer Pike had no problem hiking his leg over them and met with no resistance when he did. I saw no physical aggression toward any officer.
The students were "seated"...how could they have possibly "imprisoned" anyone???
I am glad however, that you feel even this made up violation was NOT cause for the deployment of pepper spray...
The kids did pen them in. It was more symbolic than forceful. Those lame cops need to do more PT if they can't jump over a few flaccid college kids. Or perhaps they should have dropped the body armor. The kids psyched them out. I give the students the victory in this one.
AFTER the pepper spraying, the chants of "Shame on you", then "Who's Campus, Our Campus", and the final "You Can Go!"...was most certainly a victory for the students...
BEST video I've seen thus far.
The protesters knew they were going to get sprayed, but stayed put. Nonetheless, the action of the policeman was barbaric and wrong. It's not because there's a beautiful skinny asian girl in front of you that you can let your erection dance under the sun without a care in the world. Police have to remain in control and use the least amount of force possible. In this case, pepper spray was absolutely overkill.
What do skinny asian girls have ANYTHING to do with students getting pepper sprayed? That's weird dude.
The students were assembling on property THEY paid to use, through tuition. Even if they were in violation of campus rules, you give them a ticket, escort them off of campus, or expel them as students. Pepper spraying them was the WRONG thing to do...
That's exactly what I just said. Did you read my post. Can you read? Before sending all caps my way, next time ask a friend to help you comprehend my words if you are unable to by yourself. It's good that you're practicing English on this forum, but people who are not native English speakers should refrain from commenting before having reached an intermediate level in reading comprehension.
:)
What did you mean by "The protesters knew they were going to get sprayed, but stayed put."...?
All caps? I capitalized "3" words, so just chill out man. I meant no offense to you. You called the pepper spray "absolutely overkill". I called it the WRONG thing to do.
With that, I think we agree at least a little, so I'll apologize for any ill-intended harshness that came from me toward you.
The protesters knew they were going to get sprayed, but they stood their ground. They could have gotten up, but they didn't. In the four perspectives video, Mr. Pike is seen talking with the protesters before pepper spraying them and telling them he is going to pepper spray them. One of the protesters says - "OK, no problem." He speaks in a calm way because they all knew Mr. Pike. A few days earlier, they were speaking with him at a school party. Read the news. That officer knew these kids by name. He worked at the school everyday. Watch the four perspectives video on youtube.
However, this was not an excuse for pepper spraying the protesters. It was overkill, i.e. excessive force to relieve the conflict. They should have taken the protesters out of the way using as little force as possible. Picking them up would have done the trick.
I've seen 2 different perspectives of the event, and I agree that it was done in a calm manner.
I further agree that "Picking them up would have done the trick."
The whole scene reminded me of the movie "Gandhi". The protesters KNEW they were going to get beaten, but continued into the line of officers unabated.
*The Tree of Liberty must be fed by the blood of patriots...so they say.
Actually I think John F. Kennedy said it best... "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
LOL ! You seem to have 'beautiful skinny asian girl's on the brain. Did you hang out at the beach today?
Re-posting the aborted wisdom of youtube commenters. . .
. . .yep, I'm convinced.
So the truth comes out. Thank God.