Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

UC-Davis: Sauce for the Gander

Macabita Photo of UC-Davis Pepper Spray Attack It would, as Alexis Madri­gal points out at The Atlantic, be a mis­take to think that this is all about Lt. John Pike:

Let’s not pre­tend that Pike is an inde­pen­dent bad actor. Too many inci­dents around the coun­try attest to the wide­spread deploy­ment of these tac­tics. If we vil­ify Pike, we let the insti­tu­tions off way too easy.

Nei­ther should John Pike be let off scot-free. Fired? Per­haps, though if he loses his job it will be a polit­i­cal move, intended to make peo­ple for­get the institutional—and, indeed, societal—failures that allowed him to so cav­a­lierly injure peace­ful protestors.

But fir­ing is too good for John Pike. John Pike should spend the rest of his life, until he pub­licly repents, feel­ing inse­cure. And so should every offi­cer who fol­lowed him at UC-Davis.

They should not be able to go out to eat with­out know­ing whether their food will be spat in, or worse.

Their babysit­ters should be chron­i­cally unavailable.

They should not be able to get their oil changed with­out know­ing whether their drain plugs will be left loose, or park with­out know­ing if they are going to get another door ding.

They should not be able to rely on the peo­ple who col­lect their trash, who cut their lawns, who cut their hair. All of the con­ve­niences of mod­ern Amer­i­can life that we take for granted should, for these offi­cers, be unreliable.

The idea is sym­me­try itself. These offi­cers are men and women who were to serve and pro­tect the peo­ple. By attack­ing peace­ful pro­test­ers they failed to pro­tect those who needed their pro­tec­tion, and they instead served the polit­i­cal class by using vio­lence against the people.

The peo­ple are inse­cure: they can­not trust the police because the police have shown them­selves to be the enemy. That the peo­ple can’t fight injury with injury (the police are better-armed, and pepper-spraying a cop is likely a felony) does not mean that the peo­ple can’t fight back.

The idea of sab­o­tage can be as crip­pling as phys­i­cal sab­o­tage. I remem­ber read­ing once of a sabo­teur who left empty sugar bags on the ground near the open gas caps of his adversary’s vehi­cles. He hadn’t added sugar to the gas, but the idea that he had forced his adver­sary take the vehi­cles out of ser­vice. Not every waiter need spit in UC-Davis police offi­cers’ food. Not every check they send need be “lost in the mail.” But these offi­cers should be forced for­ever to won­der what, out of the mil­lion things that anony­mous peo­ple can make go wrong, will go wrong for them next.

And when things do go wrong (as inevitably they do) they should won­der whether it is because they were there at UC-Davis and because they didn’t say, “stop!”

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

18 Responses to “UC-Davis: Sauce for the Gander”

  1. lewis kennedy says:

    As has been asked here in the UK — are they employed by the Uni — or are they real police officers?

  2. shg says:

    While Madrigal’s his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive was inter­est­ing, it over­in­tel­lec­tu­al­ized the prob­lem. Pike is not merely a cog in a dan­ger­ous wheel. his­tor­i­cally inclined toward the exces­sive use of force, but an inde­pen­dant actor as well. He looked into their faces, raised the pep­per spray and acted.

    Madrigal’s effort to put this in a broader per­spec­tive misses the point as much as say­ing Pike is one bad apple. I have the nag­ging sense that Madri­gal has been wait­ing for the oppor­tu­nity to make her point, but trot­ted it out at the wrong moment.

  3. Mike Paar says:

    Those who make peace­ful rev­o­lu­tion impos­si­ble will make vio­lent? rev­o­lu­tion inevitable.”John F. Kennedy

  4. Joseph McCaffrey says:

    Let us not kid our­selves. John Pike did this because he believed some­body, or a whole bunch of some­bod­ies, wanted him to do it. Maybe he got that mes­sage because the police orga­ni­za­tion he works for accepted grant money and/or train­ing from banks or big Wall Street firms who donate to the police, and John Pike heard them talk­ing about how the Occupy Wall Street kids are just a bunch of dirty hip­pies, so John Pike got the mes­sage he could assault them and would be thanked by the peo­ple who gave the money. Or maybe John Pike lis­tened to Fox News and heard the huge lies night after night about how the Occupy Wall Street peo­ple were no good, and John Pike decided he’d teach then a les­son. Maybe John Pike never heard of the Bill of Rights, as a cop he could have been more inter­ested in cov­er­ing up for his fel­low cops in trou­ble than in pro­tect­ing the rights of a bunch of col­lege kids. So now John Pike could lose his job, for doing what he thought was his job.
    Occupy Wall Street is fac­ing an enor­mous cul­tural prob­lem as a result of the greed among the top 1%, but just as much a result of the lies that are being put out there to dis­credit Occupy Wall Street. I don’t feel sorry for John Pike, he is a stu­pid and crude man to do what he did, and should have to start look­ing for a truck dri­ving job. But my real worry is that there are thou­sands of John Pike’s out there on every police force in the nation, and the cul­tural forces that drove John Pike have affected thou­sands of oth­ers, and it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    • dan solomon says:

      Absolutely. Have you seen the video? As he pro­duces the can of pep­per spray, he bran­dishes it to the crowd and cam­eras like a magi­cian pulling out a bunny rab­bit. “For my next trick, I’m going to pep­per spray the hip­pies!” That is a thing that hap­pens when police cul­ture sug­gests that he will be embraced for doing so. You don’t add flour­ishes like that if you’re not pretty sure that there’s an enthu­si­as­tic audi­ence for it.

      • Mark Bennett says:

        I have seen the video, and I’ve been look­ing for the per­fect sim­ile. There’s some­thing medieval about it, like the exe­cu­tioner strut­ting with his sword before decap­i­tat­ing the kneel­ing pris­on­ers. Or per­haps the ter­ror­ist dis­play­ing his knife to the video cam­era before mur­der­ing the jour­nal­ist. It says, “I have the power, and there’s noth­ing they can do about it.”

    • Mike Paar says:

      Could Pike just be an over­weight, out-of-shape, mis­er­able, sadis­tic sociopath who enjoys the power trip that hav­ing a badge and gun pro­vide him? He prob­a­bly phys­i­cally abuses his wife and chil­dren, drinks heav­ily, and is no stranger to bul­ly­ing. This is mak­ing head­lines inter­na­tion­ally, but it’s not much dif­fer­ent than the thou­sands of other videos of police mis­con­duct found on youtube.

  5. TJIC says:

    This is a stun­ningly good post.

    Thank you.

  6. Mike Paar says:

    Here is an arti­cle about Lt. Pike. In it he says he prefers to hit women really hard instead of using pep­per­spray. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/21/4070831/uc-davis-cop-believed-to-have.html

  7. Mike Paar says:

    An attor­ney in Cal­i­for­nia has posted com­ments that Pike ille­gally used the pep­per­spray. It seems the type of OC can­is­ter used is des­ig­nated not for use within 3 feet (use is from 15 feet or greater, use within 15 feet is “expressly dis­cour­aged”) and Cal­i­for­nia POST train­ing regard­ing civil dis-obedience does not allow the use of pep­per spray when pas­sive resis­tance is encoun­tered. He pro­vided this link to jus­tify his argu­ment that Pike was out of line: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

  8. Judge Larry Standley says:

    ” Before I leave you here today, please remem­ber this: I know each of you have your own rea­sons for want­ing to achieve the sta­tus of Peace Offi­cer for the State of Texas. But at the end of the day you must ALWAYS strive to be that police offi­cer who might just pull your son or daugh­ter over on prom night. ”

    Speak­ing to a 1995.. Crim­i­nal Law Class to a local Hous­ton police cadet class.

    L.S.

  9. Michael Stuart says:

    I think we have reached and passed a tip­ping point in Amer­i­can culture.

    We’re Ger­many circa 1932; only, we won’t get a com­i­cally strut­ting lit­tle man to alert us the Republic’s been lost, we’ll get a face­less, crush­ingly implaca­ble bureau­cracy like a hybrid of 1984 and Brave New World.

    At what point do the crowds begin to fight back–not vio­lently, but sim­ply surg­ing for­ward, shout­ing them down, intim­i­dat­ing by sheer num­bers? When do the crowds with­draw their con­sent and see this for the naked tyranny it is?

  10. Michael Stuart says:

    And Mark–excellent article.

    Shun the tyrants.

    I had a won­der­ful oppor­tu­nity myself just last week. I pulled up next to an old Ford Tau­rus fes­tooned with mag­netic Har­ris County Appraisal Dis­trict placards–obviously an “appraiser” in his pri­vate car. Our win­dows were open, so I turned to him and said pleas­antly “Ah! You work for HCAD?”

    He replied “Yes!” enthusiastically.

    In a rare moment of hav­ing the right reply ready, I said “You should be ashamed.”

    His face deflated like a flat tire, and look­ing shocked he asked “Why?”

    Because you rip peo­ple off. Because what you do makes it pos­si­ble for the state to steal people’s money and homes. Because you’re a tax par­a­site who lives at my expense. You suck!”

    And the gods smiled on me, because his light turned green while mine (in the left turn lane) remained red.

  11. […] these rea­sons, you should never trust the gov­ern­ment to get it right. Mark Ben­nett has writ­ten about this more elo­quently than I. It is the nat­ural ten­dency and we are liv­ing through […]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply