Shoes drop at UC Davis

[epepke]

Those with unusually long memories will perhaps recall a pepper-spraying incident at the University of California, Davis last year (2011). They Reynoso and Kroll reports, compiled at a cost of around half a million dollars, have finally been released (they were delayed by a suit from the Police Union).

The Reynoso and Kroll reports can be found here: http://reynosoreport.ucdavis.edu/reynoso-report.pdf

There is various commentary at other locations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-pepper-spray_b_1438966.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ls-in-the-pepper-spraying-at-uc-davis/256058/

(You can find other commentary at other places. I have refrained from linking to commentary that makes claims not clearly recovered by the reports.)

I will leave to others umbrage at over who resigned or got into trouble or not, because I find that this event represents a trend far greater and more important than what happens at a single university. The two main findings, for me, are as follows:

1) The University of California at Davis had assembled no legal basis on which to demand that the tents be removed in the first place, and there is a high probability that there was no legal basis to be found.

2) The kind of pepper spray famously used by Pike was not authorized for use by the UC Davis campus police; no officer had been trained in its use; Pike in fact was not using it according to directions; and there is no explanation on how it even came to be there in the first place.

Less blatant findings included the following:

3) The officers appear not to have been constricted in their motions or trapped to any significant degree.

4) Pike disobeyed a direct order to deploy without riot gear.

5) The campus police chief appears to have been observed, perhaps in civilian clothing, taking videos of the proceedings from the crowd with a cell phone.

6) The actions appear to have been justified by a false belief of the Chancellor's that a substantial number of agents from off campus were visiting the tents.

I recall the bleatings from various of the conservative set on this newsgroup, who insisted that UC Davis was well within its legal rights. Are we going to see any retractions, now that there doesn't appear to have been any legal basis?

 

[000063]

Oh, this again. You know this report seems to have all the legal weight of a Big Mac wrapper, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8190043#post8190043

1. Only under a very Sea-Lawyer interpretation of the rules, where they claimed that the rules specifically referred to overnight stays. However, that does not give the students the right to obstruct and threaten the police, even assuming they were acting without cause.
2. Incorrect. The size of canister he used was incorrect, not the type of contents.
3. Half-truth. Both the students in question and the officers said they were obstructed. However, the objective of the students was to prevent or hinder the cops leaving with their prisoners. They literally say so. The officers manage to get a few prisoners through the crowd, at which point the inner line of students was formed to hinder their efforts to do so. The cops stop trying, because they know that to try and carry a handcuffed suspect over that sort of formation without serious risk of injury or accident is nigh-impossible, especially since one of the suspects refused to walk and said they would have to carry them, and they had no way of telling whether the students would resist more aggressively, putting both officers, prisoners, and themselves at risk.
4. No he didn't. Requests from the Chancellor are not "direct orders", they have to be filtered through the police chief, and they were instructed to avoid confrontation and violence while taking down the tents. They did so.

The confrontation was started by the students, as the cops were trying to leave the bulk of the protestors peacefully. The students were the ones who threatened to stop "protesting peacefully". They bought the question of violence into the incident, not the cops.

5. Rumor has it...
There is a lot of confusion among OWS about what happened that day. For example, Nathan Brown is assumed to be a witness, despite the fact that he never claimed to be, and his petition described events happening that are logically inconsistent and inconsistent with the videos. Heck, some are even out of order, or just plain never happened.

6. Again, more rumor. We already know that a lot of off-campus people were there, and that doesn't actually change the matter of legal basis for the tents' removal.

I'm pretty sure that this is the same report that says the cops "provoked" the students by not leaving immediately with their prisoners. Yes, because people have a right to obstruct and threaten cops who are leaving them alone. "She was asking for it, yer honor!" It basically does everything possible to absolve the students of any responsibility, and, curiously, has difficulty finding or obtaining students' accounts. I doubt they tried very hard.



Elapsed time; thirty seconds on YouTube.

Basically, the report is a very expensive version of the excuses people make for the protestors.

 

[Neally]

I recall the bleatings from various of the conservative set on this newsgroup, who insisted that UC Davis was well within its legal rights. Are we going to see any retractions, now that there doesn't appear to have been any legal basis?

And the report CONFIRMED that they were within their legal rights. I guessed you missed this from the report:

Most police departments across the United States use a training device commonly referred to as a “use of force continuum” as a means of training their officers on when and what type of force to use. Most of these continuums—there is no standard national continuum—allow the use of pepper spray when confronted with “active resistance.”Thus, the use of pepper spray against seated protesters linking arms may be technically permissible.

 

[jiggeryqua]

And the report CONFIRMED that they were within their legal rights. I guessed you missed this from the report:

epepke, you slacker! There was a cherry, right there, and you didn't pick it.

Nice try, Neally, but epeke is clearly saying they had no legal basis on which to demand that tents be removed (see point 1). I can't read 000063 but I'll bet a pound to a penny he's saying "No! We were right all along, whatever your so-called 'report' says!".

 

[Neally]

epepke, you slacker! There was a cherry, right there, and you didn't pick it.

Nice try, Neally, but epeke is clearly saying they had no legal basis on which to demand that tents be removed (see point 1). I can't read 000063 but I'll bet a pound to a penny he's saying "No! We were right all along, whatever your so-called 'report' says!".

Sorry, no. The debate included people arguing that the use of the pepper spray itself was illegal against non-violent protesters. People even attempted to put forth case law in this argument. They were wrong.

 

[crimresearch]

The reports were posted in the other thread quite some time ago, feel free to read them for yourselves and see what a dishonest distortion it is to claim that 'the size of the cylinders' had anything to do with it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8193303#post8193303

 

[jiggeryqua]

T[...]
1) The University of California at Davis had assembled no legal basis on which to demand that the tents be removed in the first place, and there is a high probability that there was no legal basis to be found.
[...]
I recall the bleatings from various of the conservative set on this newsgroup, who insisted that UC Davis was well within its legal rights. Are we going to see any retractions, now that there doesn't appear to have been any legal basis?

And the report CONFIRMED that they were within their legal rights. I guessed you missed this from the report:

Nice try, Neally, but epeke is clearly saying they had no legal basis on which to demand that tents be removed (see point 1).

Sorry, no. The debate included people arguing that the use of the pepper spray itself was illegal against non-violent protesters. People even attempted to put forth case law in this argument. They were wrong.

And so you thought you'd twist epeke's clear comments in order to claim that somebody (possibly you) was once right about something else, in some other thread? Kudos.

 

[Brainster]

1) The University of California at Davis had assembled no legal basis on which to demand that the tents be removed in the first place, and there is a high probability that there was no legal basis to be found.

I see some mention of your first point but no mention of the "high probability that there was no legal basis to be found". Presumably this is your own contribution to the report?

 

[jiggeryqua]

I see some mention of your first point but no mention of the "high probability that there was no legal basis to be found". Presumably this is your own contribution to the report?

Cherries left unpicked, and now nits! Staring you in the face, epepke, demanding to be picked.

The university had not, and has not, provided a legal basis. I don't think we need an expensive investigation to conclude that, in all probability, there is none...

 

[Neally]

And so you thought you'd twist epeke's clear comments in order to claim that somebody (possibly you) was once right about something else, in some other thread? Kudos.

Jeez, rather desperate to somehow support the vague "legal rights" or "legal basis" that the OP was refering to, that you somehow seem to know?

I recall the bleatings from various of the conservative set on this newsgroup, who insisted that UC Davis was well within its legal rights. Are we going to see any retractions, now that there doesn't appear to have been any legal basis?

Since he mentioned several points in his listing, not all of which have to do specifically with just tents being removed, I'd say he was talking about the totality of everything happening in that incident, including the legal basis for the pepper spraying. But, heh, if you want insist that the discussion be over just the tent removal part, have fun.

Incidentally the "kind" of pepper spray mentioned in point #2 depends on what you want to call "kind". Chemically it was the same "kind" that was authorized. The canister was larger and designed to be used on larger crowds at a greater distance, in that sense it was a different "kind" and not authorized.

 

[crimresearch]

Jeez, rather desperate to somehow support the vague "legal rights" or "legal basis" that the OP was refering to, that you somehow seem to know?

Since he mentioned several points in his listing, not all of which have to do specifically with just tents being removed, I'd say he was talking about the totality of everything happening in that incident, including the legal basis for the pepper spraying. But, heh, if you want insist that the discussion be over just the tent removal part, have fun.

Incidentally the "kind" of pepper spray mentioned in point #2 depends on what you want to call "kind". Chemically it was the same "kind" that was authorized. The canister was larger and designed to be used on larger crowds at a greater distance, in that sense it was a different "kind" and not authorized.

It was the 'same kind' only in the sense that going from an M9 to an MP5 is the 'same kind' because they are both pistols that use the 9mm round.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Jeez, rather desperate to somehow support the vague "legal rights" or "legal basis" that the OP was refering to, that you somehow seem to know?

Well you could put it like that, if you wanted to attack the arguer rather than the argument. In fact, I chronicled all the quotes leading up to this because I had a suspicion you'd be wandering away from your original point as and when it suited you. I 'know' what legal basis the OP was refering to because...well, you see, he refered to it. I highlighted the reference. It's not conclusive, of course, but it's a darn sight more likely than the 'legal basis' you shoehorned in because you still have a beef with some liberal from the last time this incident was discussed.

Since he mentioned several points in his listing, not all of which have to do specifically with just tents being removed, I'd say he was talking about the totality of everything happening in that incident, including the legal basis for the pepper spraying. But, heh, if you want insist that the discussion be over just the tent removal part, have fun.

Everything now? Not just the pepper spray, which you had fun shoehorning in? Eh, whatever. Of course, the report clarifies that Pike wasn't trained in the delivery system he used, that he misused it and that that misuse was recklessly dangerous. On what 'legal basis' do you approve of officers dangerously misusing equipment they have not been trained in? Please don't start the fatuous "They were mortally afraid of the fearsome threat presented by hairy unwashed liberal arts students" argument again.

Incidentally the "kind" of pepper spray mentioned in point #2 depends on what you want to call "kind". Chemically it was the same "kind" that was authorized. The canister was larger and designed to be used on larger crowds at a greater distance, in that sense it was a different "kind" and not authorized.

Yes...nobody has suggested otherwise, unless I missed it? Did I miss it? It was a different 'kind' of pepper spray containing the same chemical. It was dangerous to use it as Pike used it, but he wasn't to know that...he hadn't had any training. As we might say, "Jeez, rather desperate to somehow support the vague idea that students should be policed by ignorant fat thugs".

 

[Neally]

Well you could put it like that, if you wanted to attack the arguer rather than the argument. In fact, I chronicled all the quotes leading up to this because I had a suspicion you'd be wandering away from your original point as and when it suited you. I 'know' what legal basis the OP was refering to because...well, you see, he refered to it. I highlighted the reference.

So where are the highlights of points in points 2 -6 that refer to the tents issue, oh wait there aren't any. Meaning of course that the legal issues under debate aren't limited to just the tents thing, no matter what kind of contortions you do.

Everything now? Not just the pepper spray, which you had fun shoehorning in? Eh, whatever. Of course, the report clarifies that Pike wasn't trained in the delivery system he used, that he misused it and that that misuse was recklessly dangerous. On what 'legal basis' do you approve of officers dangerously misusing equipment they have not been trained in?

As I and the report said, the use of pepper spray was done according to accepted police protocol. The delivery was not done according to protocol for the type of canister that was deployed. Pike was wrong in that regard, but the general use of pepper spray in that scenario was correct. Those that said otherwise were and are wrong.

Please don't start the fatuous "They were mortally afraid of the fearsome threat presented by hairy unwashed liberal arts students" argument again.

I've never made that argument. The experts that reviewed the videos early on never made those arguements. They stated, and I repeated their observations, the same thing that the report said, that pepper spray is an appropriate use when confronted with active resistance.

 

[epepke]

2. Incorrect. The size of canister he used was incorrect, not the type of contents.

Thanks, that confirms it. You're just interested in spewing.

The pepper spray used was indeed using a larger canister but was also higher pressure and intended for more distant usage. It was not approved, and nobody was trained to use it, and in fact it was used at closer range than designed to do.

Declaring that this does not matter and that it incorrect by virtue that it is the same chemical substance is clearly about as smart as declaring that all calibers and firing rates of guns are the same if the bullets are made of the same materials.

At this point, there is no point in a debate. You believe what you want. You are clear about it. You are not worth addressing.

 

[jiggeryqua]

So where are the highlights of points in points 2 -6 that refer to the tents issue, oh wait there aren't any. Meaning of course that the legal issues under debate aren't limited to just the tents thing, no matter what kind of contortions you do.

No, the legal issues are not limited to tents. But the highlights clearly indicate epepke's context for the phrase 'legal basis', which is to say the eviction procedure which resulted in the use of a dangerous substance by untrained and unauthorised officers...no matter what kind of contortions you do...

As I and the report said, the use of pepper spray was done according to accepted police protocol. The delivery was not done according to protocol for the type of canister that was deployed. Pike was wrong in that regard, but the general use of pepper spray in that scenario was correct. Those that said otherwise were and are wrong.

And as I said, you've decided to twist this discussion in order to harp on, again, about how you think you were right once in some other discussion somewhere. As it happens, you were wrong, but I see clearly how you have a hard time with the idea that you may not always be right.

