How and Why a Campus Cop at UC Davis Viciously Pepper-Sprayed a Group of Passive College Kids

On November 18, 2011, a campus police officer at the University of California Davis walked up to a group of students protesting peacefully at a sit-in and doused their faces with pepper spray.

The picture of UC Davis Police Department Lt. John Pike strolling down the line of cowering students, casually spraying them as he walked, quickly went viral. Shortly thereafter, UC Davis promised to investigate the incident and release its findings. That report came out this week. It reveals a blatant disregard for student safety, the use of unapproved tactics and weapons by the UC Davis Police Department, and zero accountability before, during, and after the UC Davis police attempted to evict the student protesters who were camped out on the college lawn.


The decision to disperse the students, who assembled to protest tuition increases, was made based on claims from UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza that “80% of the protesters participating in the encampment on the Quad were not students,” but members of Occupy Oakland.  

After hearing this claim, the university’s “Leadership Team,” which was headed by Chancellor Linda B. Katehi, grew concerned about Occupiers hurting students. Katehi told investigators that she didn’t want to invite “the use of drugs and sex and other things” happening at Occupy Oakland, and that the Leadership Team was “worried especially about having very young girls and other students with older people who come from the outside.” Another member of the LT said he feared “reporting to a parent that a nonaffiliate has done this unthinkable act with your daughter.”

Students, faculty, staff, and even a vice chancellor on the Leadership Team challenged the UCDPD’s claim, but visions of Occupiers raping students inspired Katehi to order the camp’s closure. (The report says that the UCDPD’s claims still have not been substantiated, and that “the status of the protesters arrested on Nov. 18 does not support the contention that many non-affiliates were involved in these events.”)

After the decision was made to break down the camp, Police Chief Spicuzza allegedly “argued to her officers that the police operation was to be limited in various respects,” the report says. “She attempted, unsuccessfully, to dissuade her officers from using batons and pepper spray or to prevent them from wearing ‘riot gear’ during the operation.”

According to the report, Spicuzza had no control over her officers. “Lieutenants refused to follow directives of the Chief,” the report says. “This breakdown is illustrated by the heated exchanges between the Chief and her Lieutenants as to the scope and conduct of the operation and the Chief's apparent concession that her officers will do things their own way and there is nothing she can do about it.”

After losing the argument over tactics with her officers, Spicuzza essentially relinquished any command of the Nov. 18 raid. One officer even testified to investigators that “during the most turbulent minutes of this operation, he observed the chief standing opposite him in the crowd filming the police actions with her cell phone.”

Once police actions commenced, the report says "No one in a command position was in the Department Operations Center, which impaired coordination and communication.” And because Spicuzza could not control her officers, she could not stop Lt. Pike from using an unapproved canister of MK 9 pepper spray, which UCDPD officers not only had no training with, but were not even authorized to use. Pike “appears to have made the command decision to use pepper spray.”

And why, exactly, did Pike feel the need to pepper spray sitting students? According to UCDPD testimony, "the crowd was hostile, [the officers were surrounded, and they were at risk of losing their prisoners."

But the report begs to differ: "On balance, there is little factual basis supporting Lt. Pike’s belief that he was trapped by the protesters or that his officers were prevented from leaving the Quad. Further, there is little evidence that any protesters attempted to use violence against the police." 

The report holds the Leadership Team responsible for the decision to break down the camp, UCDPD leadership responsible for mismanaging police operations, and Lt. Pike responsible for his overreaction to the crowd, as well as "for the specific pepper spray weapon he used, the MK-9, and the manner in which he used it." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So I assume that Pike will be suspended without pay while he is charged and tried for assaulting people with a potentially deadly weapon. If convicted, he will lose both his job and his pension, and will serve a few years in a state penitentiary.

  • Police Officers Union||

    Not if we have anything to say about it.

  • ||

    When pigs shit sapphires.

  • Killazontherun||

    By chance replaying Diablo II?

  • ||

    Just one more month. One more.

  • Solanum||

    Meh. I won't believe it until it appears on my doorstep. And 5 more months until Borderlands 2.

  • CE||

    No, the assault may be overlooked, but he should be fired for insubordination.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, the assault may be overlooked, but he should be fired for insubordination transferred to desk duty or another department.

    FIFY!

  • Jerryskids||

    Pike is only "responsible", some higher-up will take "full responsibility". "Full responsibility" means nobody lower down will be held responsible and since the higher-up wasn't even there, the "full responsibility" does not mean legally actionable responsibility. Remember Janet Reno taking full responsibility for Waco and how exactly she was held legally responsible?

    Letters of reprimand will be filed, reviews of procedure will be conducted, investigative reports will be issued, press reports of "changing the culture" will be released, nothing will change, nobody will be punished.

  • ||

    I'd venture to say more people die from pillow fights than taking some pepper spray to the eyes, and acting in his job capacity, there is no way in hell this would meet any legal definition of assault. Even if it did, it certainly wouldn't rise to a level punishable by time in a penitentiary. Hyperbole aside, this is a pretty good case for getting your stupid ass out of the middle of a public sidewalk for which you have no exclusive-use permit when you're asked. I'd like to pepper spray the retards myself just for kicks.

  • ||

    Even if it did, it certainly wouldn't rise to a level punishable by time in a penitentiary.

    What if a cop was blocking your way on a public sidewalk and you pepper-sprayed him in the face? Do you suppose that would (or better yet, should) be punishable by time in a penitentiary?

  • Tomcat1066||

    So an excessive response to non-violent protestors isn't assault, especially when the person using the pepper spray wasn't train in its use, authorized to use it, and made up his mind to use a chemical without any approval for higher ranking personnel?

    Just curious, but do gumdrops grow on trees in the world where this is true?

  • Monty Crisco||

    I'm with PM on this one. How has everyone here forgotten? When this happened it seemed like the dominant sentiment of Reason commenters was "WEll, they wanted more big government, and they got a taste of it..." Has that perspective been jettisoned for a new "current truth"? They are a bunch of worthless freeloaders anyway who had been warned that they were violating the law - pepper spray is almost too good for those shitheads.

  • juris imprudent||

    ...and nothing else happened.

    No one was fired.

    No one was disciplined.

    No one learned that this should never happen again.

  • Bam!||

    Why? Because they were wearing hoodies.

  • TELLMOFF||

    Why? Because they were libertarians with a non-revenge manifesto.

  • ||

    Non-revenge =/= non-aggression. Troll harder.

  • Rich||

    The report holds the Leadership Team ..., UCDPD leadership ..., and Lt. Pike responsible

    "Holds responsible". You keep using that expression ....

  • The Unknown Pundit||

    My hairspray is responsible for my hold.

  • ||

    I can't believe they really trotted out the, "But somebody might have had sex!" argument. Wow.

  • ||

    They needed weaponized saltpeter

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you hate college students, aix42? The correct response is: they should supply them all with condoms and pay for their trips to planned parenthood.

  • ||

    Just the gals. Notice no one, to my knowledge, has suggested paying for vasectomies. You'd think Feminfisters and Jezehellions would derive a certain amount of schadenfreud from convincing some Beta Boy getting the ole eunuchy snip snip.

    And paying for a vasovasotomy when they are ready to breed.

  • johnl||

    If Chief Spicuzza isn't completely lying now, then why didn't he call the Governor and request immediate aide in quelling a police riot when the leutenants allegedly announced their plans to go rogue?

  • ||

    he?

    nice "attention to detail"

    fwiw, kind of interesting that the actual removal of tents/arrest may not even have been legally justified under the PC.

    y'know, the actions ordered by spicuzza.

  • Ice Nine||

    And the embarrassingly ineffectual Chief Spicuzza was fired for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty how many months ago?

  • Torontonian||

    So, question...

    These students were on the school's property. They were asked to leave. They refused and were therefore trespassing.

    How exactly was the officer supposed to get the students to move? (Which I'm assuming would be a legitimate use of force.)

    I've been full-on pepper-sprayed in the past. It seriously sucks for around 45 minutes, but it eventually wears off and is hardly the end of the world.

    Just about any other method of physically removing non-compliant protestors has a higher potential of causing injuries that will last a lot longer than 45 minutes.

  • Ice Nine||

    As tuition paying students of the university aren't they entitled to be on university property? I would think there would be some sort of contractual thing involved there.

  • ||

    We have a situation of competing right...who is in the right, here?

  • ||

    it may very well be that the initial arrest/tent removal ordered by the chief was illegal. this is referenced in the report

    the chief sounds like a moron. she should get together with oakland's mayor

  • ||

    The force used to remove trespassers from property must proportional to the danger that they pose to the property and its owners, keeping in mind that the health and bodies of humans are more valuable than property.

    The students were freely invited onto the campus by the university, which means the university has a much higher duty to treat them well. The students either paid tuition or the university waived it. That makes it harder to get to trespass.

    The university is owned by the state, which has a different relationship to citizens on public property than private landowners have with people on private property.

    Given that the protestors were no harm to the property of the university and had been freely invited onto the property by the university, it's not clear at all that the students were even trespassing to begin with. It's certainly clear that spraying chemical irritants into their faces was disproportionate and unjust.

  • ||

    the force wasn't used to remove trespassers. that wasn't the issue

    i suggest you watch the video and review the case facts.

    the issue (that resulted in pepper spraying) was not "trespassing"
    not even close

  • sloopyinca||

    the issue (that resulted in pepper spraying) was not "trespassing"
    not even close

    What other reason could they possibly have to initiate force on physically peaceful protesters?*

    *And please don't play the "they were threatening violence with their chants" bullshit. If that was the case, the cops at Sharpton's rallies would be justified in cracking every fuckers head for the "No justice! No peace!" chants. Or anywhere where people chant slogans that could be interpreted anyway they want them to be.....oh wait, that's exactly what they claim with "aggressive stance" "menacing appearance" "furtive movements" or "verbal threats."

  • Coeus||

    Are you crazy? Didn't you see how aggressively they were sitting with their legs all crossed and shit?

  • ||

    there are not significant new facts here.

    they had the arrestees in custody. they made multiple orders, with warnings of consequences for the people to clear the path in front of them and they were met with refusal.

    it is not 'trespassing'

    they were interfering with the officers trying to tranport the arrestees

    you can argue that they could have gone to one of those opening and gotten through, just as officer 'j' did. and they might have been able to accomplish that.

  • sloopyinca||

    We can also just use the fact that Officer Pike deliberately broke departmental policy and sprayed these people.

    Hypothetical here: if a private citizen told the cops he was going to use a chemical agent to remove people from his property, would he have been OK in doing so? Because that's exactly what Pike did when he used a substance he was not supposed to use, by departmental policy, to remove them. IOW, he deliberately went outside his authority in using the chemical agent.

  • ||

    "Hypothetical here: if a private citizen told the cops he was going to use a chemical agent to remove people from his property, would he have been OK in doing so?"

    Ummm, he certainly should be.

  • ||

    Oh wow, that changes everything. So a cop can go to a peaceful demonstration, arrest one person on some bullshit charge, give an order, then start busting heads?

    Nuh uh, fuck you.

  • Copernicus||

    So, answer

    A person who is breaking the law is advised they are under arrest. If they do not voluntarily accompany the police officer, they are taken physically/forcefully.

    If during this process they resist, the officer must decide what tactics he/she/they must use to remove the person (handcuffs, dragging, carrying, etc.)

    I would think pepper spray is supposed to be used as a defensive tool to protect an officer from attack in lieu of other more physical techniques.

    I don't think it is supposed to be used to "soften up" or "punish" a protester who is just sitting there.

    Despite your relatively benign encounters with pepper spray, there are many cases of persons having extremely serious reactions to pepper spray.

  • TELLMOFF||

    Torontonian, there wasn't any problem with violence until the fucking pigs arived.

  • ||

    Pike claims he was trapped? Right, by a bunch of kids sitting in the grass. And he certainly didn't looked at all worried in the video of the incident.

  • Paul.||

    Why would he be worried? The liklihood that he'd face any penalties for pepperspraying a bunch of kids is somewhere around zero.

    If Ian Birk can shoot a guy with a closed pocket knife who was threatening no one, posed absolutely no threat to anyone, especially officer birk, at range, four times in the side and suffer only some administrative paperwork... it's reasonable that Pike saw the cards in his favor.

  • TELLMOFF||

    Good analysis, Paul.

  • ||

    The report holds the Leadership Team responsible for the decision to break down the camp, UCDPD leadership responsible for mismanaging police operations, and Lt. Pike responsible for his overreaction to the crowd, as well as "for the specific pepper spray weapon he used, the MK-9, and the manner in which he used it."

    ...and sentences them all to five seconds of hard wrist slapping.

  • ||

    And a raise.

  • gaoxiaen||

    They're hoping for a paid vaca... er... suspension.

  • Spartan Patriot||

    On the positive side, a lot of the pepper spray photoshops are really funny.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I guarentee those rabbits had that shit coming. F***ing rabbits.

  • ||

    for those actually interested in getting to the meat of the issue...

    read the kroll report from page 89

    specifically, the part of the report that starts around page 118 (thats the numbering of the kroll report, not the overall numbering) is most relevant to the objective reasonableness of the pepper spraying itself.

    A key issue in evaluating whether the use of pepper spray was appropriate is the
    determination of what type of resistance the protesters seated on the ground with linked arms
    were presenting: was it passive resistance or active resistance? The UCDPD use of force
    policies do not provide any guidance. In contrast, for example, the UCLA Police Department’s

  • ||

    use of force policy (General Order 11-06) specifically defines the linking of arms by protesters
    as active resistance (Section 6.2.3 Definitions, Actively Resisting). The California
    Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) also defines the linking of
    arms as active resistance (2102 DRAFT, POST Guidelines, Crowd Management, Intervention
    and Control, Appendix A, Terms and Definitions, Active Resistance).
    Most police departments across the United States use a training device commonly referred to
    as a “use of force continuum” as a means of training their officers on when and what type of
    force to use.604 Most of these continuums—there is no standard national continuum—allow
    the use of pepper spray when confronted with “active resistance.”605 Thus, the use of pepper
    spray against seated protesters linking arms may be technically permissible as a general
    matter.

    ...

  • ||

    On balance, there does not seem to be an objective, factual basis for Lieutenant Pike to have
    believed that he was trapped or that his officers were prevented from leaving by the seated
    protesters. Furthermore, there is no objective evidence available to Kroll that depicts any
    attempt by the protesters to use violence.
    Considering all the available evidence—while recognizing that Kroll investigators were not
    able to interview Lieutenant Pike to learn and report on his state of mind at the moment he
    used the pepper spray—the deployment of pepper spray does not appear to have been an
    objectively reasonable use of force. 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.
    609

  • sarcasmic||

    What's the point of having use of force policy when officers face no consequences when the violate it?

  • ||

    if you actually READ the kroll report, it appears the UC DAVIS PD doesn't even have much of one

    here;" A key issue in evaluating whether the use of pepper spray was appropriate is the
    determination of what type of resistance the protesters seated on the ground with linked arms
    were presenting: was it passive resistance or active resistance? The UCDPD use of force
    policies do not provide any guidance."

    this is contrasted with, for example UCLA, which does have one much more specific

    regardless, it is false to say officers face no consequences for violating uof policy. consequences range from counseling/training all the way up to and including dismissal.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll believe it when I see it.

  • ||

    you can believe whatever. i'm just explaining reality.

  • sarcasmic||

    Reality?
    Reality is that I read the paper every day, and I have never, repeat never, read of a member of the police being disciplined.
    I've read many stories of police killing people, and all were found to be justified. No exceptions.

    In one case a man had a knife, and there was a vehicle between him and the police. He raised the knife and shots rang out. Blood squirted out of his neck as he fell to the ground. I know this because the caught it on video.

    Nothing else happened.

    Perception is reality. My perception, based upon the information I see, is that once you're in the club you no longer have to follow the rules you enforce on everyone else.

  • sarcasmic||

    I take that back. Not too long ago a male member of the force was disciplined for harassing female members of the force. They had to change shifts around and stuff.

    I meant disciplined for things they do to people outside their club.

  • sloopyinca||

    That BART cop was disciplined for shooting that guy in the back and killing him, remember? He served a whole 19 months or so, IIRC. For shooting an unarmed man. In the back. To death.

  • Chupacabra||

    I seem to remember a few cases where policemen were fired for misconduct.

    Of course, that misconduct was whistle blowing on corrupt cops.

  • TELLMOFF||

    There are few cases of whistle-blowing cops. A good cop has to be very courageous because of the threat of retaliation by bad cops, chiefs, and municipal management.

  • sarcasmic||

    C'mon dunphy. Where are the slew of examples of people in your profession being held accountable for committing the very acts that they are supposed to respond to and protect people from?

    Not too long ago a woman complained to the local paper that her son had had his property taken from him by a policeman. The details were unspecified, but in the end it became a "fuck you, prove it" situation.

    And nothing else happened.

  • Esteban||

    Gescard Isnora was just fired for initiating the shooting of Sean Bell.

  • sloopyinca||

    Can anyone remember the last time a uniformed policeman was arrested by another cop while a crime was being committed against another citizen?

    I'm not being a prick, I seriously would like to know.

  • sarcasmic||

    Once he shows his badge, what would have been considered a crime if it were committed by little people (non cops), is acceptable behavior.

    Laws do not apply to those tasked with enforcing them.

  • ||

    The plural of anecdote is not evidence, although you're correct to say that police seem to be treated to a very different standard of behavior than ordinary citizens.

    What punishment, out of interest, do you think is appropriate in this situation, given the information we have?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So, generally, there is no fitness requirement for getting and keeping a badge.

  • ||

    false.

    generally, there is one for GETTING one.

    generally, there is not one for keeping one

    both unions and agencies (mine included) have fought them

    the agencies don't want them because they would have to pay officers to work out on duty.

    iow, it would cost a lot of money

    firefighters, ARE paid to workout on duty, and do have such requirements

    unions fight it... because they are unions.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I didn't say physical fitness. But, yeah, that's what I meant.

  • ||

    well of couse you are wrong. both POST and UCDPD define fitness standards. officers who don't meet fitness standards can and are fired.

  • sloopyinca||

    the agencies don't want them because they would have to pay officers to work out on duty.

    Why on earth would they have to pay them to workout on duty?

    Oh, that's right. Their union...that negotiates their contract withe the politicians whose campaigns they finance.

    It's a vicious cycle of self-serving fucks with the helpless public caught being bent over in the crosshairs.

  • jacob||

    I don't expect the university to do a damn thing. This clown will remain on the police force and, while I don't like it, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

    What I'm more interested in is whether or not the student(s) that were pepper sprayed are allowed to seek civil damages. I would think they have legitimate cause for action regarding this incident.

  • ||

    i wouldn;'t be surprised if they lose in civil court

  • sarcasmic||

    Civil damages against who?

    The officer is immune. He will face no criminal charges. No nothing.
    If there are civil damages it's the taxpayer who will foot the bill.
    What this incident has taught this guy is that the rules do not apply to those who enforce them.
    Maybe next time he'll pull the Taser on someone in handcuffs. Or he'll club someone because he doesn't like how they look. And nothing will happen.
    Eventually he may kill someone just because he can.
    And nothing will happen.

    Nothing will happen.

  • ||

    he is not immune. he has qualified immunity, not absolute immunity

    note that he is in the 9th circuit.

    they didn't find the officer in mcpherson had qualified immunity, for example

    setting aside the issue of whether he was justified in using pepper spray here

    i realize you have come to the conclusion the pepper spraying was unjustified

  • sarcasmic||

    You have only one tired old example of the countless cases where police are actually held to a standard.

    Whatever.

    Go back to the mall.

  • sarcasmic||

    *supposedly* held to a standard

  • TELLMOFF||

    Cops are held to the very exacting standard of looking the other way when there is abuse of a citizen.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you are in charge or deciding who can be given public trust, and you make a mistake, what are you going to do?
    Are you going to admit fault and take away the badge, or look for any excuse, like training?
    The answer is self evident.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you are in charge or deciding who can be given public trust, and you make a mistake, what are you going to do?
    Are you going to admit fault and take away the badge, or look for any excuse, like training?
    The answer is self evident.

  • sarcasmic||

    as are the squirrels.

  • Robert||

    I think you mean "disperse", not "disburse" -- although one could think of funny ways "disburse" might be appropriate!

  • sloopyinca||

    Like, "Kelly Thomas' body disbursed a lot of blood when the Fullerton Cops beat him to death."

  • ||

    That's not funny at all.

  • Robert||

    "They're expecting us to be mean. What can I do that's mean but doesn't involve too much exertion? Oh, well, I guess this will have to do."

  • Coeus||

    "It's a dance gentlemen. Let's not disappoint"

  • gaoxiaen||

    Maybe they could disburse a few of the girls to me. I think you mean disperse.

  • ||

    Why a Campus Cop at UC Davis Viciously Pepper-Sprayed a Group of Passive College Kids

    Why? Fuck you, that's why!

  • Ken Shultz||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If they disobeyed the police chief I don't see how it's justified.

    But what exactly should you expect if you're a mob (even a pathetic student mob) and you vocally threaten to prevent cops from leaving your area?

    If the argument is they were simply too pathetic to be a threat and justify pepper spray, I accept that. A slim defense for the students if they want to take themselves seriously, which they obviously do.

  • sloopyinca||

    But what exactly should you expect if you're a mob (even a pathetic student mob) and you vocally threaten to prevent cops from leaving your area?

    I don't know. What should they expect? Especially when the cops are walking freely in and out of the chain of students, and are placed in front of, behind and on both sides of them, going so far as to have a cruiser on the sidewalk with nary a protester on either side of it blocking an entrance or egress from the area.

  • Evil Otto||

    Yes, they moved past the protesters by stepping over them in an unnatural way. They needed to move arrestees out of the area. Can't do that with hostiles sitting in the way.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If they disobeyed the police chief I don't see how it's justified.

    See?

    Civil disobedience is still disobedience!

    Bonk, bonk...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S47jRtYgIOc

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "they" = the cops

  • CE||

    Why aren't they just fired for insubordination then? What sort of police "chief" can't discipline subordinates with penalties, up to an including termination?

    And isn't the title "chief" a form of micro-aggression against tribal cultures?

  • TELLMOFF||

    The police chief wants to be popular. I never wanted to be popular. When I was in the military, my men would never abuse non-combatens because they were afraid of their lieutenant.

  • sloopyinca||

    And isn't the title "chief" a form of micro-aggression against tribal cultures?

    Actually, it's derived from the French, "Chef," which means person in charge. If anything, tribal cultures ought to be pissed to no end for being even loosely tied to Frog culture.

  • Sevo||

    "you vocally threaten to prevent cops from leaving your area?"

    Sarcasm? I hope so.
    How would anyone credibly do so? What, you got a 'force-field' you're gonna deploy? Kids sitting in a row, well, you step over them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said if they're too pathetic for their threats to be effective, then spraying them would be excessive.

    But what a climbdown they'd have to adopt to make *that* argument. "Look at us, the great Occupyers! We were too weak and pathetic to be worth the use of force!"

  • Sevo||

    "But what a climbdown they'd have to adopt to make *that* argument. "Look at us, the great Occupyers! We were too weak and pathetic to be worth the use of force!"

    Got it, but ya know, they probably wouldn't even have to make that claim; they were and are obviously pathetic minus any claim.

  • Brian from Texas||

    If these kids had been anti-abortion protesters, Fox News and Salem Radio Network would have raised holy hell.

  • ||

    and HuffPo, DailyKos and the like would denounce them, what's your point?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why did a campus cop at UC Davis viciously pepper-spray a group of passive college kids?

    Because civil disobedience is still disobedience--bonk, bonk on the head!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I mean, the big question is: why don't they do this more often?

    If you're gonna mace a bunch of stupid kids for sitting passively on the sidewalk, why not mercilessly beat people who drive a Prius or random joggers?

    Bonk, bonk on the head!

  • Chupacabra||

    "why not mercilessly beat people who drive a Prius or random joggers?"

    Isn't that standard protocol already?

  • ||

    I don't sully my libertarian overlord hands with beatings of commoners who drive Prius's. That's what my team of Persian Ninjas is for.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Off Topic: George Will on legalization. Doesn't really say a whole lot except for coming up with some questionable assumptions. Comments are sad/predictable though.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50755

  • sloopyinca||

    Face it. There was no need for these power-hungry assholes, especially Pike, to do what they did to these kids. Their progress was not impeded, as witnessed in the videos that hadn't been doctored. The students had a right to be there, as it was a common area on the property of the school they were attending. The spraying was excessive. And the officer in question did so with a blatant disregard for the safety of anyone in the vicinity.

    I will patiently await the line of fuckers from on here that will apologize to me for telling me I was crazy when I said it will come out that this was unjustified.

    I know the big apology I'm waiting most for. I sincerely doubt I will get it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm sorry sloopy!

    Sorry that you can't appreciate all that the brave men and women in blue sacrifice for you, that is.

  • Sevo||

    Sloopy,
    I don't remember a lot of folks claiming it was justified at the time.
    Probably someone owes you an apology, but I doubt the line's gonna be long.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Perhaps Zimmerman should have used pepper spray.

  • ||

    I know the big apology I'm waiting most for. I sincerely doubt I will get it.

    Call it a hunch, but does the name rhyme with "Pulpa?" Or "Weevil Blotto?"

  • ||

    i thought it was justified. i still do.

    i read both reports. there was a lot of fuckupedness with a lot of administrative/organizational shit

    their chief is a moron

    their ICS sucks

    but the pepper spraying itself imo is justified.

    that's my opinion. i accept that others may disagree

  • sloopyinca||

    but the pepper spraying itself imo is justified.

    You mean the pepper spray he was not supposed to have?

    Would you have also been OK if he had pulled out mustard gas and used it? You know, even though he was not supposed to be carrying it according to departmental guidelines?

    Jesus, man. You're always using policy and case law to defend immoral actions by the cops. Now you defend them even when they break those. Seriously, WTF, man?

  • ||

    Yes, because mustard gas = pepper spray. Perfect equivalence.

  • ||

    Shit, why not just make it a nuclear weapon if you're going to play the hyperbole card.

  • Sevo||

    "but the pepper spraying itself imo is justified.
    that's my opinion. i accept that others may disagree"

    I have a hard time believing this.
    All I can say is that I'm happy to live a ways away from you (and your pepper spray).

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    but the pepper spraying itself imo is justified.

    And I think ramming the pepper spray up his ass and beating the hell out of him until he no longer posed a threat is justified.

    Also, fuck you.

  • John C. Randolph||

    the pepper spraying itself imo is justified.

    And you wonder why people call you a jackbooted thug.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Dude, this is why people call you a cop apologist.

  • The Fatman||

    There he is, Please die in a fire with your progeny fuckstick.

  • Evil Otto||

    It hasn't come out that the pepper spraying was unjustified, so keep waiting.

  • CE||

    Another member of the LT said he feared “reporting to a parent that a nonaffiliate has done this unthinkable act with your daughter.”

    Affiliates, though, that's cool.

  • sloopyinca||

    Post your best Pike pics here.

    I'll start.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Do you guys think that one has to be a sociopath to be a cop?

    I mean, maybe I'm a softie or something, but I just could not do this shit to another human that wasn't threatening me.

  • JeremyR||

    I dunno. Could I evict people, harass homeless guys, arrest non-violent people who committed victimless crimes? Run protection rackets by nabbing people at random for speeding and moving violations? No. My conscience would bother me.

    Could I pepperspray hippies? Hell yes. Unless you are tied to a chair and sprayed over and over and over, being peppersprayed isn't that bad.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Only people on the internet claim that being pepper sprayed ain't that bad. It's like getting shot with a pellet gun; it won't kill or maim you permanently and people on the internet claim it ain't that bad, but if confronted with a shitty crossman airgun you'll fuckin' run like any rational human.

    Besides, why spray the hippies?

    They pose no threat.

    The only explanation then would be sadism, which is either a facet of sociopathy or something worse.

  • ||

    Speaking as someone who has accidentally discharged the most potent bear-deterrent spray available to consumers into a wind and eaten a face full of it, it's not exactly pleasant, but it's not fucking Nagasaki either.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've been jumped by a couple of guys and had my head split open. That wasn't so bad once I woke up. So maybe a skull crushing would have been a proper amount of force.

    Maybe police departments should craft their use of force policies around what internet tough guys deem not that bad.

  • ||

    If it was ACTUALLY about protecting and serving, I could.

    Enforcing the byzantine and often irrational rules the state wants everyone to live by? Not so much.

  • JeremyR||

    I dunno. It seems to be that these Occupy people were getting exactly what they were protesting for - the heavy hand of government to be used.

    Only it happened to them, instead of against "the rich" or the "1%" to use their term.

    Thus learning the lesson that giving government power to rob and shake down people will inevitably be misused.

  • John C. Randolph||

    After losing the argument over tactics with her officers, Spicuzza essentially relinquished any command of the Nov. 18 raid.

    Sounds to me like she was never their chief, just some bureaucrat who was being paid to pretend she was.

    A real police chief would fire their insubordinate asses for less.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Color me a totalitarian, but I don't have much sympathy. You park your ass in public where you aren't supposed to be, disrupting the activities of everyone else who is also entitled to use the space you're occupying, a cop tells you to move, you tell him no, and you ate some pepper spray as a result. In philosophy, yeah, the use of force may have been excessive, but I can't muster much give-a-fuck for a bunch of crybaby suburban socialists trying to relive the 60's. Get a permit and don't act like an asshole and this kind of shit doesn't happen to you. Just sayin.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Right, so freedom of assembly and free speech all apply--just not so long as you're doing it on property that's owned by the government?

    I'm not sure that's the way the rights thingy works.

    If they were on private property and the owner wanted to charge them with trespassing, that would be more justification. But macing people on public property for being "where you aren't supposed to be" sounds like it might be even worse than macing people for saying what they aren't supposed to say.

    Do university kids get to say what they want to say on open university property, or are they confined to only doing that on their own private property in your world?

  • ntnu||

    Libertarians are showing their retarded side atm.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&sns=fb

    Here is a video that showed what happened. Essentially the cops were about to leave the place with some arrested people, and the protestors made a human chain around them demanding that they release the arrested people. Of course the cops cant comply with that. So they peppersprayed them, which was without a doubt the most humane way of breaking up the retard-chain.

  • Evil Otto||

    Holy shit, Riggs is really laying it on thick with the headline.

    In my experience, you can tell when Riggs and Dalmia are peddling BS by how incendiary the headline is.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement