12. Lt. John Pike
Became the face of opposition to the Occupy
Movement
Demonstrates how far social media has come in
the capacity to spread ideas
Rallied Occupy members and garnered
unwanted publicity for UC Davis campus
13. Gap
Amount of force law enforcement agencies apply
to the Occupy Movement
Amount of force public deems as necessary to
employ
14. Perception of force
Deciding how much force is reasonable or
necessary is difficult
Every situation is different
Public judges that decision after the fact knowing
all the variables
15. UC Davis and Occupy Oakland
Two different Occupy incidents
Highlight the difference between accepted levels
of use of force
Is there a solution to minimize damage to society
and maintain respect for authority?
17. What happened?
UC Davis chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi orders
campus police to remove the Occupy
encampment
Police move in to remove tents with minimal
arrests and incidents
Protesters surround police and shout that they
will let the cops go pending release of arrested
students
18. What happened?
Police spend upwards of 15 minutes giving out
warnings to protesters that they would be
required to use force if they did not move
Prime example of current tactics by police
officers being out-of-date and insufficient to
resolving Occupy movement conflicts
20. What happened?
Occupy goal: Move the protesters to the vacant
Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center
Police confront protesters for destroying
construction barriers
Protesters respond with bottles, metal pipe,
rocks, spray cans, improvised explosive devices,
and burning flares
21.
22. What happened?
Officers respond with smoke, tear gas, and
beanbags during the arrest of 20 people
Night ends with protesters breaking into City
Hall, breaking windows and property, and
burning an American flag in front of the building
23.
24. Whose fault?
Tensions escalated quickly
Would this have been a problem if police just let
Occupiers take the vacant building?
Do we blame the police officers for provoking
retaliation and causing property damage?
26. Too little…
Runs risk of failing to apprehend the suspect
Endangers themselves, fellow officers, and the
public if the suspects resists violently
28. Use of force doctrine
Law enforcement agencies had to create a
doctrine to determine acceptable use of force
Strike a balance between security needs and
ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of
intruders or suspects
29. Double standard
Decision is complicated
Citizens expect the police to be aggressive in
the enforcement of the criminal law against
serious offenders
They also expect the police to show restraint
when they or those they know are involved
33. Davis and Oakland
Errors of judgment
Escalated conflicts
Bad publicity for police officers
Negative publicity for protesters
Could have been handled better
34. At UC Davis
It is clear that pepper spray was not necessary
for the police to leave
The main objective of removing tents was
already complete
Didn’t take into account that their actions would
be spread around the internet like wildfire
35. But…
Occupy protesters should not have surrounded
the cops in the first place
Undermined the peaceful image of the protest
and begged for retaliation
36. At Occupy Oakland
Protesters got out of hand immediately
No justification for escalation besides mob
mentality or lack of personal judgment
Exhibits an image of immaturity and lack of
respect for authority and private property
Don’t burn the American flag. For real.
37. Should police have backed off?
Argument: Conflict and damage would have
been kept to a minimum if police had backed off
Argument is weak
Should police let bank robbers do as they please
because confronting them could cause a
shootout?*
*I know that is a hyperbole
39. Mediation Observations
Finding the middle ground requires a
fundamental change in the approach of law
enforcement
Need a change tailored for Occupy protest
circumstances
Public needs to understand the difficulty of
deciding when to use force and how much
40. For UC Davis
Police should have erred on the side of caution
Risk to officers and public was minimal
41. For Occupy Oakland
Police were forced to respond with force
Police blamed after the fact for causing the
chaos
Public should contemplate the double standard
presented and temper bias toward police
43. Needs
Excellent Good Fair
Work
Context
Purpose: perceptive definition of central question, visual & X
verbal; scope is narrow, question consistent throughout
Substance
Development: sufficient summary & insight; slides focused & X
yet fully developed; mix of verbal & visual information
Sources: appropriate for topic, pertinent in placement, and X
accurately cited; quotations & data introduced correctly
Organization
Thesis: a thesis, early or late, that clearly states both sides of X
question & its mediation
Introduction and Conclusion: overview of organization given X
at the beginning; conclusion sums up key points
Relationship: relationship of ideas clear; coherent; visual cues X
guide us through presentation
Style
Style: clear & to-the-point text on-screen; same for data on- X
screen; the verbal component fits the visual
Verbal performance: engaging presence, name given, neither X
too colloquial nor too formal; no mumbling
Conventions & Correctness X
free from data errors
free from word errors (SP, etc.)
Response Team
Response: Questions in class & written responses demonstrate X
understanding; response helps enhance presentation
(rated “Excellent,” “Good,” or “Fair.”
My take is pretty similar to your Response Team’s, when it comes to this presentation
Overall Comments:
about the use of force at two West-Coast OWS events. Like your Team, I had misgivings at the
macro level, the level of purpose for your Mediation. You fault the police response in both cases
— though in Oakland, obviously, the protestors were much to blame as well. The presentation
called the police “out of date,” esp. in Oakland. So what exactly were you mediating? The “double
standard” you spoke of regarding the public’s perception of the police use of force? Or two
police approaches, when force is required? Everything else you about the PowerPoint was
excellent, though: the use of visuals, the choice of examples, the distinctions drawn between UC
Davis and Oakland, the excellent citations, rooted in careful research. Yu handled the questions
in class with fine intelligence too. A or 95.
Notas del editor
Greeting everyone. My name is Brad Barber, and the topic of my presentation today is on determining the reasonable amount of force for the Occupy Movement.
Before I get into specifics, let me ask a question. If the Occupy Movement had a mascot, who do you think it would be?
Would it be “The 99%”?
Guy Fawkes?
Or perhaps we can draw inspiration from an incident that happened not too long ago on a college campus…
That’s right, we’re talking about Lieutenant John Pike, an officer at the campus of UC Davis.
His public act was videotaped and spread through the internet, turning him into a symbol for resistance by Occupiers…
Pepper Spray Cop.
With just a little imagination, John Pike has managed to pepper spray down through the ages.
Lieutenant Pike became the face of all those who opposed the Occupy Movement. It was also a prime demonstration of the power of social media to spread ideas and messages in this digital age, and became the focal point for rallying support for the movement and generating negative publicity for the UC Davis campus and it’s police force.
This incident shines a light on the problem with law enforcement’s current strategy of dealing with Occupy protesters. There is a clear gap between what the public thinks is necessary and what law enforcement agencies employ.
It is understandably difficult for police to effectively decide just the right amount of force to use for each situation, and the public gets to have all of the information after the fact that police didn’t have at the time.
I will break down what happened at two separate Occupy incidents, highlighting the difference between the accepted levels of use of force. Through analysis of these situations, perhaps there is a solution to minimize damage to society while fostering a respect for authority figures.
The first incident happened at UC Davis
It all started when the UC Davis Chancellor ordered campus police to remove the Occupy encampments, which went down with few arrests or incidents. Protesters then surrounded police and chanted “If you let them leave… we will let you go.”
Police then spent 15 minutes carefully and calmly explaining to protesters that they would be required to use force if they did not move. That’s when it jumped to pepper-spraying the students. It is a prime example of the current tactics by police officers being out-of-date in this day and age.
The next incident happened at Occupy Oakland.
The short-term goal of the movement was to move the protesters to the vacant Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center. Unfortunately, the protesters were causing a lot of public and private property damage in the process, forcing police to confront the mob. When protesters responded by throwing objects and disrupting the peace, things took a turn for the worse.
Officers responded with smoke, tear gas, and bean bags, arresting more than 20 people in the process. While all of this was going on, some protesters broke into City Hall, trashed the place, and set fire to an American flag in front of the building.
Tensions clearly escalated quickly, and it made people question if police should bear some of the responsibility. After all, if the police had never confronted them in the first place, there is a good chance that there would not have been rioting in the streets. Should police take these things into account when they determine the amount of force to use?
Before we answer that, I should explain some of the methods and concerns currently in place when officers determine how much force to use.
If they do not use enough force, they run the risk of letting the suspect get away, which could have negative repercussions down the line, including the harm of citizens or other officers.
If they use too much force, they infringe upon the rights of citizens to be treated fairly.
Law enforcement agencies create a Use of Force doctrine that spells out in detail the acceptable use of force for different situations. It is designed to balance security needs with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects.
Unfortunately, this decision is too nuanced and dependent on the situation to be solved with a big list. Compounding that is the double standard applied by the public, because citizens expect police to be aggressive in enforcing the law against serious criminals, but they also want police to show restraint when they themselves are involved.
Technology also shifts the acceptable level of use of force, so that over time, what is acceptable evolves with society.
In hindsight…
These incidents all have things in common, such as errors of judgment, escalated conflicts, and bad publicity for all sides. In both situations, things could have been better.
At UC Davis, the use of pepper spray was over the line, because they did not take into account that their actions would be broadcast across the internet. It was also unnecessary because their objective of moving the tents was complete.
But the protesters also should not have surrounded the police in an attempt to free apprehended students. It undermined the peaceful image of Occupy protests and helped escalate the situation.
At Occupy Oakland, it is clear that the protesters instigated the matter, and by throwing bottles and rocks at police, the protesters showed a mob mentality and lack of personal judgment that exhibited an image of immaturity and disrespect for Occupy protesters. And I’m sure I don’t need to say it, but don’t burn the American flag to make it point. It doesn’t project the kind of image who hope it will.
I’ll also address the question posed earlier. Would it have been such a bad thing if the Occupiers took the convention center without police intervention? Some argue that if the police had just backed off, a lot of property damage would have been minimized. This argument is weak because it does not let police officers do their job, and they have a civic duty to uphold the law. If the response to police escalates a situation, the blame should clearly be on the lawbreakers.
And now for my mediation.
Finding the middle ground for the amount of force to use is tricky, and requires a fundamental change in the approach of law enforcement; a change tailored specifically for Occupy protests. On the other side of the coin, the public needs to be educated on how police decide the amount of force to use and the problems that arise from doing so.
Looking back at UC Davis, it is clear that the police should have erred on the side of caution, because there was practically no risk to the officers or the general public.
At Occupy Oakland, police were forced to respond from the onset, and then blamed after the fact for instigating the chaos. The public should contemplate this double standard involved and see if it isn’t grounded in a bias against police officers in general.