I've never made that argument. The experts that reviewed the videos early on never made those arguements. They stated, and I repeated their observations, the same thing that the report said, that pepper spray is an appropriate use when confronted with active resistance.

You never made that argument? You have now.

I think this one incident has resulted in more additions to my ignore list than any other. I refer you to epepke's remarks immediately above.

 

[Neally]

No, the legal issues are not limited to tents. But the highlights clearly indicate epepke's context for the phrase 'legal basis', which is to say the eviction procedure which resulted in the use of a dangerous substance by untrained and unauthorised officers...no matter what kind of contortions you do...

Ah, so the legal issues aren't limited to the tent, but they are. Quite the contortion you've got there.

And as I said, you've decided to twist this discussion in order to harp on, again, about how you think you were right once in some other discussion somewhere. As it happens, you were wrong, but I see clearly how you have a hard time with the idea that you may not always be right.

I was right, the experts were right, those that complained that pepper spray was illegal or inappropriate were wrong.

You never made that argument? You have now.

What part of "Thus, the use of pepper spray against seated protesters linking arms may be technically permissible. " do you not understand?

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks, that confirms it. You're just interested in spewing.

The pepper spray used was indeed using a larger canister but was also higher pressure and intended for more distant usage. It was not approved, and nobody was trained to use it, and in fact it was used at closer range than designed to do.

Declaring that this does not matter and that it incorrect by virtue that it is the same chemical substance is clearly about as smart as declaring that all calibers and firing rates of guns are the same if the bullets are made of the same materials.

At this point, there is no point in a debate. You believe what you want. You are clear about it. You are not worth addressing.

This ^

Higher pressure, *different propellant* and dangerous to use closer than 6 feet.

The deliberate choice to use it at a range of 2-3 feet, directly into people's faces, without being authorized to use it at all, is where that 'gotcha' lies.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Does it matter that they were seated, if they sat down in an attempt to defend against the pepperspray?

 

[000063]

Does it matter that they were seated, if they sat down in an attempt to defend against the pepperspray?

It might, if they had. Since, even by their own admission, they had sat and linked arms in order to obstruct the police's transport of the prisoners, we know that is not the case.

Also, the usual attempts to defend against pepper spray are either a)covering one's face, or b)running away. I cannot conceive of any chain of logic where someone defends themselves against pepper spray by making themselves less mobile and restricting the use of their arms.

 

[000063]

Thanks, that confirms it. You're just interested in spewing.

The pepper spray used was indeed using a larger canister but was also higher pressure and intended for more distant usage.

Conceded.

It was not approved,

Conceded.

and nobody was trained to use it,

According to the trainer (Section 6.1.6), the difference between the two types of cans is negligible, and thinks that the “distance for deployment appeared appropriate"

and in fact it was used at closer range than designed to do.

Arguably true.

However that has to do with the method of delivery, not the spray itself. That is, the canister. I don't think it is reasonable to expect cops to carry two different types of pepper spray on their riot gear, just in case they need to use closer-range spray, especially since the whole point of PS is to lower the risk of harm to suspects, as it is proven to do.

Declaring that this does not matter

Which I did not. Straw man.

and that it incorrect by virtue that it is the same chemical substance is clearly about as smart as declaring that all calibers and firing rates of guns are the same if the bullets are made of the same materials.

If someone is shot with a 9mm, it is not the same as being shot with a 7.62mm, 5.56 NATO, or 30-06. If someone is shot with a 9mm, and someone is shot with a 9mm with overpressure powder, one can say that they were both shot with a 9mm. They had different powder and different effects, but that does not chat that they were both shot with the same kind of bullet. The difference in canisters is more akin to being shot with a 9mm bullet from a handgun such as a Glock vs a 9mm bullet from an SMG such as an MP5K.

You really shouldn't try these analogies on someone who knows anything at all about guns.

You specifically referred to the kind of pepper spray, not what it came in. The report's quibble is with the can, not the substance within, so your summarized version is incorrect.

You are aware that despite Brown's ludicrously incorrect petition, no one involved suffered any serious harm, right? Do you know what the physiological difference on suspects is between being sprayed with a smaller can and the larger one? Would this have been justified if Pike had used the smaller canister?

At this point, there is no point in a debate. You believe what you want. You are clear about it. You are not worth addressing.

I like how you ignore every single other one of my points to declare I'm only interested in "spewing" and not worth debating in order to "prove me wrong" on one of the most minor points. Yes, that's reasonable.