Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..."

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"That is enough," he replied.

Luke, 22:35-38

The other event happened at the main gate to the port. A group of protesters were lined up against a chain link fence with their arms linked together. They were again being passive, they were sprayed at point blank range with chemical weapons. No one in this instance was arrested, they were sprayed and then physically moved from where they were standing by riot police with their batons. The protesters were expecting to be arrested for not moving and would have gone peacefully. That was their plan from the beginning.

A lawyer I've spoken with who specializes in these kinds of cases suggested that these uses violated the manufacturer's guidelines for safe usage of their product, basically, that these chemical weapons were not intended to be used the way OPD used then, and that that makes the weapons more dangerous. A heavy dose, such as one would get from a point blank range application of the chemicals could trigger many dangerous health problems and potentially lead to death. The police had no way of knowing whether the protesters were allergic to the chemical, had heart conditions, asthma, etc, and given that fact should have shown restraint by making arrests first when dealing with a passive crowd.

I'm going to drive drunk from the Broho and sue Buck or Pit when I run over someone in the crosswalk.

I'm going to break into a house and sue the homeowner if I trip over something in the dark livingroom.

I'm going to sue the major record labels for aiding in the demise of my hearing.

I'm going to sue the Olympia School District because they allowed me to drop out at age 19 having earned only a small handful of credits, instead of just graduating me.

I'm going to sue The Olympian for emotional distress...they misspelled my name when I took part in the 1996 Polar Bear Swim.

So love me, love me, love me
I'm a Liberal!
Phil Ochs

Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue
Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn børk! børk! børk!
The Swedish Chef

gentlemen. 

 The protesters did not pose a threat to the police. Therefore the use of OC (pepper spray), a chemical weapon, was clearly a violation of statutory code

A lawyer I've spoken with who specializes in these kinds of cases suggested that these uses violated the manufacturer's guidelines for safe usage of their product, basically, that these chemical weapons were not intended to be used the way OPD used then, and that that makes the weapons more dangerous. A heavy dose, such as one would get from a point blank range application of the chemicals could trigger many dangerous health problems and potentially lead to death.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

but it is important to know what we are talking about and I don't really want to respond to speculation, or fantasy.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

1.3.3 Less/non lethal weapons 

I. Policy 

A. The Olympia Police Department recognizes that combative, non-compliant, armed or violent subjects cause handling and control problems that require special training and equipment. The Department has a less lethal force philosophy to assist with the de-escalation of these potentially violent confrontations. The intent of this philosophy is to empower officers to utilize specially designed devices to render subjects non-threatening - with a low probability of serious physical injury or death - so that they are not able to continue behavior that is inappropriate or dangerous. 

B. The potential for causing serious injury or death with less lethal weaponry is always present, and decisions regarding deployment of the weaponry must be made with that in mind. 

II. Definitions 

A. “Less lethal force philosophy” is the concept of force planning and application which meets operational objectives with less potential for causing death or serious physical injury. 

B. A “kinetic energy impact projectile” are flexible and non-flexible impact projectiles intended to incapacitate a subject with minimal potential for causing death or serious physical injury (when compared to conventional projectiles). There are a number of projectiles manufactured that qualify as kinetic energy impact projectiles. The kinetic energy rounds are the primary less lethal round authorized by the Department. 

C. The “ARWEN and SL-6” are multi-shot, 37mm projectile launchers used to deliver a variety of less lethal projectiles. The Department-approved 12 gauge shotgun is also utilized to deliver less lethal munitions. 

D. The “Jay-Cor PepperBall Delivery System” is a multi-shot delivery system for oleoresin capsicum that utilizes .68 caliber frangible projectiles. 

E. The “Taser” is a conducted energy weapon that controls and overrides the body’s central nervous system by using propelled wires to conduct electrical energy to a subject. 

F. “Safety priorities,” in the context of this procedure, are the priorities in which use of force and protection decisions are made. 1.3 − 7 

G. A “subject,” in the context of this Section, is the person who is the focus of a police operation. 

H. “Target areas,” in the context of this procedure, are areas of the body. Target areas are designated as primary, secondary or tertiary, based upon the potential of the area for sustaining injurious or lethal contact from a kinetic energy impact projectile. Primary target areas present minimal risk for serious injury or death. Tertiary target areas present the highest risk for serious injury or death. 

III. Procedure 

 

A. Less lethal projectiles are delivered to subject target areas based on circumstances, established safety priorities and the level of force authorized. The Olympia Police Department Basic Baton Techniques student manual is the model for determining contact (target) areas for Department-approved 37mm or 12 ga. less lethal projectiles. The guidelines for deployment are as follows: 

1. Primary Targets - Primary target areas are considered when incapacitation is necessary and minimal potential for injury is the appropriate response. 

2. Secondary Targets - Secondary target areas are considered when incapacitation is necessary and appropriate - acknowledging an increase in the potential for serious physical injury or death. 

3. Tertiary Targets - Intentional impacts in tertiary target areas (i.e., head or neck) are to be avoided, unless the use of deadly force is justified, necessary and appropriate. 

4. Targeting goals - When engaging a target, the less lethal systems operator should evaluate the effectiveness of each round during a volley. Compliance and/or rendering a subject non-threatening is the goal of less lethal weaponry. Alternative target areas and response considerations should be based on the circumstance dynamics present and on established Department safety and tactical priorities. 

B. Department-approved less lethal projectiles are not considered a use of deadly force when deployed to a primary or secondary target area. The less lethal impact projectile is considered to be use of deadly force if intentionally applied to a tertiary target area. 

C. Department-approved less lethal munitions are appropriate for deployment: 1) when circumstances involve a subject who presents a threat of bodily harm to self or others, and 2) when circumstances allow time for effective deployment. 

D. Department policies and procedures regarding use of force and the reporting thereof apply to use of the less lethal systems. 

F. Department-approved less lethal munitions are delivered only by those officers who are trained in their use and who are current in their qualification with the munitions being delivered. 

G. In every instance where a less lethal round is fired at a subject a follow-up investigation is 1.3 − 8 

conducted. The depth of this investigation is determined by the Field Operations Division Commander (or designee), based on the extent of injury to the subject. Documentation is the same as for other uses of force. 

H. In the event that a less lethal system is fired for any reason other than training, the shift supervisor on duty when the weapon was fired notifies the Watch Commander of the incident as soon as possible. 

IV. Deployment and transition techniques 

A. ARWEN, SL-6 and Jay-Cor systems 

1. Approved operators may carry less lethal munitions when authorized to do so by their supervisor. 

2. The following techniques shall be followed when a less lethal systems operator transitions the use of the Department-approved 12 ga. shotgun from standard use to less lethal use: 

a. The less lethal systems operator unloads the weapon of standard 00 buckshot rounds (including the speed stock) and passes the unloaded weapon to a second officer (observer). 

b. The second officer inspects the weapon, verifies that it is fully unloaded and returns it to the less lethal systems operator. 

c. The less lethal systems operator visually inspects each bean bag round, one at a time, and hands it to the observer. The observer verifies each bean bag round individually and passes it back, one at a time, to the operator, who then loads it into the weapon. 

3. At no time during a deployment shall the operator have on his/her person any lethal ammunition of the same caliber as the less lethal system being used. 

B. Taser system 

1. Approved operators may carry the Taser on their person while on duty at their option. 

2. When an officer elects to carry the Taser on his/her person, the weapon shall be carried in a Department-approved belt or shoulder 

that ... "I haven't heard but one incident [of police using less lethals] the whole time of the protests, and that is when the officers were taking rocks."

First, I have to say that I can't help but wonder how you have managed to miss the undisputed facts of a major local story you are engaged in debating on a public blog. Even OPD Commander Bjornsted openly admitted (in print and TV media) using pepper spray and pepper ball projectiles on multiple occasions -- and even removing protective masks and eye goggles of the protesters being sprayed.

