Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[stilicho]

How about pouring a bucket of hairy, scary, but harmless spiders on top of them? Surely they'd unlock their arms to brush off the creepy crawly critters?

Well, give me a situation. Who is in danger from the crowd, whats the setting, which major road is being obstructed at what time of day, etc.

If I were collecting data as a crowd control consultant and taking what I've seen here as indicative of how to respond to something such as we saw at UC Davis, I'd have to recommend against using the pepper spray. This isn't because it's particular dangerous but because it projects a poor image. It "just looks wrong" rather than being particularly life-threatening.

The second most common recommendation here was to manhandle the individuals (presumably into a police van). This apparently "looks better" although the opportunity for injury to either the officers or the perpetrators probably increases with this option.

Perhaps a better alternative is to erect some kind of fence perimeter around the perpetrators and post guards. Nobody is harmed and it has the added advantage of "looking better". It also separates the perpetrators both from the officers and from passersby or potential reinforcements. Once any of the perpetrators requires food, rest, medical aid, or restroom facilities, the guard in place may allow them to exit and alternately release them or place them under arrest as the law warrants.

See? All fixed!

 

[Pardalis]

wow....your alternate reality must be an interesting place.

Yes, in my alternate reality Cuba is a military dictatorship and the USA is a free democracy.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Or maybe they should have sprayed them with highly concentrated pot smoke, to make them woozy.

Then lure them away with a big bag of Cheetos.

 

[bikerdruid]

That's three in row ignoring the actual question: What non-lethal methods of crowd control do each of you champion?

EDIT: Ducking the question. I should add that each of you wish to have the police either wait for things to escalate or to manhandle them out of the way.

i never dodged your question at all.
it was irrelevant.
i see you conveniently dodged the fact that crowd control was absolutely unnecessary in this situation.

however, in the case of a riot, pepper spray would be preferable to bullets.
this was not a riot.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yes, in my alternate reality Cuba is a military dictatorship and the USA is a free democracy.

you certainly do seem to have a fixation with cuba.
it has gotten you suspended before.

 

[jhunter1163]

the pepper spray was excessive and ineffective force..

And somewhere, Rodney King gives a facepalm.

 

[stokes234]

If I were collecting data as a crowd control consultant and taking what I've seen here as indicative of how to respond to something such as we saw at UC Davis, I'd have to recommend against using the pepper spray. This isn't because it's particular dangerous but because it projects a poor image. It "just looks wrong" rather than being particularly life-threatening.

The second most common recommendation here was to manhandle the individuals (presumably into a police van). This apparently "looks better" although the opportunity for injury to either the officers or the perpetrators probably increases with this option.

Perhaps a better alternative is to erect some kind of fence perimeter around the perpetrators and post guards. Nobody is harmed and it has the added advantage of "looking better". It also separates the perpetrators both from the officers and from passersby or potential reinforcements. Once any of the perpetrators requires food, rest, medical aid, or restroom facilities, the guard in place may allow them to exit and alternately release them or place them under arrest as the law warrants.

See? All fixed!

Police already do this, it's called Kettling. It comes with its own dangers but I can see the logic in the case of violent protests, so long as people under 16 are allowed to leave whenever they want and adequate toilet facilities are supplied, and so long as it isn't done in harsh weather as it was during last years UK student protests. In the case of a peaceful protest that is blocking emergency services or an important road I can see the case for manhandling to break up a chain, but in the case of a peaceful protest like this I can't see the need to break it up at all. Just maintain a police presence in case anything gets out of hand, from or against the protestors.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then you aren't paying attention. They were sprayed so that the chain could be broken and they could be arrested. That was the best way to gain compliance from the resisting protesters.

Prove it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then you aren't paying attention. They were sprayed so that the chain could be broken and they could be arrested. That was the best way to gain compliance from the resisting protesters.

Prove it

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's three in row ignoring the actual question: What non-lethal methods of crowd control do each of you champion?

EDIT: Ducking the question. I should add that each of you wish to have the police either wait for things to escalate or to manhandle them out of the way.

There was no need for crowd control, so I'd champion nothing in this situation. It's like asking "how would you knock out and unconscious man."

