The Cop Who Gassed the UC Davis Students? Got His Number!

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this, but I figured I’d post it and crowd source that. Anyone know?

UC Davis Campus Police Lieutenant John Pike 5307523989, japikeii@ucdavis.edu, spraying noxious gas on unarmed innocent peaceful American Citizens.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Cop Who Gassed the UC Davis Students? Got His Number!

  1. Josh says:

    That’s his contact information from http://police.ucdavis.edu/campus-services/support-services-division, yes.

    His home address is in the white pages, but I won’t link to that.

  2. Azkyroth says:

    But…but…but if people who violate the law and fundamental human rights protecting the naked and devastating abuse of power have to actually suffer any consequences for their actions that’ll make us no better than they are!

    Really, the stupid cartoon Aesops and sidestabbers told me so!

  3. geocatherder says:

    @Josh: thanks for not linking to his home. By now, he’s figured out that he’s done something unacceptable, has formulated his excuses, and will go forward with that. The people we really need to reach are his bosses (especially that clueless chancellor), who have the power to defuse his excuses and punish him appropriately.

    I’m not sure we’re getting through… but there’s no excuse for harassing his family just because he’s an idiot.

  4. Daniel Schealler says:

    This all makes it sound like it was his personal decision.

    Maybe it was.

    But personally, it wouldn’t surprize me at all if this was a bigger decision than just him.

    I read some comments elsewhere that in the act of preventing a protest from turning into a mob with the potential to riot, the use of pepper spray is formally considered an acceptable means of enforcing crowd dispersal.

    I don’t know if that’s true either… But it should give us pause.

    Yes, actually holding the spray can deserves a certain amount of condemnation.

    But there’s a whole system surrounding the act itself – that’s where the anger should be directed, not at the level of a single individual.

    My two cents anyway.

  5. Azkyroth says:

    I’m sure the chief was Just Following Orders.

  6. Roxane says:

    If you could see his number, it probably proves he’s an amateur. When the LA Sheriff’s Office was gassing students at UCSB back in 1970, they were careful to tape over their numbers and wear huge sunglasses.

  7. sparky_ca says:

    It is illegal in the state of California for the police to use pepper spray on protesters unless there is immediate danger. This officer broke the law. And as a police officer, he knows this.

    In general, most state laws (California included) enforce that pepper spray should only be used in self defense situations where you fear your life or safety is in danger. Illegal use of pepper spray products (perhaps dispensing them out of anger or as non self defense violence against another person) can bring fines of $1000 and up and/or three years in prison.

    (California Penal Code Section 12403.7 (a) (8))

    The 9th Circuit Court upheld this in in the Q-Tip case from Eureka.

  8. F says:

    Well, we’ll just see how many people join protests or picket lines in the future when law enfarcement unions get the shaft.

    @ Daniel Schealler :

    It easily could have been a personal decision for him not to spray anyone, regardless. But he does so with a casual swagger, repeatedly, so I don’t think he had any ethical struggle going on.

    If you haven’t watched any video, you should. Observe his behavior.

    Also, he sprayed them with a device meant to be used at long range, not up close. Maybe improper use (use in a manner inconsistent with that described on the label) comes with federal fines. That would be fun to see enforced.

    Anyway, that’s my take. “Just following orders” would be an utter lie, whether he was following any explicit order or not, which is still not a justification.

  9. Azkyroth says:

    Anyway, that’s my take. “Just following orders” would be an utter lie, whether he was following any explicit order or not, which is still not a justification.

    It also hasn’t been an excuse for this kind of thing since around 1946-1947….

  10. Gordon says:

    Everyone knows “following orders” is universally accepted as an excuse… by people with no conscience

  11. Old One-Eye says:

    Geocatherder @3 – “The people we really need to reach are his bosses”. Looks as though that’s happening… I haven’t seen this posted on FTB yet, my apologies if I’ve missed anything.

    “Pepper spray: US campus police chief suspended”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15830104

    “The campus police chief at the University of California, Davis has been put on administrative leave after a crackdown on protesters.”

  12. drbubbles says:

    “Call him”? To what end? It probably only took 15 minutes before they stopped answering the phone and disabled the answering machine/voicemail.

    More abstractly, how is personally harassing, or inciting the personal harassment of, one guy (and potentially his family) (1) going to cause him to see the error of his ways, (2) going to change the system, or (3) any different from anti-abortionists’ (inciting the) personal harassment of abortion doctors?

  13. hyperdeath says:

    He was just following orders.

    Or as they say in German, Befehl ist Befehl.

  14. Azkyroth says:

    More abstractly, how is personally harassing, or inciting the personal harassment of, one guy (and potentially his family) (1) going to cause him to see the error of his ways

    It’ll show him that people are unwilling to either support or overlook his actions, and that his assumption there would be no consequences for them and/or that the community would sanction them was mistaken. Finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion is well known to give most people pause, and of course the consequences thing applies at a purely practical level.

    (2) going to change the system

    See above. Replace with plural nouns.

    (3) any different from anti-abortionists’ (inciting the) personal harassment of abortion doctors?

    Aside from doctors being private citizens providing a service, and police being public authorities entrusted body with a great deal of power by, and with acting as representatives of, the citizenry in aggregate…gee, um, maybe…

    …what the person subject to blowback did to provoke it?

    I mean, really?

    Do you REALLY think that providing needed medical services to women and respecting their bodily autonomy and humanity, and using weapons to punish and intimidate citizens peacefully exercising their constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, are sufficiently similar that they can simply be interchanged without radically altering the moral analysis?

    Are you really that fucking stupid?

    Really?

  15. Greg Laden says:

    Yeah, I don’t think this is about getting this dufus cop to change his ways. Rather, it is about getting other dufus cops to think a little before they rush in to gas the kids with such pleasure. That combined with the fact that is boss and his boss’s boss lost their jobs because of him “following orders” and carrying out an illegal act … that may make the next guy with the pepper spray bottle refuse to act on illegal orders.

  16. drbubbles says:

    @Greg: it’s still not clear to me that blowing up a guy’s phone for the 15 minutes it takes him to realize what’s happening and turn it off (assuming he’s even at home when it starts), can reasonably be assumed to effect such particular introspection among his peers. The postulated relationship between the two seems underdetermined.

    What seems more likely is that it simply tars lefties with a brush that we berate righties for using.

    And if he has a family, it would disrupt *their* lives as much as his. I imagine many people would be distressed by a stream of calls/messages from strangers angry about something husband/dad did at work. If it were me, I’d wonder what happens now that our phone number, and probably address, were Out There, with the full realization that turning off the phone doesn’t make the angry strangers disappear. Instilling domestic fear (intentionally or no) is a highly unethical political tool. Husband/dad sprayed the students, not his family.

    @Azkyroth: Are you really such a fucking asshole that you think snide ad hominem is an appropriate response to something you disagree with? If you’d stopped after your actual points, I’d have responded to them. But, you didn’t, and your subsequent comments don’t encourage me to think that there’s any point in doing so.

  17. Greg Laden says:

    Introspection? This requires nothing more than reflex.

    Mean time, keep in mind that this is only one thing.

    The guy got his boss fired. He got is boss’s boss fired. He will be responsible for the implementation of new regulations and laws. Cops wont’ be able to use Pepper Spray ever again.

    A nice entree is made of one, two, or three main ingredients and some spices. At this early stage we can’t be sure which of the ingredients are going to be the meat and which the sauce and which the spice. And we won’t know for a while. But this is not time to skimp in the kitchen. Pour it on, just like that pig poured on the pepper spray.

    I’m not quite sure why you are defending him. Do you think it is OK what he did?

  18. drbubbles says:

    Excuse me? Thinking it’s inadvisable to suggest a bunch of angry people telephone Lynndie Englandthe sprayer (and that actually phoning him is useless at best), means I’m defending him? This is why I don’t web-comment as much as I might.

    It’s a shame that it matters, but FWIW (which I don’t think is very much, and don’t expect you to, either), I don’t think what he did is defensible. But, having seen nothing worse than losing their job happen to cops who have killed people engaged in activities more innocent than the UCD protest (and the relevant police procedures going unchanged), I’m skeptical of the effects that the public actions that have been (and will be) taken are going to have, let alone private ones like ringing his phone off the hook. I’d rather see that energy directed toward the players in the public responses.

    I’d be surprised if this event weren’t driven by cops feeling their authoritah was being disrespected (and lord knows that’s paramount to cops). So they didn’t have enough respect for the protesters to be bothered with recognizing their civil rights. So what makes anyone think they’ll respect random angry callers enough to change that?

  19. Greg Laden says:

    There is no doubt that public outrage at police behavior has changed the rules of that behavior at many times in the past. I have no doubt that a barage of actions now will have an effect later. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to attempt to predetermine specifically which actions will work or not work. There is no down side to publicizing his identity. Police in our country do not wear black masks and are not anonymous. They are supposed to be part of the community, and thus, community pressure can matter.

    Sorry if I misinterpreted your suggestion that this particular approach be left off the list.

  20. Azkyroth says:

    @Azkyroth: Are you really such a fucking asshole that you think snide ad hominem is an appropriate response to something you disagree with? If you’d stopped after your actual points, I’d have responded to them. But, you didn’t, and your subsequent comments don’t encourage me to think that there’s any point in doing so.

    You seem to be operating under the delusion that you’re entitled to be taken seriously no matter what you say.

    Correct it.

  21. By the same logic that court-prescribed punishments are alleged to deter crimes, a deluge of hate mail and phone calls should have some deterrent effect on other would-be perpetrators of police brutality. Sending him 100 pizzas is bad though because the local pizza shops get screwed.

    Even if he has a wife, she ought to divorce him and will easily get full custody of the kids. If the kids get bullied at school that would suck, but your hate mail will have no effect either way on that. The “collateral damage” from a bunch of hate mail / phone calls is acceptable.

  22. drbubbles says:

    @Greg: Did I object to publicizing his identity? No, I did not. I disputed the notion that publicizing his phone number, and calling it, would be productive instead of counterproductive.

    Neither do I dispute that community pressure can be effective. But I don’t think constant angry phone calls are effective, nor have I ever heard anything to suggest otherwise. I suspect it’s just a way for people pissed off at the sprayer to feel better. I’ve been in those shoes and I’ve never seen them get anyone anywhere though.

    @Skepgineer: Who gets to draw the line between when such “collateral damage” is acceptable and unacceptable? And if it’s OK as “collateral damage,” why not as direct action? Why not burn a bag of shit on his doorstep, egg & TP his house, put sugar in his gas tank, pepper-spray his wife & kids, burn a cross on his lawn? Where is the line, and who draws it? As the sprayer’s own actions demonstrate, ends do not justify means. Imagine yourself as a focus of angry community action like you’re defending: would you not wonder if phone calls were just the beginning?

    The phone-calling suggestion strikes me as more of a lashing-out than a useful tool, and I’ve read nothing here to make me think otherwise (indeed, the pizza suggestion, however tongue-in-cheek, just reïnforces my suspicion). A “deluge of hate mail and phone calls” isn’t, in aggregate, deterrence by disapprobation (whatever the individual intent of each participant), it’s deterrence by intimidation (not unlike being female on the internet). And it’s dismaying to see that defended.

  23. Azkyroth says:

    it’s deterrence by intimidation

    And the threat of prison isn’t?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>