There are plenty of videos and still-images of less lethals, and other forms of excessive force, used on peaceful protesters in numerous independent media sources on the internet and elsewhere, but also in the commercial press. I compiled a strong sampling from both to accompany an article I wrote for the web version of the Works In Progress December issue. If you are interested in seeing for yourself, you can scroll through the 33 photos that run alongside the article and check out the list of video links at the end of the article: http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2007/12/01.html.

Rubber bullet gun 37mm

Bean bag rounds usually deployed from a shotgun

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

got to go for now. I will continue tomorrow. This will be a good and fun topic.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

before accusing you of not having the facts.

Somehow it seemed that everyone was talking about the same thing when referencing police policy on "less than" lethal weapons and usage of pepper spray on peaceful protesters.

That said, I agree with Guglielmo that the key question on the matter of excessive force hinges on Constitutional protections, not OPD policy or WA State law. And I agree with JT that this is a good topic and I look forward to hearing more.

[And, just for the record, the fact that y'all are staying with the topic, rather than digressing off on some trivial tangent or overly-personalized off-topic attacks, is what has drawn me into the conversation. I only mention this in response to the oft-asked questions on this blog about why more people don't participate.]

I just found the RCW...

 

9A.80.010

Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

     (a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

     (b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

     (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.80.010.]
 

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.

Below is the ladder of force for Olympia Police,  and then a couple descriptions of resistive behavior.

"“Active resistant” behavior is behavior by a subject that is non-compliant and that involves the use of physical effort or mechanical assistance to achieve or maintain non-compliance with lawful commands."

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

you complained about the officer(s) that used the pepper ball gun on those who were blocking the Plum St. ramp.  Did he shoot them directly or on the ground around them?  If it was on the ground around them that likely was to put pepper powder in the air.   

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

control.  So in absence of a policy then you need to research industry standards, and dept. training. 

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

I just know that I'm going to be stepping into it, but here goes.

I have a background in law enforcement and there is something you never do, take your safety for granted.  For the sake of the discussion, how does police differentiate from peaceful vs. non-peaceful protestors?  From what I witnessed on the many videos the rock throwers, dumpster tossers, and so on were all dressed the same as the peaceful group.  The group that was yelling F YOU was dressed the same as the rest of the group.  See where I'm going? 

Yelling I'm peaceful is not enough.  I think when some of the individuals got out of hand it was time for everyone to obey orders so that cooler heads could prevail. 

As for violations of the 4th & 8th Amendment, I think that is somewhat of a stretch.  I would be interested to see any case law where someone was able to make that argument and win.   

baby sitting the police, both comments that are a complete reversal of the facts.

The police were there to "baby sit" the protestors who decided not to obey the law. If they had obeyed the law, no need for the police. But they wanted to send a message so the police had to come "baby sit" the protestors.

The police didn't start any violence. The police are allowed to use means necessary to effect a lawful purpose. The lawful purpose was to keep the roadway open and allow the military equipment to leave the port. The protestors became an unruly body when they realized a fast one was pulled on them. That behavior by the protestors continued to escalate until THE PROTESTORS resorted to violence. You see they have no legal authority to use those means for their purpose. Their purpose is completely illegal in the first place.

So don't try to spin this 180 out from reality. The cause of the VIOLENCE sits squarely and solely in the laps of the protestors.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

that walked their walk. Some protestors were calling the cops names, and generally being nasty and onery. Some in the crowd directed them to straighten up, and for the most part they did, at least for a time.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

is to the framing of the incident. The police were reactionary, not pro-active in this event. The protestors drove the reaction from the police at every step.

The difference for me with force vs violence is one is lawful, the other is unlawful. Maybe I should use assaultive to describe the protestors and force for the cops. I will do that since you think all violence is equal.

If the necessary force used meets the elements of the definition of Necessary, then it is legal.

Just because the protestors and their sympathisers didn't like the force, doesn't make it illegal.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will