 

[bikerdruid]

And somewhere, Rodney King gives a facepalm.

there are degrees of 'excessive force', don't you think?
certainly there are more brutal instances of 'excessive force'.
causing unnecessary pain, in this instance was excessive and ineffective.
your reference to rodney king is as irrelevant here, as pardalis' recent reference to cuba.

 

[stilicho]

Police already do this, it's called Kettling. It comes with its own dangers but I can see the logic in the case of violent protests, so long as people under 16 are allowed to leave whenever they want and adequate toilet facilities are supplied, and so long as it isn't done in harsh weather as it was during last years UK student protests. In the case of a peaceful protest that is blocking emergency services or an important road I can see the case for manhandling to break up a chain, but in the case of a peaceful protest like this I can't see the need to break it up at all. Just maintain a police presence in case anything gets out of hand, from or against the protestors.

Actually that's a really bad idea and not at all what I was proposing. The police should never surrender an area to a violent mob.

The barriers are naturally important in the scenario I proposed because you can see hangers-on and passersby near the perpetrators unsure whether to film, join, or depart. You need to protect and secure them or your "peaceful protest" could very easily grow into an unmanageable mob very rapidly.

Maintaining a police presence is certainly an option but it does not actually secure the area. Security using non-lethal means is the goal and simply stationing officers doesn't accomplish that. Besides, there's the expense. Who is paying for these officers to be lounging around watching a potentially violent situation? I'm reminded of the cops I used to see at the AAA-level baseball park for "security". Who was paying for them? (As it turned out, the ballpark leaseholder was required to pay for them--great gig--watching a nine-inning game for free and getting a paycheque besides.)

I would agree with merely stationing officers provided those who had approved this option were paying for the whole thing.

 

[stilicho]

There was no need for crowd control, so I'd champion nothing in this situation. It's like asking "how would you knock out and unconscious man."

Would you remove the officers from even observing?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Would you remove the officers from even observing?

Not at all. They would be there just in case violence erupted.

 

[stokes234]

Actually that's a really bad idea and not at all what I was proposing. The police should never surrender an area to a violent mob.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who suggested surrendering areas to violent mobs?

The barriers are naturally important in the scenario I proposed because you can see hangers-on and passersby near the perpetrators unsure whether to film, join, or depart. You need to protect and secure them or your "peaceful protest" could very easily grow into an unmanageable mob very rapidly.

If you'd gone to the page I linked, you'd have seen that in kettling, the police form barriers themselves. And fences are often used to direct protests as well.

Maintaining a police presence is certainly an option but it does not actually secure the area. Security using non-lethal means is the goal and simply stationing officers doesn't accomplish that.

Non-violent protests don't need security to be achieved. Security has already been achieved. The police presence is in case security does need to be achieved.

Besides, there's the expense. Who is paying for these officers to be lounging around watching a potentially violent situation?

The taxpayer. And in return, they get the right to peaceful political protest with the added bonus of protection for the general public and the protestors.

I would agree with merely stationing officers provided those who had approved this option were paying for the whole thing.

Do you think it is cheaper to arrest protestors, drive them around in police vans and process them at police stations, pay for paramedics to treat their injuries and pay for media representation to explain why you just sprayed painful chemicals into the eyes and mouths of peaceful protestors than it is to maintain a presence for a longer amount of time? Seems debatable, at least.

 

[bikerdruid]

The police should never surrender an area to a violent mob.

irrelevant to this situation.
this was not a mob...violent or otherwise.

 

[NoahFence]

chained together????....dude, their arms were interlinked.
do you think that a big strong cop is incapable of forcing them apart?
police are within their rights to use appropriate force.

they had to do that anyways....
the pepper spray was excessive and ineffective force.
they still pried them apart to carry them away.

And if they force them apart?

Police violence, right?

Come on.

 

[NoahFence]

So is this thread officially no longer about OWS?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And if they force them apart?

Police violence, right?

Come on.

That depends on how they force them apart, does it not?

 

[bikerdruid]

And if they force them apart?

Police violence, right?

Come on.

did you bother to read my post before replying?
i said, "police are within their rights to use appropriate force."