O'Reilly: Pepper Spray Is a Food Product

[Seth]

I just looked at the video.
Seth's claim that the officers were trapped in the circle is ridiculous.
The first cop to start spraying stepped OVER the students, INTO the ring to start spraying. There was no way those cops were intimidated. If anything, they outnumbered the students.

I see they've suspended two of them. I am not surprised. I've never seen such a ridiculous over-use of force.

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just looked at the video.
Seth's claim that the officers were trapped in the circle is ridiculous.
The first cop to start spraying stepped OVER the students, INTO the ring to start spraying. There was no way those cops were intimidated. If anything, they outnumbered the students.

I see they've suspended two of them. I am not surprised. I've never seen such a ridiculous over-use of force.

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

While the police may want a crowd of people standing around to be a "potential riot," that isn't the case. Every march, protest or demonstration involves a lot of people standing around - hundreds - even thousands of people all around. The police's job is to protect and serve that crowd of protesters. The mere fact that there are hundreds of people standing around is not cause to use pepper spray.

[Seth]

No, I established that obstructing is a crime. You don't have to disobey an instruction to stop, you can be arrested simply for obstructing:

Nobody's disputing that. That's the bleedn obvious.

Yes, actually, it is:
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.
(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority;

It's perfectly clear that doing nothing doesn't fulfill any of these criteria.

You probably ought to leave the legal interpretations up to the professionals, like me.

Not unless you are already doing them.

Not true. You can be standing quietly in one place and be perfectly legal, but when a police officer tells you to move, and you do not, you just turned standing lawfully in one spot into being an "obstacle" that "obstructs, impairs or hinders" the officer.

Your claim that failing to obey an instruction ON IT'S OWN is obstruction is obviously false.

No, it's not. I've arrested a few people for doing exactly that at, as I illustrated, a crimescene or scene of a disturbance that they were not involved in. When ordered to move along and they didn't, they were then arrested, charged and convicted of obstruction.

There may have been a few cases where an officer has tried, or even succeeded in claiming that distracting his attention is obstruction.

There are many hundreds of thousands in the US, if not more, depending on the time span involved. It's one of the most common charges used by police to deal with folks who refuse to move along when the police are working.

That's not using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference or an obstacle.

Yes, it is. Take it from a professional, if a police officer tells you to move along, it's because you are, or are about to be interfering in his work. He'll give you a polite warning and order to move on so that you do not become an obstacle or hindrance, but if you refuse to do so, you can be cited for obstruction for that refusal. Police can expand or contract a perimeter around their operations as they deem reasonable and necessary and you, Joe Average Citizen, do not have authority to gainsay them. This is even true of the press. The Supreme Court has said that the press has no greater right to be in the area of an emergency or police operation than any other citizen, which is why police now routinely eject the press from crimescenes and other disturbances right along with citizens, and arrest reporters and photographers for refusing to move along all the time.

A few silly rulings in local hick courts doesn't make it a fact.

Yeah, well, the Supreme Court ain't a local hick court.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

Really? Is this the best you can do?

[Seth]

I just looked at the video.
Seth's claim that the officers were trapped in the circle is ridiculous.
The first cop to start spraying stepped OVER the students, INTO the ring to start spraying. There was no way those cops were intimidated. If anything, they outnumbered the students.

I see they've suspended two of them. I am not surprised. I've never seen such a ridiculous over-use of force.

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

While the police may want a crowd of people standing around to be a "potential riot," that isn't the case. Every march, protest or demonstration involves a lot of people standing around - hundreds - even thousands of people all around. The police's job is to protect and serve that crowd of protesters. The mere fact that there are hundreds of people standing around is not cause to use pepper spray.

Nor did they use pepper spray on the surrounding crowd. They only used it on persons who were actually breaking the law. But the presence of many other persons in a crowd around the protesters is legitimately a concern for the police, who have the duty of KEEPING THE PEACE, particularly in potential riot situations. They get to gauge the tenor and mood of the crowd when deciding whether or not to disperse it BEFORE it turns into a riot. So long as people are acting peaceably and lawfully, they will just observe, but when some of the crowd decide to break the law, they have full authority to move in and arrest them. If the situation deteriorates as a result, and the rest of the crowd becomes unruly and threatening, they can order them to disperse, and can use chemical weapons to cause them to disperse if they refuse.

[Seth]

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

Really? Is this the best you can do?

I don't need to do better. I know what the law is. You don't.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

Really? Is this the best you can do?

I don't need to do better. I know what the law is. You don't.

Yep, me ignert, do bad reeding of lawz.

[JimC]

I think it's pretty clear to the vast majority of people that this spraying was a totally uneccessary and very unwise police action.

You can think that without being anti-police in general, and still approve of forceful police action when it's really needed, like when anti-globalisation thugs decide to trash a city for the adrenalin rush...

[Coito ergo sum]

I just looked at the video.
Seth's claim that the officers were trapped in the circle is ridiculous.
The first cop to start spraying stepped OVER the students, INTO the ring to start spraying. There was no way those cops were intimidated. If anything, they outnumbered the students.

I see they've suspended two of them. I am not surprised. I've never seen such a ridiculous over-use of force.

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

While the police may want a crowd of people standing around to be a "potential riot," that isn't the case. Every march, protest or demonstration involves a lot of people standing around - hundreds - even thousands of people all around. The police's job is to protect and serve that crowd of protesters. The mere fact that there are hundreds of people standing around is not cause to use pepper spray.

Nor did they use pepper spray on the surrounding crowd. They only used it on persons who were actually breaking the law. But the presence of many other persons in a crowd around the protesters is legitimately a concern for the police, who have the duty of KEEPING THE PEACE, particularly in potential riot situations. They get to gauge the tenor and mood of the crowd when deciding whether or not to disperse it BEFORE it turns into a riot. So long as people are acting peaceably and lawfully, they will just observe, but when some of the crowd decide to break the law, they have full authority to move in and arrest them. If the situation deteriorates as a result, and the rest of the crowd becomes unruly and threatening, they can order them to disperse, and can use chemical weapons to cause them to disperse if they refuse.

The fact that they didn't use the spray on the surrounding crowd is evidence that they did not see the surrounding crowd as a thread.

They aren't allowed to use pepper spray on people just because they are breaking the law, just like they aren't allowed hit people with their hands just because they are breaking the law.

Certainly, many things are "legitimate concerns" for police. But, just because something is a "legitimate concern" that doesn't give them the right to spray people with pepper spray. I think ANY crowd of people - and any car pulled over by the side of the road - is a "legitimate concern" for police. Police pull over a speeder, and ask him to get out of the car -- the guy refuses - pepper spray appropriate? Of course not. Legitimate concern? Of course.

Sure the police can gauge the tenor of crowds. But, they didn't try to disperse the crowd. They pepper sprayed a few people who were sitting down, without trying to cuff them first. Perhaps they should have called for a paddy-wagon and some more back up, and then forcibly removed the sitting protesters.

The protesters WERE behaving peaceably - that's why the police weren't disbursing the surrounding crowd. The police wanted to keep certain people from blocking that "way" (or so the police say). Fine. They should have picked the people up bodily, one at a time, and hauled them away. That is, if the people were, in fact, doing something illegal.

[tattuchu]

Kayso pepper spray in the eyes is unpleasant, yes? But has anybody ever tried spraying it in their mouth?

[Seth]

I just looked at the video.
Seth's claim that the officers were trapped in the circle is ridiculous.
The first cop to start spraying stepped OVER the students, INTO the ring to start spraying. There was no way those cops were intimidated. If anything, they outnumbered the students.

I see they've suspended two of them. I am not surprised. I've never seen such a ridiculous over-use of force.

Did you bother to look at the hundreds of people standing all around the police on the grass? That's what police call a "potential flash riot" waiting to happen.

While the police may want a crowd of people standing around to be a "potential riot," that isn't the case. Every march, protest or demonstration involves a lot of people standing around - hundreds - even thousands of people all around. The police's job is to protect and serve that crowd of protesters. The mere fact that there are hundreds of people standing around is not cause to use pepper spray.

Nor did they use pepper spray on the surrounding crowd. They only used it on persons who were actually breaking the law. But the presence of many other persons in a crowd around the protesters is legitimately a concern for the police, who have the duty of KEEPING THE PEACE, particularly in potential riot situations. They get to gauge the tenor and mood of the crowd when deciding whether or not to disperse it BEFORE it turns into a riot. So long as people are acting peaceably and lawfully, they will just observe, but when some of the crowd decide to break the law, they have full authority to move in and arrest them. If the situation deteriorates as a result, and the rest of the crowd becomes unruly and threatening, they can order them to disperse, and can use chemical weapons to cause them to disperse if they refuse.

The fact that they didn't use the spray on the surrounding crowd is evidence that they did not see the surrounding crowd as a thread.

No, it just means they didn't see them as an IMMEDIATE threat nor as lawbreakers. But any time a hostile crowd gathers around police trying to arrest protesters it's a dangerous situation that requires a firm hand by the police to maintain order.

They aren't allowed to use pepper spray on people just because they are breaking the law, just like they aren't allowed hit people with their hands just because they are breaking the law.

They are allowed to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to enforce the law or effect an arrest, and pepper spraying protesters who are obstructing and resisting is both reasonable and appropriate under the totality of the circumstance.

Certainly, many things are "legitimate concerns" for police. But, just because something is a "legitimate concern" that doesn't give them the right to spray people with pepper spray.

Quite right. What gave them the AUTHORITY (not the "right") was the law, which the protesters were breaking, and the law that authorizes the use of physical force by a police officer.

I think ANY crowd of people - and any car pulled over by the side of the road - is a "legitimate concern" for police. Police pull over a speeder, and ask him to get out of the car -- the guy refuses - pepper spray appropriate? Of course not. Legitimate concern? Of course.

Actually, you're exactly wrong. If you get pulled over and the officer orders you out of the car, he's doing so for his own safety, to separate you from any potential weapons inside the car. He is in control of the situation, you are not. If you refuse, he can bust your window, drag you out by the arm or hair, or pepper spray you, or potentially shoot you if you present a deadly threat to him. That happens all the time and the police are almost always justified in their use of force, and pepper spray, to get someone out of a vehicle who is refusing to do so.

Sure the police can gauge the tenor of crowds. But, they didn't try to disperse the crowd. They pepper sprayed a few people who were sitting down, without trying to cuff them first.

They don't have to try to cuff them first. They were trying to get them to move without having to arrest them. Pepper spray, like tear gas, is a good way to get people who are refusing to move to do so without having to arrest or fight with them.

Perhaps they should have called for a paddy-wagon and some more back up, and then forcibly removed the sitting protesters.

Why wait? They had the appropriate tools with them, and they used them appropriately.

The protesters WERE behaving peaceably

No, they were not. They were resisting arrest and obstructing the police, and obstructing a public sidewalk. Those are crimes. Committing a crime is not a "peaceable" act. The folks standing around on the lawn were acting peaceably, the protesters were not.

- that's why the police weren't disbursing the surrounding crowd.

As I understand it, the whole thing started because the Chancellor told the Police Chief to keep ANY students or other persons from erecting a camp on the campus. It was only a small contingent who decided to protest the police being there by obstructing and resisting arrest. The rest were being monitored to ensure they didn't set up a camp, and would have been dispersed had they tried to do so.

The police wanted to keep certain people from blocking that "way" (or so the police say). Fine. They should have picked the people up bodily, one at a time, and hauled them away.

There's absolutely nothing in the law that requires police to "haul away" a protester who is resisting arrest without using pain-compliance techniques. Police can and do use all sorts of pain-compliance techniques, including handholds, batons, and chemical sprays, in order to induce people to move on their own. It's perfectly legitimate and court-approved. Doing so reduces the potential for violent resistance and injury to police officers and greater injury to arrestees. You fail to understand the continuum of force that police are authorized to use.

That is, if the people were, in fact, doing something illegal.

Which they clearly were.

[Seth]

I think it's pretty clear to the vast majority of people that this spraying was a totally uneccessary and very unwise police action.

You can think that without being anti-police in general, and still approve of forceful police action when it's really needed, like when anti-globalisation thugs decide to trash a city for the adrenalin rush...

The vast majority of people are not police officers, have no police or legal training, were not there, and are therefore completely unqualified to render judgment on the situation.

[Schneibster]

Kayso pepper spray in the eyes is unpleasant, yes? But has anybody ever tried spraying it in their mouth?

You're as bad as the guys who signed the releases and ate the habanero burgers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kayso pepper spray in the eyes is unpleasant, yes? But has anybody ever tried spraying it in their mouth?

You're as bad as the guys who signed the releases and ate the habanero burgers.

Do you remember where they served them?

[Schneibster]

In Marin.