Psychology of pepper spray

Researchers who've investigated the way that "nonlethal" weapons like pepper spray and tasers affect policing weigh in on the epidemic of callous and brutal police attacks on protesters. They conclude that the effect of giving police an "intermediate force" option isn't a reduction in lethal force, but rather to escalate situations where police might have negotiated with citizens into situations where those citizens are shocked or sprayed.

That the number of times police used force seemed disconnected from threats to public order led Friday and Lumb to hypothesize that having pepper spray could change how officers behaved.

“Do officers become more assertive in suspect confrontational situations when they are ‘armed’ with an additional tool? Does the possession of OC spray unreasonably increase the sense of self-confidence and security and thereby create a self-fulfilling prophecy of threat?” they wondered. “While OC spray, when used, reduced injuries, does its mere possession increase the potential for physical force being used?”

Two studies conducted in the Netherlands showed that pepper spray was useful for subduing violent subjects, but actually caused non-violent situations to escalate into violence — and about 10 percent of all uses were carried out against non-threatening subjects.

Why do Police Officers Use Pepper Spray?

(Image: WTO protests 10, a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image from djbones's photostream)

• [S P]

  Sorry if the answer to this is known to all who have more time to follow such matters, but can police officers who attack the public with pepper spray/tasers/whatever be charged with a crime? So far I’ve just seen some reference to them being “suspended from duties”.

  • [SedanChair]

    Of course they can be charged. Just like the President can be charged with war crimes.

  • [Guest]

    They -can- be. Yes. Especially if they can’t provoke the response that ‘justifies’ their brutality.

• [anharmyenone]

  When a police officer orders one to do something, one is legally required to do it. Police officers are legally required to only use pepper spray under very limited circumstances. We have seen instances where both these requirements of the law have not been adhered to. If we are to not have a double standard, we will be concerned about both kinds of lawlessness and not excuse or condone either. Both these kinds of violations of law tear at the fabric of society and imperil the Burkean social contract.

  • [Cory Doctorow]

    That’s an awfully sloppy equivalence. Conscientious nonviolent resistance has long been recognized as a legitimate form of expression and principle. It’s absurd to equivocate it to the disproportionate, illegal use of force by police officers who are deputized to exert coercive force in the name of upholding the law. What principle, what conscientious position, is evinced by a police officer who turns chemical weapons on nonviolent protesters? How did civil rights and justice activists from MLK to Gandhi “tear at the fabric of society” by refusing to follow the law? What of the police officers in the Arab Spring who refused to follow orders to attack their fellow citizens? Did they “tear at the fabric of society” by refusing to slaughter? Are all laws of equal gravity and legitimacy?

    It’s no “double standard” to apply different rules to law enforcement officers than to the general public — no more than it’s a “double standard” to ask elected officials to disclose their private financial dealings and expenses while not requiring this of the citizenry. If the people getting gassed and tazed were allowed to carry and use gas and tazers, too, and to make arrests, and to strike others with batons, and so forth, then it would indeed be a double standard to apply different rules to them than are applied to LEOs. But they are not, and it is not. If the people on the receiving end of violence had sworn a solemn oath to serve and protect their fellow citizens, then it would be a double-standard to apply different rules to them than are applied to LEOs, but they did not, and it is not.

    • [dragonfrog]

      How did civil rights and justice activists from MLK to Gandhi “tear at the fabric of society” by refusing to follow the law?

      They absolutely “tore at the fabric of society”!  We wouldn’t remember and honour them if they hadn’t.

      MLK tore the fabric of a profoundly racially segregated society to pieces, and got it largely put back together in a racially equal shape.

      Gandhi went arguably even further – he tore the fabric of a colonially subjugating society to tiny little shreds, stomped them in the dust, and shipped them back to England COD in a thousand tiny boxes.

      If Gandhi had just wanted some salt without buying it from the English, his civil disobedience would have amounted to ripping a tiny corner off the fabric of subjugation, and only students of Indian history would know his name.  If the Boston tea party’s slogan had been only “no taxation”, and not included “without representation”, the would have been likewise forgotten, because they tears they were trying to make in the fabric of society would be so small.

      And the reason OWS is getting the attention, and the repression, that it is, is precisely because they are attempting to tear up the fabric of their society in a big, meaningful way.  Otherwise they would just be some people who don’t want to pay to use a campground.

    • [anharmyenone]

      “Sloppy equivalence” is an appropriate term when one equates the events preceding and during the Selma marches with #occupy. In Selma, people were not allowed to register to vote on account of race and were beaten and arrested when they showed up at the voter registration office simply because they were African-American and trying to register to vote. An equivalent situation would be if camping in downtown parks were a normal, routine and legal thing for “white” people to do, but “black” people were not allowed to camp in those same parks. There is no comparison between dictatorial middle east governments or the dictatorial British colonial government in India and big city governments in the US today.

      There really ought to be a Godwin-like rule about reflexively bringing up MLK and Ghandi in incongruous contexts.

      As far as whether police should be held to a higher standard, yes and no. Yes, they have received special training and accepted certain responsibilities so they should be held to a higher standard in many ways. But because they are willing to take on responsibilities and duties the rest of us have not taken on, and because they are sometimes the thin blue line separating civilization from anarchy they should also be cut more slack sometimes–not slack to do premeditated evil, but slack to not be constantly second-guessed when they have to make split-second decisions that the rest of us don’t have to face. Walking along la-de-da “I think I’ll spray these people because I can” is wrong, of course. Also wrong is “I think I’ll harass these police to the emotional breaking point and see what they do.”

      • [l337n00b]

        “There is no comparison between dictatorial middle east governments or the dictatorial British colonial government in India and big city governments in the US today.”

        And if you had asked Mubarak whether it was right that people protest against him, what do you think *he* would have said?  The whole reason we have constitutional rights protecting freedom of expression is to make sure that the people in power, or even the majority of people together, don’t get to decide what is worth expressing and what is not worth expressing.  Ghandi provides a clear example that protests can be to the benefit of society – your judgement that this issue not a pressing one does not negate this.  I agree with you that the US is not equivalent to dictatorial governments, but is that the threshold that must be passed to allow protest?

        Also, I’m sick of people crying Godwin every time someone make a valid comparison to a history.  If people are gathering en masse to protest peacefully because they think their society is sick and the government needs to listen, then I don’t see how a comparison to Ghandi or the civil rights movement means the conversation has jumped the shark.  I swear that the next time a democracy elects a government that goes on to seize dictatorial power to attempt world domination and the extermination of a segment of its population it will be because every time someone compared that government to the nazis someone yelled “GODWIN!”

        The current system of letting the rich have their way at the expense of everyone else has killed people and it continues to kill people.  That is not an exaggeration.  Do you think that everyone who was evicted from their home had somewhere else to go?  Did everyone who lost their jobs manage to put food on the table the next week?

        As I said, I agree that America is not the worst place on Earth, but that doesn’t mean everything is great in America, nor does it mean that we should all stay home and shut up.

  • [peregrinus]

    Quite wrong.  What if a police officer detains a suspect, is a wee bit off-balance that day, and orders you to execute the suspect with a pistol that doesn’t look standard issue?  Like a .357, say.

    Do you blow the suspect away?

  • [Josh Jasper]

     A police officer in my neighborhood ordered a woman *at gunpoint * to have sex with him.  Was she legally required to be raped?

  • [Guest]

    When a police officer orders one to do something, one is legally required to do it.

    THAT IS A LIE.

  • [Guest]

     If I refuse a police officers lawful order, I am subject to arrest. Period.

    Any other response, including yours, is what “imperils the social fabric”

    • [Another Kevin]

      And an affirmative defence to the charges resulting from that arrest is that the order was ultra vires – beyond the authority of the cop to issue.  Another affirmative defence is necessity – as when the cops form a phalanx blocking the retreat of a crowd and then order the crowd to disperse. Another affirmative defense to “failure to obey” is factual obedience, as when – as has happened at several Occupations so far – they order the crowd to disperse, and then attack those who break and run, precisely for complying with the order.

      “Failure to obey” charges very, very seldom stick. They serve their purpose; the accused gets to spend a night in jail, and likely gets roughed up by the cops.

      Obligatory authoritarianism: Of course, anyone out on the street without the government’s permission deserves everything they get. Freedom of movement isn’t a constitutional right. Nowhere does the Constitution give you the right to be out on the public highway. You can exercise your freedom of assembly at home. Out on the street without permission, you’re trespassing on government property.

  • [Dennis Smith]

    Quote “When a police officer orders one to do something, one is legally required to do it” If a police office told you to run around naked with a bunch of flowers poking from your rear, would you do it?

• [peregrinus]

  It might work like this – a % of officers are more likely to use weapons than others; and a % will be clearly aware of the internal review process and requirements that follow weapon usage.  Firing a gun is big time, and gets lots of attention.  Applying a choke hold is fast and easy, and can be explained away with a simple ‘perp resisted’.

  Non-lethal weapons slide in between, and I bet the review process isn’t at all like that for guns.  So weapons-leaning officers will use them more easily than a gun.  And a % of that set of individuals will be callous about it, and act with impunity, in the belief that if it don’t make the headlines, it ain’t gonna bug the chief too bad.

  So we arrive at Mr Pepperspray.

• [ookluh]

  The simple response to this, and a response that police officers all over the world are forcing, is the removal of their non-lethal tools. Yeah, most officers aren’t doing it, but the risk to human safety isn’t worth letting the bad seeds have the means to inflict harm so readily. 

  I hope to see this issue on state ballots next year.

• [Simon Aplin]

  Less-lethal, Cory, not non-lethal. It’s a bit of naming ambiguity that forces armed with less-lethal weaponry like to use to suggest that pepper spray, baton rounds and tasers carry no threat of lethality and are therefore safe to use. 

  It’s important that we all, especially those of us with a widely observed platform, remember that these weapons have all caused fatalities and would be more correctly referred to as ‘less-lethal’. 

  • [Guest]

     less lethal weapons are, indeed, still weapons.

    Police attacking protestors with less-than-lethal weapons are still attacking unarmed protestors with weapons. WEAPONS.

    People. We bought them, we can take them away from the irresponsible man-children.

    • [GlenBlank]

      less lethal weapons are, indeed, still weapons.   Police attacking protestors with less-than-lethal weapons [...]

      Careful – your terminology is slipping.  :-)

      The proper term is “less lethal”, not “less-than-lethal”.

      “Less-than-lethal” is logically equivalent to “non-lethal.”  The whole point of lobbying for the change in terminology was to remind everyone – the cops, their bosses, the press, the public – that these *are* potentially lethal weapons, and should thus only be used in situations where lethal force is justified.

      You shouldn’t tase anyone, or beat them with clubs, or shoot them with beanbag rounds or baton rounds or rubber bullets, if you wouldn’t be justified in shooting them with regular guns.

      Any time you use any of those things, you risk killing someone; so you should only use them when that’s a necessary and unavoidable risk.

      I realize that *you* understand this – I just wanted to point out to everyone that careless use of ‘less-than-lethal’ can obscure this crucial distinction.

  • [Drew McC.]

    For clarity, ‘non-lethal’ in this context is shorthand for ‘non-lethal if used properly on an average person without some form of increased susceptibility’. Effective weaponry can only be classified based upon that criterion. To refer to them by any other term is to sow confusion.

• [Quothz]

  No such law. You have to obey police orders in a clear and present emergency if those orders are otherwise lawful, and you cannot resist arrest (but you don’t have to do what you’re told during an arrest – you can just be passive). With those exceptions, there’s no legal reason you can’t just walk away from a cop shouting orders.

  • [peregrinus]

    We’d all be well advised to know the law then.  Mr Pepperspray will always tell you it’s an emergency, and that his orders are lawful.

    I’ve been faced with officers attempting to arrest companions for rather unspecific criminal activity – e.g. purported drunk & disorderly – and challenged the enthusiastic cops with the question (which you can ask in the UK) of which section of the Police and Criminal Evidence@boingboing-318c4c36b0c054314e8d000afb1a007d:disqus 

    • [shadowfirebird]

      What bugs me is when people are arrested for resisting arrest.  How exactly does that work? 

      • [peregrinus]

        Confusing eh?!   It seems like an admission that the initial arrest attempt had no legal foundation.  Surely the cops would submit the base charge with resisting arrest as a corollary charge?!  I don’t know, never happened to me.

        What I haven’t yet seen is a citizen’s arrest of an out of line cop.  That might be dangerous, but would surely inform us all a great deal.

        • [shadowfirebird]

          Well, hell.  If you arrested a cop, where would you take him?  The police station?  I can see *that* ending well. 

          Which is, I agree, a problem.

        • [Another Kevin]

          There is a place in the system for stand-alone “resisting arrest” charges. Consider the hypothetical of a cop executing a (presumptively valid) arrest warrant against a citizen who responds violently, endangering the cop and the backup who must be called to subdue the citizen. In the ensuing investigation, the warrant turns out to be founded on a case of mistaken identity. It would appear reasonable to continue to press the “resisting arrest” charge.

          What offends against the social contract is where “resisting arrest” turns into “contempt of cop.” In some of these cases, “resisting” means “failure to lick boots” – virtually everyone resist arrest in the sense that virtually nobody wants to be arrested. In others, it’s a coverup for violence initiated by the cop: “Officer John Doe punched Richard Roe in the mouth,” turned into “Richard Roe bit Officer John Doe on the knuckles.”  In yet others, the underlying charge would be lawful: “failure to disperse,” perhaps, but there is a lawful defense of necessity: the all-too-common case where cops order a crowd to “move on” after first cutting off their avenues of escape, so that they have no way to comply with what would otherwise perhaps be a lawful order.

          It’s tough to draw the line under the feudalism that seems to be our natural lot. When your neighbours have a tough warlord rallying a well-armed force to fight, it seems necessary to have an even tougher warlord and an even better-armed and larger force to repel them. But then there’s nothing left for it but to pray that the warlord won’t decide that his own people present a more tempting target. What we see in all these cases is a replay of Prince John seizing the reins while King Richard is in captivity, and allowing the Sheriff of Nottingham free rein. That’s why Robin Hood became such a popular figure – all the more so because today he’d be called a “one-percenter.” (Legend has it that he was Robert, Earl of Locksley, in disguise.)

          I digress.  Sorry.

        • [shadowfirebird]

          I see your point, but it makes for a very easy out for a cop that wants to arrest you for something but doesn’t have anything: charge him with something spurious in such a way that he will freak out a little, then add resisting arrest and subtract the original charge.  How the hell do you prove that?

          So I still say that a stand-alone “resisting arrest” charge should not be valid.

        • [Guest]

          The vast majority of the protestors are held and released without (unwinnable) charge, or are dismissed in court. The police know this, so they can be a little extra brutal, because the point is NOT to enforce laws in court, but to encourage people not to come back for more.

          So, instead of executing the laws of the Legislature in accordance with the rules of the Judiciary, the Executive Branch is absolutely punishing people for holding opinions unpopular with land-owners and money lenders.

          USA Fail.

        • [Stephen Rice]

          That’s not reasonable at all. A person who resists arrest because the people who are arresting him should not be arresting him, they’ve mistaken him for someone else, is quite justified in resisting. It’s the same reasoning that means that if someone innocently mistakes your bag for their bag you are justified in stopping them taking it from you. You shouldn’t pull out a gun and start blasting but the other guy has made a mistake at your expense. If the police have the wrong guy you don’t just quietly present both wrists.

          What you’re looking for with someone who flips out and attacks the police because they’re wrongly arresting him is a standalone charge of assault.

      • [Stephen Rice]

        You’re not arrested for resisting arrest but it does aggravate whatever you were originally being arrested for. It’s not a standalone offence.

• [Perizade]

  I think a lot of it is the lack of accountability and consequences for misuse of these methods. Losing ten days of vacation time, such as happened to Anthony Bologna, is insulting. Had the consequence been any lighter it would have been a reward.

• [shadowfirebird]

  I’m no psychologist but it seems pretty clear to me* — working as a police officer predisposes you to a certain rather unusual mindset: you equate ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’; you tend to see non-police as potential criminals and police as potential victims — or as above suspicion.

  In that environment it must be very easy to get to the point where using every tool available to the fullest extent possible — whether it be ethical or not — must seem entirely justified, even if you started out a pretty decent person.

  (* Which is not to say that I think an expert opinion on the matter is a waste of time, of course.)

  • [Guest]

    Myself, i’m much less interested in making excuses for their illegal, abusive, barbaric behaviors.

    Actually, I’m exactly as reasonable and flexible as they have been about the situation. 

    • [shadowfirebird]

      I assure you I have no wish to make excuses for them; only to understand them, which is another thing altogether.

      • [Guest]

        Only if you’re taking the time to speak carefully. Also, I do get that. 

• [J. Brad Hicks]

  The first place I heard of any of these weapons was in Herman “Dr. Strangelove” Kahn’s 1950 book, /The Year 2000,/ where he suggested equipping our police forces with less-lethal weaponry, the exact weapons we’re talking about now. In that book, all the way back in 1950, the original model for Dr. Strangelove addressed this concern, the fear that if you equipped police with less-lethal weapons, they’d be more willing to use them. What Dr. Strangelove reassured us was that this would never happen, because the American people would know better, and would never let it happen.

• [Richard Lord]

  Escalating the situation into a violence is the point. The images produced create the fear needed to justify the police state.” Look at the violence George so glad we have police, to protect us from those homeless looking people”  What they can not handle, is when students are able to peacefully be symbols of the Christ figure. That is a iconic image, the powers have never been able to deal with. So Bullies nudge the bullied with a finger into the chest, instead of a punch, when the punch is thrown by the little guy in anger  he gets caught by the teacher. That is how it works. 

  • [Scratcheee]

    I think escalating the situation is also the goal of many protesters. I hope we can be honest about that. Under what circumstances would these students have voluntarily gotten up and left?

    • [Hanglyman]

      The students don’t have to get up and leave to avoid “escalating the situation”. If they’re not attacking police, there’s no call for violence. The police may have to drag them away if they want to remove them, but there’s absolutely no call for pepper spray, beatings, or any other form of violence if they’re not putting the cops in danger. Period.

      • [Scratcheee]

        And how would the police drag them away?  The students had arms locked to resist that.  This story is about pepper spray because the cops used pepper spray.  If the cops had “dragged them away” then the story would have been about how a crowd of cops violently pried apart the locked hands of the peaceful protesters  to drag them away.  If the cops had used bull horns to order them to leave, then the story would have been about how the cops assaulted the peaceful students with loud noises.

        When I say that we should be honest about this, what I mean is that one should acknowledge that the purpose of these protesters was not to block the sidewalk.  Their purpose was to force the police to remove them from the sidewalk, thereby creating the dramatic and widely published imagery that we’re discussing now.  The alternative is to just let them stay for as long as they please…possibly weeks or months or longer.  If that seems acceptable, then imagine if these students were white supremacists, who would have the same rights as these students.  Maybe they’d be in white hoods or blackface.   How well would that go over? Are these students widely supported because their methods are acceptable, or just because their message is “right?”

        • [Another Kevin]

          I’ll give folks in white hoods, or blackface, the same right to sit in the public square – which the quadrangle of a state university campus arguably is – and present their message. I reserve for myself the right to laugh uproariously as I go by, and say to all and sundry, “look at those idiots!” That’s what the freedom of speech means.

        • [dragonfrog]

          No.  No it wouldn’t.

          The rest of us have a sense of proportion, and can understand that some actions by police are proportionate to the situation they face, and others aren’t.

          One of the reasons nonviolent disobedience is so powerful is that, when done thoroughly, it creates a clear white backdrop on which the responses of police play out.  If they cops respond by prying apart people’s hands, but not hurting them – i.e. force but not violence – then the message that appears is one that shows all sides in a reasonably positive light.  They could have had that, but they threw it away.

          And if white supremacists were to get the hang of nonviolence, that would be great – more power to them.  Of course, they’d have to really get it – their demonstrations would have to stop being precisely about threatening violence against other races, in order for them to be as nonviolent as OWS folks.  In which case they’d probably stop being white supremacists, and just be white awesomeists.

          That’s another thing about nonviolence – it’s a test of the character of the people practicing it, and of the cause they’re standing up for.  If you can be filled with the fire of conviction of your cause, and still be resolutely peaceful, it says a lot about the nature of the cause itself.

          There’s a reason white supremacists aren’t known for nonviolent civil disobedience – advocating for universal respect is directly antithetical to their cause.  If they got the self-control to practice nonviolence, they’d probably start examining their beliefs and their movement, and drop out.

        • [nixiebunny]

          The protesters may have had the purpose of egging the cops on, but I doubt it. More likely, they wanted attention. If so, the proper response of the cops would have been the proper response one gives to anyone who goes too far while seeking attention: walk away.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          …imagine if these students were white supremacists…

          But they’re not. And you’re making shit up to defend police brutality, which is not acceptable here. If you can’t argue with facts, then keep your fantasies to yourself.

        • [Joshua Bardwell]

          And how would the police drag them away?  The students had arms locked to resist that.

          You clearly have not been trained in police methods of arresting non-violent resisters, nor are you familiar with standard tactics of non-violent resistance. There are many examples of police arresting non-violent resisters in exactly this situation without resorting to violence themselves. You start at the end of the line and gently but forcefully peel people off, one at a time. Generally, the protesters’ desire is to be arrested, and so they co-operate.

        • [Hanglyman]

          It seems like others have already said most of what I was going to say in reply to you, but I will add that you seem to believe it’s okay for cops to pepper spray people if they make things inconvenient for them. Pepper spray is for self defense, not convenience. It is not the protestors’ responsibility to make the cops’ job any easier, and it IS the cops’ responsibility to uphold the law and act like professionals.

    • [Richard Lord]

      Move or you will be arrested, we will use only the force necessary to do that, it will be proportional to the level you use to resist. That is the legal definition of the proper use of force by police.  When the police announce that you will move, or you will be assaulted with chemical weapons, the police are  breaking the law.They have crossed the line.  That is what people need get honest about.  Who are the ones in our current society yelling for truth to be told? They are the ones being arrested in my  opinion.

    • [Joshua Bardwell]

      The stated goal of the Davis protesters who were pepper sprayed was to be arrested. An interviewee right here on BoingBoing stated that they felt it was unfair that only three or so of their number were arrested, and wanted more of them to be arrested. Therefore, removing them would have been as simple as cuffing them and carrying them off. Indeed, this had started to happen (again, according to the BoingBoing interview) when Lt. Pike ordered the officers to stop because he wanted to spray the protesters.

      It would be one thing to say, “the protesters were escalating the situation,” if they were throwing rocks, smashing windows, or in some other way acting violently. It takes a particularly twisted rhetorical framework to argue that a person, sitting on the ground, declining to move, is “escalating” anything.

• [peregrinus]

  Staying immobile is not escalation – it’s maintaining the status quo.

  I think the cops are trained by companies like Blackwater to be very afraid in these situations – so that they buy more Blackwater training to deal with that, and also so that they resort quickly to violence.  Yes, the cops do go external for training.

  Watching the huddled cohort behind Mr Pepperspray you can see they’re in rampant ‘protection’ mode, making some kind of roman legionnaire formation – facing nothing but a chanting crowd – chanting nothing worse than ‘shame on you’ – not ‘we’re going to put you in the woodchipper we brought along’.  Why so worried?  Are they training for crowd-control for post-invasion Tehran??

  Their tactical training unstitches their ethical and citizenship training.

  • [John A Arkansawyer]

    When woodchippers are outlawed, only outlaws will have woodchippers.

    This will work wonders for America’s forests; I’m not so sure what it’ll do for respect for rule of law.

  • [Kingazaz]

    I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for the police to be in a protective formation, especially if they know that what’s about to happen will probably make the crowd around them angry. 

    I do think that showing up in riot gear first thing is a bit confrontational, but the UC Davis police force must be pretty small. So, is it reasonable to expect them to have regular uniformed cops arrive but keep the riot equipped cops waiting in the wings, or do they need to be prepared right away due to a relatively small amount of manpower?

    Self-labeled anarchists sometimes show up at these sorts of gatherings with the express purpose of causing trouble. I think it’s prudent for the cops to be prepared for a nasty turn of events. That being said, they did pretty everything wrong once they showed up. A cursory attempt to ask the protesters to leave followed by an escalation to violence on their part with zero provocation.  Then they were appropriately shamed by a still non-violent crowd.

    I hate that it happened, but this particular incident has started such a great conversation. The problem with the way the police handled this situation is eminently solvable. A teachable moment if you will, as long as we put pressure on those in charge to start a constructive dialogue. 

    Let’s see . . . to whom shall I write?

• [irksome]

  See, I thought that sentence read: “Two studies conducted on the Neanderthals…”

  Non-lethal deterrents are meant as an alternative, not as a precursor.

• [taj1f]

  It’s not a far stretch to think that these clearly excessive uses of force are being encouraged from above, and are meant to push some weaker-willed, violence-prone OWS Member to the breaking point where that person will pull a knife or a gun. It will be game-over for the protests, if not for the movement, when OWS are labeled cop-killers and domestic terrorists. That’s what its opponents are praying for. OWS must remain extraordinarily vigilant and commit to the discipline of non-violence AT ALL COSTS.

  • [Another Kevin]

    And (rumour has it) certain law enforcement agencies are steering known criminals into the protest camps, hoping to precipitate just such an outcome. Why they should be so eager to justify a war upon the civilian populace is less clear. I suspect it may just be to have an excuse to play with their shiny new toys.

    • [irksome]

      Why not just invade Grenada again?

    • [msbpodcast]

      The police are definitely using their own “agents provocateurs” in ALL of these police actions.  They are using the non-lethal weapons provided to them because they think its FUN…

      Shooting pepper spray in somebody’s, anybody’s, face is their dream come true. If you’d have asked ANY of the cops, standing 20 feet away, they were JEALOUS that Lt. John Pike got to do it and they didn’t.

      Providing them with non-lethal means of attack was a categorical mistake… 

      If they KNEW that they were going to deprive someone of their lives, not just their civil rights, and that the unarmed person in front of them was going to die, bleeding on the ground as a result of their action, it might give them some pause.

      They’re cops and murder is just going too far. [ http://www.iq4news.com/betty-dibiah/south-africa-man-killed-police-live-television ]As it is, pepper praying somebody in the face is how they validate themselves to themselves.

      These cops, rent-a-cop, mercenaries and cop-wannabes don’t serve ANY function except as a criminal deterrent. If they’re doing their job properly NOTHING ever happens.

      These individuals develop a bullies mind set. They figure that THEY must be commanding respect, while losing sight of the fact that they AREN’T commanding any such thing but that the institution they are charged with protecting IS supposed to be the one commanding the respect, (except when it fails to do so, [like most of the House and Congress whose 9% approval rating is really shameful.])

      Bullies are cowards first and foremost. By giving them non-lethal weapons, they come to want to use those weapons because they know that they wont do anything irredeemably evil.

      With non lethal weapons, its all fun and games until somebody looses an eye… Then, after months of very vocal blustering and bullshit, they grudgingly apologize, in private, and forget about it…

• [Guest]

  To Provoke, And Season. 

• [Roger Strong]

  I watched footage last night of a pepper-sprayed protester, with tears and make-up streaming down her face.

  All I’m saying is, maybe we should consider the possibility that the officer has a Tammy Faye Bakker fetish.

• [bardfinn]

  An acquaintance of mine is/was employed by the Texas Department of Corrections.

  He was disciplined* because he manoeuvred quickly through a prisoner riot with one TXDoC baton in each hand, shouting ” PRID’NUH GIT DAI-UHN!”, hitting standing rioting prisoners in the side of the knee with a baton as he passed.

  His discipline* consisted of being disallowed the use of batons. He was allowed to carry a pushbar – the metal stick used to push meal trays in to Prisoner’s cells.

  During the next riot, he disarmed prisoners by striking them in the hand with the pushbar.

  The point here is that of the Milgram experiment. As long as someone has the option of force in a confrontational situation, and official sanction / protection, they will use that force.

  There must be a law passed that states that officers may only use pepper spray / tasers / beanbag rounds in the EXACT SAME situations they would use a gun, and use of spray or taser be prosecuted the same as use of a gun.

  Otherwise, peaceful protesters will continue to be harmed, maimed, and killed by police with impunity.

• [Ryan Lenethen]

  I recall there being a study or review done on police use of tasers in Canada after a man was killed in BC. I believe the findings were something like this: Many used it in unauthorized situations, or used it improperly, contrary to policy. This is assuming that all those incidents get reported, to which the report outlined that it thought only a small percentage actually got reported anyway. I think they were also critized for just accepting the taser companies procedures at face value rather than making their own. I think it also said something to the effect that when given a non-leathal alternative, it is more likely to be over used, particularly if there are no repercussions. I think the police likely blamed it on not enough training or officers and probably requested more money as a result. At least with tasers in Canada I think (tho I could be wrong) that the training includes getting zapped by one, which may at the very least give the officer some empathy with the person being zapped. I wonder if that douchebag had ever gotten that pepper spray in his face?

  I mean it is one thing to get caught causally pepper spraying peaceful protesters, but if your only “non-leathal” option is to bring out the baton and actually start physically beating people, it is likely a lot harder to do.

  I know I was involved with running down a burglar that was trying to rob a neighbors place (well kept up with the suspect until the police officer arrived), the officer ran the suspect down, tackled him, and was trying to restrain him but he kept struggling. The officer warned him at least 3 times, before he took out his pepper spray and doused the guy. He became very complaint after that, and once cuffed, I believe the officer even had a kit or something in his car to flush the guys eyes out after he had been restrained. That was the proper use of pepper spray, and the officer was very professional. 

• [benher]

  I would like this story more if it was me instead of the students, and if it was champagne instead of pepper spray and if the officer was cute and a girl and if “Windowlicker” by Aphex Twin was playing.

  • [peregrinus]

    you borgeois musico-masochist uniform-fetishist you.

• [EH]

  I’m glad everyone here is helpless against driveby threadshitters like anharmyenone and S P. Nothing like trying to educate a bad-faith participant on easily-googlable distractions right out of the gate.

  P.S. Disqus sucks

• [BillKosMD]

  The role of law enforcement is to *arrest.* This means stopping a situation where harm is being done. They’re not enabled to provide punishment.

  This issue is between the protesters and the administrators of the university or whoever manages the property. The point of the protest is the message.

• [Dino Cazzo]

  I remember how conservatives tried justifying the Iraq War by repeating, parrot-like, “Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people! AWWWWK!” (As if they cared about the Iraqi people.)

  Well, what’s this use of pepper spray against protesters? It’s using chemical weapons against American citizens.

  Time for the rest of the world to invade America and liberate us.

• [the_engineer]

  “Cops” are tasked with keeping the peace.
  How to “keep” the peace when things are perfectly serene?

  “Spice” things up a bit, then you’ve got something to do!

  Unfortunately this logic gate fails in the closed postion and creates a feedback loop.

  –

  Looked at another way, a risk vs benefit analysis:

  Bored “cops” with nothing to do.

  have pepper spray? check!

  Risks for a police officer using pepper spray? hmmm, let’s think about that. Im pretty sure “paid administrative leave” is a pretty low risk situation.

  Benefits for a police officer using pepper spray? ALL SORTS OF FUN! WORK TO DO! PEOPLE TO ARREST, GO GO GO! (plus a nice adrenaline rush…

  ASIDE: Are cops adrenaline junkies? was this guy maybe looking for his next hit? how to enforce distribution of adrenaline within society…. hmmm (DEA, Look into enforcing this next!) -.-

• [level]

  The concept known as the law of the instrument, Maslow’s hammer, or a golden hammer is applicable here, in a way, I think.

• [Richard Lord]

  Maybe IN my dream world, this could have transpired.  TAKING BULLHORN IN HAND ” Young people linking yourselves in a peaceful demonstration of protest. I am officer Lord of the Campus police force. I am one of the 99%. I am a middle-class worker struggling myself, to put kids in college” So are many of the other officers present.  WE have been asked to clear this private property of protestors, we realize that the action will be  caught on camera. WE as members of the 99% hope that the propaganda  it creates will  help your cause. I am proud of you young people, for caring about our country enough to try to change it. You should be proud of yourselves.  We have been given authority, by the people of this state to do our jobs. WE are not  authorized  to hurt you or trample your civil rights,unless you choose to trample on our right to go home safely.   WE have children too.  We understand that you must passively resist, but you must understand, some of us are middle aged men with bad backs. SO please try to passively resist in a ergonomically sensitive manner. We are being asked to enforce the law as per the United states constitution and the constitution of this state. When that state becomes a police state, we will sit with you. People of good sense realize, it has not yet gotten to that point. The officers here will not allow that to happen today. We are here to protect everyone’s civil rights.   We are here with the authority  given, by the people of this state.WE must place you under arrest.  We do not want to drop you, even accidentally . Let us put the cuffs on peacefully. You will make a political statement, you will challenge a unjust law in the courts, and in the court of public opinion.  We will all go home, without your passive resistant protest, creating a violent reaction in our lower backs. Have mercy on us we are
  part of the 99%”      THE kids realizing uncle Bob is a cop  will have empathy.   Pepper spray will never have to be a issue. Sadly  THAT is not reality.

• [fenester]

  The liberal application of non-lethal weapons in such situations strips our citizens of the ability to protest as surely as the lethal ones do.  A non-violent protestor, traditionally, may endure a billy-club or twisted arm, but that citizen was still able to protest, to exercise their freedom of speech, even as they were carried into the paddy wagon or sat in jail.  A retching wretch is no longer protesting (although perhaps through their photo in the mass-media).

  A huge force in American culture and psychology is convenience.  We, as a society, have sacrificed explicitly and implicitly, so many beautiful and enduring things for the sake of convenience.  The current manner of deployment of pepper spray is another example.  As the article points out, instead of talking to the protestors, negotiating, even carrying/dragging them to the wagon, police just uncap a bottle of nuisance-B-gone and the problem’s solved.  How convenient.

  • [Guest]

    nuisance B gone? I like it, but the reality is more like a can of RAID.

• [hyljelyhje]

  My 2 cent solution: attach usage counters to every taser and pepper spray bottle and charge police for every incident. If they feel threatened enough for a ten dollar notch in their pay roll, then let them use the pepper spray and no questions asked.

  (Though I realize this system would eventually lead to the situation where bean counters would advice police departments to increase pepper consumption)

• [hagbard]

  Police are defending the authority structure (aka, in their minds, “civilization”). What is an authority structure if people don’t submit to it? So people not submitting to authority are not just endangering a single cop’s ego; they are threatening “civilization” with “anarchy”. Some people with certain mentalities may be attracted to law enforcement positions, and the organizations they join certainly develop a culture that separates them from the civilian population; but on top of those things, the cops are locked in an existential struggle to protect something much much bigger than themselves or their unit.

  Likewise, the protestors are defending their rights and freedoms (aka the Constitution). What is the Constitution if the authority doesn’t abide by it?

  Big memetic structures like these (“institutions”) are just the kinds of things that people put their bodies on the line to defend.

  I know some will respond by telling me that this kind of thinking is just in their minds — some sort of ego-gratification or delusion. But cops are deployed in these situations.  By authorities. For a reason.

  Psychology aside, authority structures that persist act to maintain their authority.

• [skepticbill]

  “Their tactical training unstitches their ethical and citizenship training” This is key. Most humans have a natural aversion to harming others but this  can be broken down. This is useful on the battlefield when lethality is the goal. It is not so useful when the same training is used to train the police who are (in theory) ‘peace officers who ‘protect and serve’. I know some real thugs who became police officers and the idea that they have the weight of the state behind them is not comforting. I also know some truly fine individuals who sincerely wish to make society more just and safe by working in law enforcement.