The flagging Occupy movement is gleefully—yes, gleefully—exploiting the University of California pepper spray incident for all it’s worth, which is fine. This is the game demonstrators play, and when their objective is, say, to overthrow a brutal dictatorship, the time-tested tactic of provoking authorities into apparent abuse is a wonderful way to attract support to a worthy cause. When the objective is to, uh, like say things aren’t as good as they might be and argue that the people working hard to make a living on Wall Street have too much and need to give more to the ones who spend all day drumming in parks, there lingers a legitimate question of whether the end justifies the means.
But I digress.
The police who pepper sprayed the passive squatters at UC Davis have been placed on leave, and you can bet that they will be defended to the hilt by the police union, which will try to show that they were following the book. “Heh! Heh! Gotcha!” chuckle the Occupiers. It’s a good gotcha, to be sure.
The police over-reacted, regardless of what you are hearing from some experts. No doubt: it is a delicate situation, and no doubt (in my mind, at least), the protesters almost certainly were going to make the police do something that would look bad on TV, even when it was justified. But this wasn’t.
Bill O’Reilly absurdly said last night that we shouldn’t “second guess police.” Now that’s an invitation to a police state if I ever heard one. Can we second-guess the Egyptian police. Bill? I consulted a well-respected police chief in a major metropolitan area with plenty of experience in dealing with protesters. Here’s some of what he said:
“…the pepper spray was unnecessary and ill-advised. The most important thing to remember when a police officer considers any use of force is that you use only that force necessary to make an arrest or neutralize a threat. These folks, sitting, arms linked, were not a threat. Now if they intended to arrest these individuals, the police can use the force necessary to take them into custody…the MINIMUM force necessary. The use of force continuum starts with:
- verbal instructions,
- guiding with the use of hands (“going hands-on” as cops say),
- then the use of baton, pepper-spray, and/or taser,
- then the use of deadly force.
“The police should have choreographed the arrest of these folks. You begin by having conversations with them, informing them that
they are going to be arrested (assuming they don’t comply with the law). Many protesters will cooperate with their arrest because that is what
they were intending for their cause. They will typically, allow you to handcuff them and then some want to be carried from the scene, others
will walk to the transport vehicle.
“If these folks refused to cooperate and would resist being taken into custody, then the first use force would be to go “hands-on”, send an
arrest team to “unlink” the arms and carry them, one at a time, to the transport vehicle. This requires adequate numbers of police officers
to protect the arrest team, keep the crowds back, and keep the arrests orderly and safe. We typically videotape our actions when we have
situations like this.
“Had the protesters started to physically resist, the use of pepper-spray might have been justified, especially, if it is aggressive resistance vs. passive resistance. The public has this notion that they want the police to “fight fair.” Unfortunately, that sometimes means that we have to get shot at first, before we shoot. That we have to get hit first before we hit back. This, of course, is not what we train. If someone acts aggressively toward us, we can defend ourselves with the equipment we carry and are trained to use. This includes our hands, batons, pepper spray, taser, and firearm. “
And, of course, the action of the police at UC looked awful, which is a separate form of misconduct, irresponsibility. The police can’t do their job if the public is hostile to them, and spraying a caustic substance on non-resisting citizens only increases suspicion and disrespect of legitimate law enforcement everywhere. Worse yet, it gave the “Occupy” movement more energy and something specific to rally against, for a change.
Ethics Alarms 
There’s a pretty large assumption here: that the police should have broken up the protest in the first place.
When the objective is to, uh, like say things aren’t as good as they might be and argue that the people working hard to make a living on Wall Street have too much and need to give more to the ones who spend all day drumming in parks, there lingers a legitimate question of whether the end justifies the means.
*sigh* That’s not the complaint. Along with including “editorialization,” talk of OWS is also completely irrelevant to the post. The ethics of breaking up a protest don’t change whether or not the goals of the protest are good or bad.
1. They were on ground requiring a permit to continue their stay. Of course it should have been broken up.
2. It is a separate point, to be sure. But it’s still worth making. The mistakes of the police are being intentionally provoked. It is like a child making a parent lose his temper, so the parent over-reacts, hits the child, and then the child exacts desired benefits.
1. can you link to the permit requirement. I hadn’t seen that, and my google-fu isn’t doing so well.
2. OWS is completely unrelated. I’m pretty sure sitting in a line that doesn’t block a concourse can’t be considered “intentionally provoking”
Also, did you realize you just justified the blaming the victim of child abuse. Oh, why must you make me beat you! Horrible.
good Point tgt! I apologize if it bums you out that I agree with you. But I do believe you’re much closer to understanding the “why” of OWS than Jack is – these protesters are made up of people from all walks of life – not just “dirty hippies who need to shower before they “git eh jeeab” that chlid-labor endorser Newt Gingrich would like us to believe.
I’m only bummed when people use invalid arguments, making my side look weaker than it actually is.
Also, I haven’t written up what I think of OWS here or what I believe the “why” of it is. I just called out Jack’s lazy interpretation.
Correction..it’s an easy and obvious interpretation, but not lazy. Distinction. Sometimes the truth is right in front of your nose.
I didn’t not justify child abuse, as you well know. I don’t know that any child, other than in one “Bad Seed: type film I saw once, would actually be so canny and Machiavellian as to do that. Being provoked is not the same as justification. John Wilkes Booth was provoked, but he wasn’t justified.
Nice try, though. Thank God OWS doesn’t have you working in its “Gotcha” Dept.
Correction..it’s an easy and obvious interpretation, but not lazy.
As someone who thought that it was obvious that science used to say that we need to drink 8 glasses of water a day, your easy and obvious interpretations don’t hold much credence.
The OWS (in general) isn’t about income inequality. It’s about the culture of entitlement of wallstreet. It’s protesting the unfair actions of the financial sector, and the lack of punishment. They’re pointing out unethical behavior that nobody should be standing for. The message started pretty wishy-washy (no more so than the tea party), but that’s the core idea.
I didn’t not justify child abuse, as you well know.
Double negative. But it sure looks to me like you either justified abuse, or didn’t have a point. Your words:
It is a separate point, to be sure. But it’s still worth making. The mistakes of the police are being intentionally provoked. It is like a child making a parent lose his temper, so the parent over-reacts, hits the child, and then the child exacts desired benefits.
The protesters at UC Davis were sitting peacefully, and not even blocking the causeway. When you set the bar of provocation that low, you are justifying the response. They provoked the cops by not letting their civil rights be trampled! If you’re not trying to justify the response, what are you doing? Saying peaceful protest is unethical?
Being provoked is not the same as justification. John Wilkes Booth was provoked, but he wasn’t justified.
I don’t think you know what provoked means. Did someone intentionally stir up John Wilke’s Booth? Did someone try to make John Wilke’s Booth act violently? Did they try to anger him to the point of retaliation?
Actual provocation reaches the level of fighting words. It’s not protected behavior.
Jeez, Jack, have you ever been to a peaceful protest? Flash mobs must drive you nuts.
I like well-considered peaceful protests, in moderation. They still have to clear out when the police say to do so. Rule of Law.
Yes, and all that peaceful protest around slavery would have been so much more successful if they had just cleared out when the police said to do so.
I’m with Danielle, though I probably would have used Jim Crow instead of slavery.
You do seem to confuse law with ethics very often.
Jim Crow is a more appropriate reference. Thanks.
“I like those peace protests that agree with me, politically” is the strong message I’ve gotten.
Well, you are wrong, and that’s a cheap, cheap shot.
I respect protests that are controlled, articulate, well-informed and clear. I do not agree with most of the Tea Party agenda, but their protests were valid democratic exercises. I thought the Vietnam war was a big mistake, but most of the protests were dishonest, self-serving, and uncivil. I object to any protest that tries to provoke police into excessive force. I don’t care what its aims are. The fact that the groups that tend to use this tactic favor positions I do not speaks to their character and the kinds of causes such people are attracted to.
If you look,you can find several pieces here extremely critical of Wall Street, executive compensation, and botched national policy. I object to wastefulness, ignorance, and political naivete. I object when people who haven’t taken the time to understand the system protest to overthrow the system. I object when people who complain about not having jobs use time and energy they should be using to look for jobs complaining instead. I object to anyone Occupying Wall Street who doesn’t know what the SEC is.
The way you affect change in a democracy is to organize, find a candidate, and get supporters, not call for imprisonment without laws and elimination of systems without process.
Your comment is demonstrably untrue and unfair, and I expected better from you.
“The fact that the groups that tend to use this tactic favor positions I do not speaks to their character and the kinds of causes such people are attracted to.”
Well, that certainly sums it up. Makes me think of an Annette Benning line in some president movie that ends….”when you so clearly hate Americans”. Did you actually read that before you posted it? Yikes!
I think you are way off base on this whole post. Police action has historically become part of the protest in many valid peaceful protest movements that have had spurred positive change. I also agreed with tgt on the child abuse validation comments. Truth be told, if I was picking a debate team, tgt would be my pick for captain. I just didn’t want him second guessing his opinion based on someone so obviously left-leaning agreeing.
I’ll post it again.
“The fact that the groups that tend to use this tactic favor positions I do not speaks to their character and the kinds of causes such people are attracted to.”
Excessive police action from a repressive regime is one thing, provoking police violence by attacking or abusing the police is another, pure “ends justify the means “by any means necessary”, unethical tactics. And yes, unethical people are more likely to use unethical tactics. The civil rights marchers did not unreasonably provoke Bull Connor. The fact that patriots throwing rocks at British soldiers provoked a galvanizing massacre does not validate the tactic.
Civilized and ethical people support civilized and ethical positions, supported by civilized and ethical means. Wow, What a concept.
The child abuse argument tgt used is silly, and simply intentionally distorts what I said. Check out Casey the Punisher again.
I didn’t see anything that “provoked police violence by attacking or abusing the police” but I also think it is a sad day that students cannot peacefully protest on a University campus where, I hope, we encourage thought and peaceful defense of students ideals.
I agree. It is a strong message. One that has been received.
This screams for FIRE. It’s odd, in that Jack is normally on the other side of the issue. I guess indviduals alone have more protection in his book than when the individuals group together.
So, you disagree with the UC Davis protesters, but you like “well-considered peaceful protests, in moderation.”
I’m sure a sit in of a public forum that doesn’t prohibit anyone from anything is peaceful and in moderation. It also was well-considered against the raise in tuition.
It appears you’re arguing with a strawman. Your justifications for dislike don’t apply to the target of your dislike.
The child abuse argument tgt used is silly, and simply intentionally distorts what I said. Check out Casey the Punisher again.
The UC-Davis kids/Police is very different than tormenters/Casey or Child/Abuser. If you had used the tormenters/Casey argument, I would have called you crazy for thinking the completely peaceful people were bullies.
I just can’t see what else the analogy could be trying to show. The children behaved badly so they deserve a timeout, but instead they were beat; the UC Davis protesters were also victims of improper force, so they must have been doing something that was bad and deserved lesser punishment?
“The police can’t do their job if the public is hostile to them, and spraying a caustic substance on non-resisting citizens only decreases suspicion and disrespect of legitimate law enforcement everywhere. ” I think you mean it INCREASES suspicion and disrespect.
THANKS! Yup, that’s right.
You beat me to this, but I’ll post my analysis as soon as I figure out what I think.
Jeez, Bob, if I waited for that, I’d never write anything!!!
“The flagging Occupy movement…”
Oh, gracious me, Jack. Did you actually say “flagging”? As in “faltering”? Wasn’t a few days ago that Fox News declared the Occupy movement dead the same day that tens of thousands took to the streets of New York City?
Jack, my friend, wishful thinking does not become you.
Meanwhile, your arch enemy, Michael Moore, sent out an email today outlining some concrete demands. I’d provide a link but I’m on my iPhone and it’s just too hard right now. I’m sure you can find it with no problem.
Methinks your continuing knee jerk reaction to all things Occupy masks a hidden agenda. Hey, it’s ok, Jack. We all have hidden agendas, don’t we? It’s just that some of us don’t mind sharing.
Ever read Howard Zinn?
Morning, Jack. On the big box computer now, so here’s a link from Michael Moore – Where Does Occupy Wall Street Go From Here? – http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/where-does-occupy-wall-street-go-here
The boldface part is what you might term wishy-washy (kinda like the Declaration of Independence hahahaha!), but the second part, “10 Things We Want”, may finally silence your criticism that the movement has no concrete goals.
Meanwhile, here’s a proposal from Dennis Kucinich which I will present to our local Occupy chapter – “the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act, proposes nationalizing the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. What this means for the dollar is that it will be un-privatized, changing from a debt-based currency to a debt-free one overnight.”
http://my.firedoglake.com/gammaglobalist/2011/10/08/representative-vows-to-occupycongress/
Jack, are you a chess player?
I am. A little rusty, but President of the Arlington High Chess Club, and board #1 (or #2) player on the chess team.
You’ll have to find someone I respect as much as I respect you, Jeff. Michael Moore is near the bottom of my respect list, well below Dennis Kucinich, who’s not very high either. Someone politically motivated who will read their own agenda into an intentionally ambiguous and vague message doesn’t count anyway, does he?
Yeah, I knew that (how you respect those two).
So, do you have an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad? If you do, how ’bout we play some chess? Chess With Friends works well, nice and simple to use. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chess-with-friends/id334113326?mt=8 I’ve been playing a man on Facebook, creator of the Spirit Science series – http://youtu.be/PDMzvJOu9vQ and we’re having lotsa fun. It’s turn-based, so you don’t have to wait around for the other guy to move.
Of course you are a Howard Zinn fan. An anti-American propagandist who slants history as badly as Michele Bachman. He and Noam Chomsky are the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of the ridiculous contention that the greatest force for good in the civilized world over the last two centuries is really an evil cabal responsible for all the world’s ills. Their well-articulated slander has bleached the brains of many of the protesters, and if ideas were treated like food additives and the US was a repressive as they claim, it would have been banned. I prefer Mother Goose. Hell, I prefer Russ Meyer.
Let’s not make unfounded accusations—I have no agenda whatsoever regarding self-indulgent and inarticulate demonstrations, other than to identify them for what they are.
Tantrums aren’t achievements. Sorry.
No hidden agenda? OK. I believe you. Most people do, however. Even if they’re not consciously aware of it.
I went to the library to check out Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, but it was out. Glad it was, cause I got the easy-to-read comic book version… http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-American-Empire/dp/0805087443
“From the Philippine conquest, U.S. leaders learned that trouble and social unrest at home can be cured by the prescription of foreign war. Americans will unify against a foreign enemy.” – Page 76, A People’s History of American Empire
Hmmm, Iran, anyone? Or maybe (God Forbid!) China?
I know, “Wag the Dog.” A classic example of mistaking cause for effect. Not considering a nuclear Iran as a threat to civilization is really beyond the pale..one of the main reasons that Ron Paul is disqualified for the presidency. The real question is, would our current president have the courage to take military action if it were deemed the only sure way to stop a nuclear attack on Israel, knowing that it would infuriate the Moores, Kucinichs and Zinns?
In 1861, William Seward told Lincoln that the US should declare war on Britain and France is order to solidify Union support. Why Lincoln didn’t fire him has always been a mystery.
Google searches for OWS peaked back in October, and although the evictions brought some renewed interest, the overall trend appears to be downward:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=occupy+wall+street&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=ytd&sort=0
Google trends are often used to gauge interest in issues. For instance it can be used to monitor flu symptom activity: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=google-flu-trends-on-par-with-cdc-data
I have not been able to find anywhere what the protestors were trying to do by sitting there arms locked. If they were not threatening public safety i dont see any need to remove them. But if the police had decided to arrest them , had warned them properly and tried other methods using pepper spray, especially the weak spray they were using, is a proper tacticul action. What I havent seen is the police trying anything else. If they just jumped straight to spraying them then I have a problemn with it. Its reminds me of the over use of tazers. Cops seem to just jumping right to the use of the tazer instead of trying other methods.
Where I used to live, the cops were really taze-happy. I can’t count the number of times I opened the newspaper to read that the Norfolk PD had tazed some little old lady or such.
Ethics Alarms Story Teller:
I’m sorry you don’t grasp the legal standard. It seems your old school expert may be misguided as well.
“The federal constitutional standard does not require an inquiry into whether the force or incident could have been avoided or minimized if the officer had somehow done better or differently. It only requires that the officer’s actions be reasonable under then-prevailing circumstances.”
Randy Means, Police Legal Advisor/Trainer
Thanks, Randy, but this is an ethics blog, and the ‘old school expert” is a current police chief of national prominence, and an expert in this field as well. The question isn’t whether the police will be liable for spraying, or whether they broke any laws. The question is whether what they did was necessary and right, as in fair, kind, and reasonable. It wasn’t. Obviously. It was also stupid, though I didn’t mention that. It made the officers look like bullies, and the demonstrators look live victims, which harms the police, their reputation and their effectiveness.
I’m a lawyer, thanks, as well as a former prosecutor—I grasp the constitutional requirements very well—it’s just that they are not central here. It’s an ethics issue, and the police conduct was unethical.