And yet they note they didn't talk to the person who used the spray.
Because Pike refused to speak to them. Why do you think that is?
They have been trained in the use of pepper spray.
The fact that it was a larger size canister is a technicality.
A technicality but it does not explain how and why he was using something he is not authorised to use and has not been trained to use in the course of his duties.
Or do you now approve of law enforcement officers BYO weapons to work?
But lets look a bit deeper into this "
technicality", shall we?
“The courts have made it very clear that these type of devices can’t be used indiscriminately and should be used only when the target poses a physical threat to someone,” said Michael Risher, staff attorney for the A.C.L.U. of Northern California.
A docile crowd, sitting down. So docile in fact that Pike and other officers were stepping over them while they (the police) moved about. Does not look like they posed any physical threat to "someone".
To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.
“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.
Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.
So your mere "technicality" goes against the actual intent and design of pepper spray and goes against how and when it should or could be used.
Yeah, they both spray the exact same chemical.
One just does it longer than the other.
That's like saying I can use an uzi instead of a handgun because both fire bullets and one just shoots faster than the other.
While they both spray the exact same chemical, they are not designed to be used on docile protesters who posed no threat to the officers or anyone else there. The extent that they posed no threat can be seen in the fact that the police were stepping over them as they moved around the protesters.
Of course, 2 officers using the smaller canisters is equal to one officer using the larger canister, so NO, it's not like they aren't aware of the effect of use of more.
Indeed, typical training includes getting sprayed with the stuff.
Which is beside the point.
The point is that Pike brought an unauthorised weapon to work and used it in the course of his employ on peaceful protesters who posed no risk to him.
No, that's not what the report says.
It just says that the manual specifically references one model canister and not the other larger canister. There is nothing about it requiring separate training or authorization required to use the larger canister. It simply isn't mentioned.
Actually the report is very clear:
UCDPD General Order No. 559 provides that pepper spray can be used, but specifically refers to the MK-4 (a smaller canister). Furthermore, the investigation found no evidence that any UCDPD officer had been trained in the use of the larger MK-9.
Kroll supported their conclusion that use of pepper spray was not reasonable use of force by stating, “This conclusion is buttressed by the facts that the MK-9 was not an authorized weapon under UCDPD guidelines and that UCDPD officers were not trained in its use.” The Task Force agrees.
[
Page 22 of the report]
In other words, the 'manual' refers directly and specifically to the MK-4 cannister as the type that officers are trained to use and authorised to use. Pike used a different cannister that he is not authorised to use in the course of his duties, but also not trained in its use at all for the explicit course of his duties.
You mean like you are?
There are no regulations that say you can't use the larger canister.
This was a UC Davis FACULTY report.
Wait for the actual internal investigation before making claims about what is authorized and what isn't.
Actually, the regulations state only the type that officers can use. I know you like to split hairs and support criminal activies such as skipping town to avoid arrest, but really, you are grasping at straws here.
And yet the officers in their official report (quoted in this report) say they felt threatened and surrounded by a mob, indeed they pulled their battons, but pepper spray is in fact the lowest form of control force they have, below the battons, and that's what they used.
Had they NOT used it, and then got forced to using their battons when attempting to clear the path, then someone could have actually gotten seriously hurt.
In this case, no one did.
On either side.
They felt so threatened by the protesters they sprayed that they were stepping over them just before while arresting other protesters just prior to spraying them? Really,
this is what you're going with here?
When you have the person who designed it's use for law enforcement and helped set the guidelines for its use by law enforcement saying that the use of it on those protesters was inappropriate, when you have those officers being
But the public rarely witnesses such scenes, and that was one of the reasons that the video from Davis was so powerful. It captured many elements — seated protesters being doused with a bright orange spray by campus officers, whose body language appeared surprisingly casual.
“What makes this so oddly interesting is that those officers don’t look like the Chicago police in 1968,” said Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University. They are so casual, he said, “it’s as if they were called because someone was sunbathing naked on the quad.”
[Source]
But you keep trying Arthur. I mean what else can we expect from you? You are the type to not only defend shooting an unarmed teenager and killing him, but you are also the type to say that had you been the shooter, you'd have left the country to avoid arrest. You just support this type of violence against unarmed and peaceful protesters and people. Really, we don't really expect better from you.:shrug: