Lucky for the nonviolent student protesters who were pepper sprayed that your opinion wont matter in any investigation.

The Police Policies and Administrative Procedures for UC Police Officers under Use of Force says:

“Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should be used only in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”

Link

What’s interesting is the Office of the Chancellor of the California State University (which is different from the University of California) has an Executive Order that defines pepper spray:

“It [Pepper Spray] is a defensive weapon intended to gain control of an unarmed attacker, or to overcome resistance likely to result in injury to either a suspect, a victim, or the officer.”

Link

Both agencies define pepper spray as a “weapon”, which begs the question, can the police "reasonably"use weapons against nonviolent protesters? Any officer would have to articulate their justification for the use of force and when you see the officer casually walking over the seated students without getting harmed or threatened in any way just moments before he sprays them, it would be tough to bring up the “officer safety” excuse when there is no active resistance. It looks like the answer from the Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt case is, in case you missed it:

“it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors”.

Did you read the entire case, or just the "money line"?
The officers pried open the protesters' eyes and dabbed them with pepper spray on a Q-tip, then refused to give them immediate medical treatment. One of the guidelines for use of pepper spray is to have immediate medical treatment available for the pepper-sprayed protester.

Yes the case was read and are you aware that the court didn’t narrowly declare that use of force with oleoresin capsicum is only excessive if applied to the eyes with a q-tip and medical treatment is delayed. It was pretty clear that they said “it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors”.

Notice how the court didn’t say how the pepper spray was applied, only that it was used against nonviolent protesters and considered “excessive”.

Did they force their hand? They were non-compliant to reasonable police instruction...i.e. they were breaking the law...and apparently agreeable to being pepper-sprayed before the fact.

Was pepper spray their only option in controlling the situation? Only? No. An option? Apparently.

It's not as simple as just "simply cuffing the kids and carting them off". You cannot cuff physically resistant, non-compliant linked arms without unlinking them by using some type of force. The officers chose a non-lethal chemical route instead of placing their hands on the protesters in pain inducing body techniques to get them to unlink arms.



Was the point to control or to carry out an order to remove? It certainly appears that the protesters had every intention of remaining non-compliant even after police warnings. If the order was to clear the protesters it appears as though use of force to remove them was necessary to obey orders. The use of force implies a risk of harm.

You have lawyers and law enforcement arguing this on both sides. Strict, easily understood, and non-competing guidelines in the use of the force continuum are necessary to avoid these situations. Also...there must be clear clarification of what constitutes active resistance and what does not. That being said, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make a lawful arrest carries with it the right to use some degree of physical force or threat of force to effect it.

Oh please. The pepper spray was used in an excessively forceful manner, eyes forced open, and applied directly to the eyes with a Q-tip. That's completely against the guidelines. Plus, the sprayed protesters were not given immediate medical care. Again, against guidelines. Even I would have ruled excessive force in that case. But what were the plaintiffs awarded? IIRC, it was $1 each plus court costs.

Agree.



OK, so you believe the police had to cause harm. I disagree.

If an order had been given to clear the protesters, they would have been derelict in their duty not to clear the protesters. Police officers may use physical force to remove protesters. Logically, that implies a risk of injury (harm) to the protesters and/or to the police officers. It's not a video game, mdean.

The court stated:

“conclude that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that using pepper spray against the protestors was excessive”

“The facts reflect that: (1) the pepper spray was unnecessary to subdue, remove, or arrest the protestors”

“In addition, regional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against nonviolent protestors is excessive.”

“the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.”

But you seem to add an additonal and very narrow component that the court didn’t:



I’m going to side with the court on this one. Pepper spray on nonviolent protesters was excessive regardless of how it was applied. But I’m sure there are some officers out there who would love to follow your guidelines. “when I pepper sprayed the nonviolent skateboarders from the sidewalk after they refused to leave, it wasn’t in an excessively forceful manner”, “oh good point officer Iky”.

Thank you for the link.

From the Manual:

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

901. When it becomes necessary to take police action, officers shall give consideration to the rights of all persons, including alleged law violators, and to the manner in which they exercise their powers as peace officers. Without compromising their primary mission, which is the protection of life and property, officers may use such reasonable force as is necessary to affect an arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

C. There was no resistance other than non-compliance,
B. There was no attempt to excape, which leaves,
A. Necessary to affect a arrest.

I think Lt. John Pike knew he didn't need to pepper spray to "affect an arrest". But, he thought if says he thought it was necessary, some like ikayak, would knee jerk to "that sounds reasonable."

I simply disagree. And, one by one, it seems the public, elected officials, other departments, and even the University itself agree.

lol...it's not like I'm way out in left...er...right field alone.

From another university town concerning the use of pepper spray: