{"id":18896,"date":"2013-12-26T23:21:01","date_gmt":"2013-12-27T04:21:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=18896"},"modified":"2016-08-11T12:26:24","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T16:26:24","slug":"lt-john-pike-goes-viral-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2013\/12\/26\/lt-john-pike-goes-viral-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Lt. John Pike Goes Viral (13)"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Little Pepper With That?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"A.<\/p>\n

As of 2004,\u00a063 deaths involving pepper spray<\/a>\u00a0in police confrontations had occurred in the U.S. \u2015 many more since, of course. Just do an online search for the words “pepper spray death police” and browse the horrific results. They’ve received prominent press coverage; you’d think that police departments everywhere would take those as cautionary tales, ensure thorough training in its use and the dangers thereof for all officers, and make it a weapon of close to last resort. After all, around 150 countries have banned the use of pepper spray in warfare, under Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Humboldt

Humboldt County police officers apply cotton swab soaked in pepper spray to the eyelids of activist, fall 1997. Screeshot from police video.<\/p><\/div>\n

Instead, a culture of reckless police use of pepper spray has taken hold. Nowhere has this proven more true than California, despite the widely publicized federal court ruling<\/a> against the\u00a0Humboldt County Sheriff\u2019s Department in the 1997 Earth First! case<\/a>. Indeed, California state law required the state to conduct and complete\u00a0a health risk assessment before approving the use of pepper spray by police departments in 1992, but George Alexeeff, acting director of the California EPA\u2019s Office of Health Hazard Assessment, has confessed that as of late 2011 “We never completed a risk assessment.” See Tom Hayden’s report<\/a> in The Nation<\/em>,\u00a0November 23, 2011.<\/p>\n

The Defense Technology Corporation, manufacturer of the MK-9 spray used on the UC Davis students, cautioned in an unpublished report back in the early ’90s\u00a0that any use of OC (oleoresin capsicum) on a subject be limited to a single burst of not more than one second, adding that “\u2026 little or nothing is known about the health risk or toxicity of pepper spray, OC and other ingredients \u2026 Concerns on [sic] the safety and health risks associated with its use have arisen. OC sprays cause upper respiratory inflammation and may have detrimental effects on people with preexisting respiratory problems.”<\/p>\n

\"Defense<\/p>\n

In this report, Def-Tec goes into detail: “Furthermore, it is known that capsaicin directly affects nerves that transmit pain. Excessive stimulation to those neurons causes them to stop functioning properly. With continued stimulation, nerve death can result. Lastly, repeated administration of capsaicin [the active ingredient in oleoresin capsicum] has also resulted in liver necrosis \u2026” (From the\u00a0American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California’s June 1995 white paper, “Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions.”<\/a>\u00a0See also the 1995 report by Dr. C. Gregory Smith, “Health Hazards of Pepper Spray.”<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Whence That Whiz?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Defense

T Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band\/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray.<\/p><\/div>\n

To\u00a0wrap\u00a0up this series of posts\u00a0on the\u00a0pepper-spray cop meme<\/a> and the story in which it embeds itself, here’s a question apparently neither asked nor answered\u00a0by any of the official investigating committees, nor by any journalist: How did these cops get their hands on military-grade pepper spray that they were not authorized to carry or trained to use, and that their department had no authority to purchase or supply to its officers?<\/p>\n

The investigators make it clear in the Kroll\/Reynoso Task Force report<\/a> that they had to rely exclusively on documents provided to them by UC Davis, and were denied the opportunity to interview Lt. John Pike and Police Chief Annette Spicuzza. Still, we know that the police used MK-9 \u2015 because the citizen-journalism stills and\u00a0videos\u00a0of the events of November 18, 2011 at UC Davis document it, and because it’s confirmed in the Supplemental Narrative Reports from Officer Alexander Lee.<\/p>\n

We know also that the illegality of its use became central to the investigation, the firing of the officers involved, the forced retirement of their commanding officer, the shaming of Chancellor Linda Katehi,\u00a0the settlement of the federal lawsuit<\/a>, and other related matters. So I find it incomprehensible that this question has occurred\u00a0to no one but me. Yet, though I’ve read deeply in the\u00a0reportage\u00a0and the official investigative reports, I find no one raising it. So I pose it here.<\/p>\n

\"Still

Still from video of Lt. John Pike pepper-spraying peaceful protesters at UC Davis, 11\/18\/11<\/p><\/div>\n

I can think of several possible answers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The officers chipped in out of their own pockets to buy cases of the hi-test MK-9, which they carefully hid from their commanding officer, Annette Spicuzza, who in turn somehow didn\u2019t notice this switcheroo when the officers under her command carried these humongous canisters into the field in an act of blatant insubordination.<\/li>\n
  2. Chief Spicuzza, at the urging of John Pike and her other macho underlings, agreed to exceed her authority, disregard university regulations, and amp up the firepower of her troops by endorsing the purchase of cases of the military-grade pepper spray, misappropriating department funds in order to do so, deciding also to forego any instruction or training in the use of this higher-octane version.<\/li>\n
  3. The manufacturer of this weaponized version of the spray, Def-Tec\/BEA, mistakenly sent the UC Davis Police Force\u00a0cases of the MK-9 instead of the MK-4, and the member of the force in charge of procurement and checking incoming supplies failed to notice the substitution and correct the shipment, with which the officers then inadvertently equipped themselves.<\/li>\n
  4. The manufacturer sent them a holiday gift of sample cases of the stronger stuff, which they decided to test out \u2014 without feeling the need for any instruction and training, university regulations to the contrary.<\/li>\n
  5. Some well-meaning citizen donated cases of MK-9 to them, believing that this police force \u2014 whose primary role at the university involves dealing with\u00a0on-campus bike theft and intoxication<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 needed more shock and awe options.\u00a0They decided to test it out without feeling the need for any instruction and training, university regulations to the contrary.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \"Alexander

    Alexander P. Lee, former officer in the UC Davis Police Dept., in action on November 18, 2011. Photo by N. George Harris, courtesy of Creative Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

    Myself, I’ll opt for 2, above, as the most-likely-case scenario (pun intended). UCPCD Dispatch Officer Leticia Garcia-Hernandez\u00a0told the Kroll Report team<\/a>\u00a0that she “had never seen the larger MK-9 canister ‘until the day of the video.'” However, later in the report someone identified only as “Officer O” (later revealed as now ex-UC Davis police officer Alexander Lee) states, “I sprayed the crowd directly in front of the police skirmish line using a\u00a0department issued pepper spray fogger Defense Tech MK-9<\/em>.” (Italics mine.)\u00a0<\/strong>This suggests a department-wide conspiracy to violate the restrictions placed on their weaponry by university regulations.<\/p>\n

    But whichever variant proves true, these remain the key points:<\/p>\n