Civil Disturbance Response: A case study (Part 2)
As promised, here are my thoughts on the UC Davis pepper spray incident. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am reacting solely to what I see in the video and am not privy to any other facts, so it is not my intent to second-guess the officers on the scene. There's enough of that going on already. My point is that images are ambiguous and open to interpretation – my views may be completely different from yours and both of our opinions may not be supported by the ongoing investigation.
I should also mention that I have had training in both police practices and riot control tactics and have been in both the EOC and field command posts during demonstrations. While I don't consider myself an expert on the subject, I do have more understanding of the issues than the average person on the street. So for what they're worth, here are my thoughts:
- It's seems apparent that the operation initially went well. Police issued warnings, successfully removed the tents, and arrested those demonstrators who did not comply with the order to leave. However, I'm not sure why police felt it necessary to remain in the area and await transport for the prisoners. Under the circumstances, the potential for mass arrests should have been anticipated. The suspects should have been moved from the area before the crowd had time to react.
- Case law in California is pretty clear that pepper spray is a defensive weapon. As I view the video, it seems to me that the police are wary but fully in control of the situation. They are calm and fully prepared to defend themselves if necessary but they are under no immediate threat. The pepper spray was used because the demonstrators did not move out of the way of the vehicle and were blocking the police from leaving – an offensive maneuver.
- If the police should not have used pepper spray, what else could they have done? Clearly, there was a concern that physically engaging the demonstrators might have led to escalation of the conflict. However, physically moving demonstrators one at a time was an option that has been successful in other circumstances. There were also officers positioned behind the demonstrators who could have been used to target the leaders of the demonstration – also a tactic that has been used effectively in other demonstrations. Police also had the option of just waiting out the demonstrators – they did not appear inclined towards violence and police so far had acted with tact and professionalism that had helped avoid it. None of these are ideal but they would be more defensible in court than the offensive use of chemical agents.
Again, I'm offering impressions gained from the video under discussion, not an in-depth analysis of the police tactics used. This is what is going to occur over the next few months as this incident is dissected by both the official investigation and the public.Your reaction to the video is largely determined by your personal bias for or against the protesters. The danger of visual images is that the emotion they evoke can obscure the facts.