SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
On "Body Handles" & Occupy Reality
The recent incident of an officer casually deploying his jet of chemically propelled liquid pain into the eyes of peacefully seated students-- like he was taking a stroll around the park with his pet duck on a string--prompted a question.
It was sickening, and harrowing to see. But was he not following standard procedure?
Nov 20, 2011
The recent incident of an officer casually deploying his jet of chemically propelled liquid pain into the eyes of peacefully seated students-- like he was taking a stroll around the park with his pet duck on a string--prompted a question.
It was sickening, and harrowing to see. But was he not following standard procedure?
The Washington Post blog writes, "Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters. "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
(Bodies don't have handles on them. Lieutenant? He and I haven't hugged lately, because I've got handles.)
Essentially, Kelly is saying it's inconvenient that human beings aren't inanimate objects they can pick up and move around at will. Instead, police are going to apply pain to make us move. That way they won't be liable for damages incurred during shipping. People will hurt their own damn selves.
Kelly went on to say that two actions during the UC Davis peaceful protest do classify as resistance: a woman pulling her arm away from the police and a protester curling into a ball. In his words, these acts of resistance "could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques."
I had no idea what passes for standard policy in police use of force. I thought rolling into a ball was the apex of passivity when faced with a threat. Ask any underground insect. But to a policeman it means, "Now you can hit me with your big stick."
I have to laugh as various police PR people insist that pepper spray doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's a harmless way to gain compliance. Emotional trauma, central nervous system shock, pain and chemical exposure are not harmful. (Brush it off, pansies!) Being hit with a wooden baton or violated by an armed man applying "pressure points" to vulnerable places (like your jaw) is just discomforting.
What they mean is that it's good torture technique: cause urgent, overwhelming pain and distress without leaving permanent marks as evidence that can be brought to a court of law. They won't be liable for it, so it's not real.
I kind of got a clue during Hurricane Katrina. Policemen shot people point-blank (with bullets, not pepper spray) for trying to cross to dry ground. Officers were under orders to shoot to kill anyone caught scavenging food and water--um, I meant looting. The point is, the protection of (poor) human lives was officially secondary to guarding (wealthy) private property.
Now that this fact is resolving and surfacing more clearly for Americans participating in the OWS movement, I want us to exploit the moment. The property that the police are protecting isn't physical. It's an entire conceptual system that arches inclusively over every articulated oppression. The property being protected is the system of oppressions that keep inequality in place. That property is invaluable, for without it the 1% has no power.
These are standard operating procedures, and they need to change, sir, stat.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Abe Louise Young
Abe Louise Young is a writer, teacher, and lifelong activist. Her book, Queer Youth Advice for Educators: How to Respect and Protect Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Students, was published in July by Next Generation Press.
The recent incident of an officer casually deploying his jet of chemically propelled liquid pain into the eyes of peacefully seated students-- like he was taking a stroll around the park with his pet duck on a string--prompted a question.
It was sickening, and harrowing to see. But was he not following standard procedure?
The Washington Post blog writes, "Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters. "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
(Bodies don't have handles on them. Lieutenant? He and I haven't hugged lately, because I've got handles.)
Essentially, Kelly is saying it's inconvenient that human beings aren't inanimate objects they can pick up and move around at will. Instead, police are going to apply pain to make us move. That way they won't be liable for damages incurred during shipping. People will hurt their own damn selves.
Kelly went on to say that two actions during the UC Davis peaceful protest do classify as resistance: a woman pulling her arm away from the police and a protester curling into a ball. In his words, these acts of resistance "could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques."
I had no idea what passes for standard policy in police use of force. I thought rolling into a ball was the apex of passivity when faced with a threat. Ask any underground insect. But to a policeman it means, "Now you can hit me with your big stick."
I have to laugh as various police PR people insist that pepper spray doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's a harmless way to gain compliance. Emotional trauma, central nervous system shock, pain and chemical exposure are not harmful. (Brush it off, pansies!) Being hit with a wooden baton or violated by an armed man applying "pressure points" to vulnerable places (like your jaw) is just discomforting.
What they mean is that it's good torture technique: cause urgent, overwhelming pain and distress without leaving permanent marks as evidence that can be brought to a court of law. They won't be liable for it, so it's not real.
I kind of got a clue during Hurricane Katrina. Policemen shot people point-blank (with bullets, not pepper spray) for trying to cross to dry ground. Officers were under orders to shoot to kill anyone caught scavenging food and water--um, I meant looting. The point is, the protection of (poor) human lives was officially secondary to guarding (wealthy) private property.
Now that this fact is resolving and surfacing more clearly for Americans participating in the OWS movement, I want us to exploit the moment. The property that the police are protecting isn't physical. It's an entire conceptual system that arches inclusively over every articulated oppression. The property being protected is the system of oppressions that keep inequality in place. That property is invaluable, for without it the 1% has no power.
These are standard operating procedures, and they need to change, sir, stat.
Abe Louise Young
Abe Louise Young is a writer, teacher, and lifelong activist. Her book, Queer Youth Advice for Educators: How to Respect and Protect Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Students, was published in July by Next Generation Press.
The recent incident of an officer casually deploying his jet of chemically propelled liquid pain into the eyes of peacefully seated students-- like he was taking a stroll around the park with his pet duck on a string--prompted a question.
It was sickening, and harrowing to see. But was he not following standard procedure?
The Washington Post blog writes, "Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters. "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
(Bodies don't have handles on them. Lieutenant? He and I haven't hugged lately, because I've got handles.)
Essentially, Kelly is saying it's inconvenient that human beings aren't inanimate objects they can pick up and move around at will. Instead, police are going to apply pain to make us move. That way they won't be liable for damages incurred during shipping. People will hurt their own damn selves.
Kelly went on to say that two actions during the UC Davis peaceful protest do classify as resistance: a woman pulling her arm away from the police and a protester curling into a ball. In his words, these acts of resistance "could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques."
I had no idea what passes for standard policy in police use of force. I thought rolling into a ball was the apex of passivity when faced with a threat. Ask any underground insect. But to a policeman it means, "Now you can hit me with your big stick."
I have to laugh as various police PR people insist that pepper spray doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's a harmless way to gain compliance. Emotional trauma, central nervous system shock, pain and chemical exposure are not harmful. (Brush it off, pansies!) Being hit with a wooden baton or violated by an armed man applying "pressure points" to vulnerable places (like your jaw) is just discomforting.
What they mean is that it's good torture technique: cause urgent, overwhelming pain and distress without leaving permanent marks as evidence that can be brought to a court of law. They won't be liable for it, so it's not real.
I kind of got a clue during Hurricane Katrina. Policemen shot people point-blank (with bullets, not pepper spray) for trying to cross to dry ground. Officers were under orders to shoot to kill anyone caught scavenging food and water--um, I meant looting. The point is, the protection of (poor) human lives was officially secondary to guarding (wealthy) private property.
Now that this fact is resolving and surfacing more clearly for Americans participating in the OWS movement, I want us to exploit the moment. The property that the police are protecting isn't physical. It's an entire conceptual system that arches inclusively over every articulated oppression. The property being protected is the system of oppressions that keep inequality in place. That property is invaluable, for without it the 1% has no power.
These are standard operating procedures, and they need to change, sir, stat.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.