Pepper spray

[Humodour]

Wow. I didn't know pepper spray was that common in America. Kind of tragic. Your cops are pretty ****ed up.

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/22/how-...?xid=gonewsedit

 

The entire article is an excellent read, so I won't quote it here. But that is some really ****ed up **** and those cops need to go to jail for what they did.

[Volourn]

I agree. It's garbage. Pepper spray should be sued as advice - as a last resort with no other option avilable so more violent means aren't used. It should only be used if the target is physically violent. IThe problem is everyone asssumes that pepper spray isn't really dangerous even though it actually is - espciially if used haphazardry out of nager.

 

The police should be in more control of themselves. Shamesful.

[Gromnir]

Wow. I didn't know pepper spray was that common in America. Kind of tragic. Your cops are pretty ****ed up.

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/22/how-...?xid=gonewsedit

 

The entire article is an excellent read, so I won't quote it here. But that is some really ****ed up **** and those cops need to go to jail for what they did.

 

 

as stated below, we ain't a proponent o' pepper spray, but krez should be a bit more discerning when looking for factual evidence via the web. in fact, the doj report cited in the article linked actual breaks down the ~70 (actual number = 73) reported cases o' pepper spray-related deaths as follows:

 

10 cases excluded as no pepper spray was actually used. in all remaining cases, save 5, pepper spray were complete excluded as a possible cause o' death.

 

"For pepper spray to cause death, it would have to make breathing difficult by closing or narrowing the bronchial tubes. The subject would have to struggle to both inhale and exhale. These effects would be noticeable shortly after the application of pepper spray. Yet, except for the two cases in which the subjects were classified as asthmatics, comments regarding breathing (other

than

Edited November 23, 2011 by Gromnir

[Humodour]

Gromnir, I was referring to the part of the article that, you know, highlights how disproportionate the response of the police officers was.

 

Whether or not you think pepper spray is harmless, Gromnir, it's only meant to be used in a less than one second burst, it's banned as a chemical weapon in warfare, and one of the students was coughing up blood for 45 minutes after being sprayeD, and even you admitted it is implicated in the deaths of sprayed victims with asthma (considering the number of people I know with asthma, I would say that is really significant).

 

"yeah, pepper spray is painful, but that is the point, no?"

 

No. These were peaceful, sitting protesters. It is hard to see how pepper spray could possibly be authorised in that scenario.

 

Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.

 

What happened next?

 

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

 

That is something that is utterly sadistic and worthy of jail-time. Being in a uniform does not make assault and torture legal.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Krezack

[Gromnir]

No. These were peaceful, sitting protesters. Pepper spray is not authorised in that scenario.

 

first given the misinformation in the article, we would be very suspicious o' the coughing up blood claim. how the heck does that even happen unless the guy already has a bleeding ulcer or some such? having worked corrections, we is sad to admit that we has seen literally dozens (if not hundreds) of people pepper sprayed, and we never saw no coughing of blood. sounds like bs

 

*shrug*

 

we already admitted that this one guy appeared to be going over-the-top with the spray, but recall your original comment,

 

"Wow. I didn't know pepper spray was that common in America. Kind of tragic. Your cops are pretty ****ed up."

 

you is taking way too much for granted from one clear inaccurate article.

 

anecdote from corrections... just for fun.

 

'bout 30 minutes before the end o' our night shift we is doing a room check. while residents is locked down you gotta peek in each room every 10 minutes, plus one random, per hour. is our last room check o' the night before going home and getting some sleep. do some paperwork, fill-in next shift, then drive home and sleep the sleep o' the dead. anywho, we peeks in one room and see *aison standing over his sink, rubbing something on his face. what the *uck?

 

"hey *aison, what the *uck are you doing?" *aison slowly, creepy slow, turns his head and just kinda smiles at us.

 

now just so you understand, *aison is a very large fellow, at least 300 lbs, and he stinks. Gromnir is no push-over, but particularly with so little time left o' our shift, we do not wanna have to deal with *aison. we had been forced to "dip" *aison in the past when he attacked some peckerwood in the showers. was not our favorite memory. wrestling an angry (and possibly insane) fat, wet, naked, black behemoth in a shower... protecting some 105 lb skinhead from getting killed? not again. even worse, Gromnir would needs to author an incident report if *aison caused a ruckus before we left the unit, and that would take us at least an additional 30 minutes.

 

*groan*

 

"look, I am serious. what the *uck are you doing?"

 

*aison lifts his right hand and shows us the pulpy remains o' a crushed orange gripped in his meaty fist. with a deep, raspy voice, *aison says, "Rub it in your eyes... makes the spray hurt less."

 

our jaw probable drops... not sure. whatever. "I don't care what you have planned, but you are going to stow that $hit for at least thirty minutes. You got that?" *aison smiles again and then finally gives us a brief nod before going back to his bunk. Gromnir returns to the bubble and informs our co-staff 'bout *aison. we then go home and sleep unconcerned.

 

three days pass and then Gromnir is back at work. sure enough *aison went ape and attacked multiple residents and staff at breakfast not long after we had left him sitting in his room rubbing orange remains into his eyes. we gave him extra pop-tarts that eve.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 23, 2011 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

I thought the point behind using pepper spray was that it is putatively less dangerous than physically moving protesters. What gets me is that the Occupy participants were removed without serious injury on either side. The reports that I've seen so far are that no one is still suffering from the effects of the pepper spray. If that's not the case, then I guess I'll have to rethink. What I find questionable is Vol saying that the police should be fired or even more strident calls to put them in jail. If the police had gone in and physically hauled off and arrested the protesters, then we wouldn't have all of this hyperventalation. ...And, if the protesters stood for the KKK or some other terrible movement, some of the folks hyperventilating now wouldn't even catch a breath.

 

The real question, framed to be a little less inflamatory, is:

 

Has research confirmed that pepper spray is less dangerous than engaging in physical coercion or combat?

 

If it is less dangerous, then it seems to me that, in those cases where you would have no problems with using physical coercion, you should have no problems with using pepper spray. If it is more dangerous, then the question becomes:

 

At what point is the threat sufficiiently warranted to use what ammounts to increasing levels of force? The police in question might be subject to reprimand for using the spray, but it doesn't look like they broke the law in using pepper spray because the presumption is that pepper spray is less prone to cause serious injury than risking breaking limbs as protesters fight off police or, in the course of writhing in an attempt to get away, fall and impact body parts on the pavement. If the assumption about pepper spray is wrong and it is actually more dangerous, then the original statement would probably have been better stated than what amounts to:

 

American cops are pretty (expletive deleted) up. AND ...that is some really (expletive deleted) up (expletive deleted) and those cops need to go to jail for what they did.

 

Those cops shouldn't go to jail for following properly identified guidelines. A better statement might be:

 

Research shows that pepper spray is more harmful than we have hitherto been led to believe and we should change the policy so as to limit its use to a smaller list of circumstances.

 

Hell, I've gotten pepper spray in my eyes and (don't ask) even had a small amount on my genitals. It hurts like hell, but it's better than suffering a broken arm. I've also been teargassed before. Anyone who's been through basic training has.

 

I get the outrage, but I think that outrage is overwrought all the same.

[Gorth]

wrestling an angry (and possibly insane) fat, wet, naked, black behemoth in a shower...

Too much information

 

and (don't ask) even had a small amount on my genitals.

A shame that we can't ask, considering that it seems to be mostly used for "crowd control"

 

Tear gas is a good incentive to work fast during Civil Defence training too, not only in the military

 

I don't really have an opinion on the actual case, as I don't know what went before and whether or not the protesters had been warned about what would happen if they didn't move. In Europe they sometimes use high pressure water hoses (sort of like fire trucks) to disperse people. Makes them look wet and bedraggled, but I don't know if anybody has compiled any "injury statistics".

[Volourn]

"Those cops shouldn't go to jail for following properly identified guidelines."

 

But, they didn't follow the guidelines. Guidelines include not constantly spraying someone with it or using it just because someone makes you mad. Pepper spray is supposed to be only used if you are physically threatened. This was not the case. Therefore abuse of power, breaking their own regulations, and basically assault. How is that worthy of being fired and even potential criminal punishment? Just ebcause you are wearing a uniform doesn't make you above it. In fact, because you have chosen to wear the uniform you need to uphold it and should actually fiollow it or else how can one take the creed that police are the 'good guys' seriously?

 

Therer are plenty of police officers who use pepper spray as it was it was intended to be used - as a less lethal method of stopping would be violent crimials. ie. Drunks or druggies out of their mind who need to be taken into jail for at least a night may fight back and pepper spray is a good altenrative to stop them from doing so instead of the old method of beating them to a bloody pulp with a baton - not willy nilly because some people are not kissing your butt..

 

Follow your own rules or why bother having them.

 

Wearing an uniform does notm give you permission to abuse people. If anything, it should be the opposite. To serve and to protect. Not to attack and assault.

[Cantousent]

Whose rule, Vol? Pepper spray is literally considered to be less harmful than physically picking people up, cuffing them, and arresting them. The reason isn't so much the 'picking up' part as it is the struggling of protesters who can come to harm or harm police during the physical altercation. So...

 

If the police had physically removed the people by force, then this wouldn't be an issue. There has been far less outrage over the police using physical coercion to remove mobs from other areas. This is stark because it looks bad when the police use spray on people whereas we accept when the police go up to a bunch of people, grapple them, pin them to the ground, and place handcuffs on them. If there is less chance for lasting injury in using pepper spray, then why is that bad? ...And as for the people being peaceful, sure. They were, but they were also in defiance of the law. Not for speaking, mind you, but for inhabiting the area. 'Occupying it,' so to speak. If I decided to pitch a tent and occupy the area for my own personal reasons, I could only expect that I would eventually be forcibly removed. The actual removal has nothing to do with my right to speak.

 

I'm literally telling you, as I understand it, there was actual reasoning behind using the pepper spray. If I am right, then it was within the guidelines and the police will not face any criminal charges for what they did. It was not illegal.

 

That's why I say it comes down to the original assumption. Getting away from kneejerk reactions, is pepper spray more human than other types of physical coercion or not? If it is more humane, then what they did is actually good in that they took the more humane option for accomplishing something they were not only within their rights to do, but even bound to do by law. If it is not humane, then pepper spray should be constrained in use and availability.

 

EDIT: Just saw your comment Gorth. :Cant's guffawing icon: Let me tell you, the story about that little bit of pepper spray on Mr. Johnson is not a proud one. I might tell it for kicks later just for laughs. After all, it can only hurt my pride.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Cantousent

[Nightshape]

I agree. It's garbage. Pepper spray should be sued as advice - as a last resort with no other option avilable so more violent means aren't used. It should only be used if the target is physically violent. IThe problem is everyone asssumes that pepper spray isn't really dangerous even though it actually is - espciially if used haphazardry out of nager.

 

The police should be in more control of themselves. Shamesful.

 

I hate it when you speak sense.

[LadyCrimson]

Your cops are pretty ****ed up.

I take a bit of umbrage on this statement. A few highly publicized incidents doesn't = "your cops are pretty ---- up." Not that I think our police system doesn't need work. More accurate would be "those specific cops at that scene did a ---- up thing."

 

On the issue, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, from the video only, I would condemn the way it was used (those really long, spraying bursts on people who were sitting peaceably). That definitely doesn't seem right at all, in this specific instance. And the cop in question looks like a tool to begin with (he has some minor history of other stuff supposedly)

 

On the other hand, I've also seen (highly publicized) videos where cops tell protestors they have to move, the protestors refuse, the cops try to manhandle them off the grounds, the protestors struggle mightily against it/resist (vs peaceably walking away with the cops), which starts to look cruel as the cops struggle with them, and then things start to physically get out of hand from there & suddenly you have a mini-riot going on.

 

Or (highly publicized) videos of cops using rubber bullets (or whatever they are) on the more unruly crowds which goes awry because someone gets hurt from it (they may be rubber/soft material, but they can still hurt).

 

Point being, I always end up with mixed feelings about "what is a police force supposed to do, then?" about breaking up protests/crowds, if the crowd is either getting rowdy, or if the cops are under orders to do so, maybe because they're illegally blocking road/other access or whatever? It doesn't seem to matter the method...if there's injury, foul is cried. What are they supposed to do? Ask nicely and if the crowd doesn't obey, say "ok, we weren't really serious anyway" and go home?

 

If that article is correct, however, that mace is actually less risky because of less breathing issues etc risk, then they should use it for crowd control. Or the water hoses. I dunno. It's a rock and a hard place thing sometimes.

[Nepenthe]

Meh, pepper spray is a defensive weapon, designed to incapacitate an aggressive attacker (and it does that pretty damn well, and relatively safely). If you start using it on people sitting on the ground, you might as well taze them or use a nightstick to knock them out. Or even better, just execute them on the spot, no need to put them in a bus. Sure, more blood, but probably less snot.

 

Using a weapon (even a non-lethal one) on non-aggressive demonstrators sends a bad message, dragging them off would be the better alternative, even if someone does get a bruise.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Malcador]

Wearing an uniform does notm give you permission to abuse people. If anything, it should be the opposite. To serve and to protect. Not to attack and assault.

 

Heh, if only that were true. Too many cops want to play soldier or just have a burning desire to show how hard they are. G20 here and the latest Occupy Toronto stuff had them around downtown with their warfaces on. Rather funny.

[HoonDing]

Here it's just water cannon and tear gas.

Edited November 23, 2011 by virumor

[kalimeeri]

I take a bit of umbrage on this statement. A few highly publicized incidents doesn't = "your cops are pretty ---- up." Not that I think our police system doesn't need work. original.gif More accurate would be "those specific cops at that scene did a ---- up thing."

 

Thank you.

It's a thankless, damned-if-you-do-or-don't job ... one you can't even begin to appreciate until you've been there. As with any profession, there will always be a few who overreact or take it too far--those few are the ones you see in the news from time to time, because that's what makes it 'news'. Most cops are just happy to go home at night with their butts and careers intact... War Stories come later, when you've got enough distance to be able to laugh instead of cry.

[Gromnir]

Or even better, just execute them on the spot, no need to put them in a bus. Sure, more blood, but probably less snot.

 

...

 

hyperbole, right? that better be hyperbole.

 

*shrug*

 

as we stated earlier, we think that based on the video and released reports, the actions o' the university cop in question were over-the-top. we don't have enough info to be confident in our pov, but that is our impression. that being said, we thinks some folks in this thread is being ridiculous.

 

hypothetical based on initial true facts:

 

a bunch o' folks in Gromnir's neighborhood discover that we is representing some high-profile gang members in a first amendment case. the concerned parents gets organized and actually hold a protest on the street in front o' our home. high point o' our career. shoulda' taken more pictures.

 

(end of reality) ok, now imagine that the protesters decide to camp out on our front lawn. hmmmm. is not as funny no more... trampling our lawn and breaking sprinkler heads? *grumble* nevertheless, we figure that the protesters is gonna eventual leave when they get tired. unexpected turn of events: the protesters set up Camp in our yard. they pitch tents, and have campfires and use our water. huh? even so, Gromnir endures for some time... days... weeks. unfortunately, the protester/squatters is hardly organized. bad things begin to happen with more regularity. some fights occasional break out in our yard as drunk protesters fight over nothing. we find used condoms and garbage in our rose bushes and agapanthus. oh, and btw, the protesters is NOT walking all the way to the nearest public restroom whenever they needs to relieve themselves. the protesters is a nuisance, and they is creating a growing health and safety concern. and guess what, since the occupiers is being open and notorious in their squatting, Gromnir may eventual be subject to multiple civil suits. (the above examples is the ennumerated reasons for ejecting the ucd protesters... though no mention o' roses and agapanthus.)

 

what to do? we call the cops and ask for help. we says, "please remove the protesters from our property." unfortunately, when the cops arrive, the protesters refuse to leave. the protesters sit outside our door and dare the cops to move'em. what to do? should cops throw up hands and leave? is not a good choice from Gromnir's pov.

 

...

 

would we want the cops to spray a dozen seated protesters to encourage them to leave? would we want to be demonized on tv for demanding the expulsion o' the filth on our lawn? no. wait til 2:00 am when fewer folks is 'round and then dismantle the makeshift camp. if the few protesters who is in our yard at that time still refuse to move, then single out the mostest mouthy bastard and spray him. one example gets as much mileage as twelve. spray is less likely to result in injury to the cop or the protester, so we got no problem with using spray, but use reasonable and rational. nep's weapon distinction is not particular compelling. cops is more likely to injure protesters by physically moving 'em and cuffing 'em. cops is more likely to get injured if they put hands on protesters.

 

so, what is the difference 'tween ucd and Gromnir's hypothetical? the fact that ucd is a big organization and that Gromnir is a private citizen makes no difference, Nor Should It. Gromnir deserves no more protection than UCD just 'cause we is small-time. how 'bout public v. private property? nope. is loads o' cases that show that "public property" is not some kinda open area for protest. can't set up a table outside a post office on a sidewalk, so why should you gets to set up a camp on campus. that being said, parks and streets does gets gets special first amendment consideration for protesting. at ucd the locale were a quad at a public university, so maybe you got "public forum"... but even a public forum does not necessarily give protesters free reign to camp out indefinitely... 'specially when the protesters is creating genuine health and safety problems.

 

we has seen a number o' people serious injured when being restrained and cuffed. as we noted in another thread, we were admonished when we worked corrections 'cause we preferred to lay-on-hands as 'posed to using spray. the reason the supervisors criticized us is 'cause they believed that we was creating an unnecessary danger to self, residents and other staff. spray were believed to be a much safer alternative... safer for everybody involved. we not got specific numbers to back up other than those provided in our links above (am wondering if anybody actual read the doj report), but spray is widely accepted as safer. spray IS safer, but our problem with spray is probable resulting from the fact that it is so much safer. some folks is too comfortable using spray. spray is NOT particularly dangerous compared to any kind o' grappling and is far less likely to result in officer discipline, so some officers is less restrained when using spray. fear is not always a bad thing. fear keeps people from doing stoopid stuff... or it should.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

I think part of the issue right now is the level of hero-worship that goes into peoples heads about cops and firefighters. Gives certain cops a sense of "Iw'm right".

 

I mentioned earlier about the friend I have who's trying to be a cop and literally said "How can you treat those criminals like people?" The fact that he's able to say that and yet still have hopes of being a cop worries me immensely.

 

That said, I don't think pepper spray is designed or supposed be used constantly as you saw (where the guy used it like a fire hose). It's just supposed to be like a blast and then you cuff em while they're incapped. I mean this mixed with Stanford (where there's the video of riot cops just standing in front of the linked arm crew and then just grab their batons and start beating the crap out of the students) and oakland is getting to be a worrisome trend.

[Cantousent]

I've known too many cops to worship them as heroes en mass. Some of them are certainly heroic and some are true heroes, but not all and, frankly, probably not even half.

 

You make a great point, though, Calax. There have been incidents of police clashing with members of the Occupy movement in which not only was force used but even resulted in injury on both sides. You cite Oakland and Standford. Notice that, of the examples you gave, UCDavis is the center of controversy? If the police had gone in and physically removed the people there and, as a result of the conflict, been inclined to grapple them or even use batons, I don't think it would have caused as much concern.

 

Grom's example of better tactics in using the spray on the Davis crowd makes sense. Frankly, I don't even care if the police use pepper spray or not. As I understand it, pepper spray is safer, but if evidence came out later that it is indeed not safer, then I would be just as happy to see it prohibited. The point I make about it is that the way the original 'question' was formed did not encourage the type of reasoned debate that has any hope of working towards informed policy. Looking at one incident and then saying that the cops suck is not an argument for any real policy at all.

 

I did read both links, Gromnir, and they are informative. My point is that further research could refute early studies, although I suppose there won't really be much more investigation on the specific asthma related deaths. If later studies show that pepper spray is not as safe, we should definitely tailor policy to that research.

[Nepenthe]

Or even better, just execute them on the spot, no need to put them in a bus. Sure, more blood, but probably less snot.

 

...

 

hyperbole, right? that better be hyperbole.

 

*shrug*

Of course, but the slippery slope argument shouldn't be restricted to game publishers, now should it?

 

Fascinating story, personally believe that natural persons should overall enjoy a higher level of rights than legal ones, certainly that someone sitting on the lawn of a body that owns acres of lawns is violating that body's rights to a much lesser degree than when someone sits on a private person's handkerchief sized front lawn.

 

I admit that my view is probably coloured by how weapons (non-lethal and otherwise) are viewed in Finnish jurisprudence, namely that "laying-on-hands" is much more easily accepted than either OC spray, tazers (or random executions).

 

I know a lot of cops from my past life, I respect all of them apart from one racist traffic cop, but then again, they will refrain from using oleoresin capsicum unless physically attacked.

[Hurlshort]

Considering how amazingly police departments across the country handled the Occupy protesters, it's pretty sad that they get tared and feathered over this one instance. I would say the difference is in training and preparation. The forces that went into the Occupy literally had weeks to prepare and train for the eviction. There was one rough night in Oakland, and everyone stepped back after that and investigated how to handle the situation better.

 

The UC Davis protest was handled poorly obviously. I think it might be an indicator of problems within that specific department, or maybe even more generally University police departments, but going after cops in general is a bit much.

[Malcador]

Don't think it's just one incident making people think less of cops. Lots of cameras around the Occupy stuff too, so that helps.

[Calax]

I've known too many cops to worship them as heroes en mass. Some of them are certainly heroic and some are true heroes, but not all and, frankly, probably not even half.

 

You make a great point, though, Calax. There have been incidents of police clashing with members of the Occupy movement in which not only was force used but even resulted in injury on both sides. You cite Oakland and Standford. Notice that, of the examples you gave, UCDavis is the center of controversy? If the police had gone in and physically removed the people there and, as a result of the conflict, been inclined to grapple them or even use batons, I don't think it would have caused as much concern.

I think it's more because Davis was the most obviously black and white incident, where people who' were doing little more than sitting there are getting blasted in the face and abused by the officers of the law. But in the other two cases, rather than taking the "high road" the protesters seemed to be actively resisting

 

Whoops, wasn't Stanford, it was Berkley

 

For the "occupy" crew, and those that just don't like cops, Davis is the most obvious and blatant misuse of power. While Berkley and Oakland were there, the cops could argue that "Hey, they resisted and we broke them up (although that doesn't excuse the Oakland "riot police grabbing and carting off a wheelchair bound guy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa8UmBaqUGw

 

Notice in that clip they specifically mention that the protestors were actively resisting the attempts by the cops to move and there was an overreaction on the PD's part? That's why it's not used nearly as much as Davis. You can't say "Well... the protestors EYES WERE ATTACKING ME! I had to respond" and get away with it.

[Morgoth]

Watching how relentlessly American police is using pepper spray and violence reminds me how the 1%, I mean the Kings of feudal medieval Europe forced their way onto the people.

 

Modern feudal corporation state.

[Gfted1]

[Morgoth]

Don't worry, soon it's gonna be over, then your grinner is gonna disappear and turning into eternal agony.