|
National Radio Project1714 Franklin Street #100-251 • Oakland, CA 94612 • 510-251-1332ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to reproduce and/or reprint, please contact us. |
MAKING CONTACT Transcript: #26-99 Tantamount to Torture: Pepper Spray and Activism Phillip Babich: This week on Making Contact Steve Argue: The immediate thing he did was spray me in the eyes with pepper spray and then he proceeded to grab my head and stuff the pepper spray canister in my mouth. Carry Mckee: They pepper sprayed me three times and the third time was definitely the worst. It was this really intense burning feeling on my face and also I couldn't breath. Phillip Babich: Pepper spray has been linked to numerous deaths in the United States. In some cases, people have died in police custody after being subjected to the burning chemical agent, sparking outrage from victims' families and communities. And, there's been a growing use of pepper spray against social activists as a means of intimidation. On this program, we take a look at how police have used pepper spray during demonstrations and some broader implications. I'm Phillip Babich, your host this week on Making Contact -- an international radio program, seeking to create connections between people, vital ideas, and important information. On October 16, 1997, a group of environmental activists sat around a tree stump they had brought into the office of, then, Congressman Frank Riggs, republican representative from a north coast district in California. Environmentalists have viewed Riggs as a friend of the timber industry, which has logged tens of thousands of acres of old-growth forests. Activism has intensified around this issue over the past decade. Committed to their civil disobedience action, the protesters stood their ground in Riggs' office as Humboldt County Sheriff Department officers used cotton swabs and gauze to directly apply pepper spray to their eyes. Officer: If you fail to release, I'm going to use chemical agents to try to get you off the premises .... Female 1: ...then we're going to fight it in court because it's not a right thing, you shouldn't be using chemical weapons on other people. Officer: I'm not going to argue with you, I'm going to start this process. (People crying out in pain) Officer: What you were given was a little bit of pepper spray with a Q-tip, what we're going to do now is an actual spray. Female 2: Noooo. Officer: Okay, who's going to release? Are you going to release? People crying out, screaming and coughing: "No, No don't! Ow! Ow! Ow! Let me go, let me go." Female 3: Let me go, let me go, let me go, let me go!!!! Phillip Babich: This is audio from a police video tape of the incident. The Headwaters Action Video Collective produced a video using these and other excerpts for a production called "Fire in the Eyes," which documents charges of police brutality and excessive use of pepper spray. Female 1: They started pulling my head back and we realized that they were going to put it directly onto our eyes, and I have never heard of that. Officer: Are you going to release? Phillip Babich: A second incident, which took place at the headquarters of a prominent timber company, Pacific Lumber, was investigated by Amnesty International. According to the human rights organization's report, two women were swabbed in the eyes with liquid pepper spray and a third woman was sprayed in the eyes at close range. Female screaming in the background: Stop this now, stop this torture, stop torture in the United States!!! Stop now, don't do it, don't you have a conscience?! Don't you have emotions?! Don't you have a daughter?! (Male laughter) Female 2: I could hear Molly crying or Spring crying and I just wanted to unlock and help them. Female 3: Please don't hurt me, I don't want to be hurt! Stop it now!!! Stop it now!!! Phillip Babich: In its report Amnesty International said that "in this instance the spray was clearly abusive as it was not used to protect officers or others but was applied in a calculated and deliberate way to inflict pain as a way of gaining compliance in cases of demonstrators who posed no threat." The U.S. Postal Service was the first to use pepper spray -- as a dog repellent in the 1980s. The product eventually made its way to police departments. Since pepper spray was introduced in the United States it has been involved in at least sixty deaths, according to the publication Covert Action Quarterly. In recent years labor, environmental and peace activists have been pepper sprayed while engaged in non-violent direct actions and other protests. Striking workers at The Detroit News and The Detroit Free Press, for example, were repeatedly blasted inches away with the burning agent, which is 600 times more intense than cayenne pepper. They've been striking the newspapers, owned by Gannett and Knight Ridder, since 1995. At the height of the strike, police frequently pepper sprayed and tear-gassed picketing workers. A local television station covered the strike extensively and was there during a confrontation in 1996. (Chanting strikers in the background) Male Striker 1: They just started spraying, I was getting ready to sit down and they started spraying. I couldn't breathe, I still can't see... Male Striker 2: It incapacitates you, and that's what they're trying to do with the union voice in this country. Male Striker 3: I did nothing to provoke them, I was just sitting their and I got sprayed directly in my eyes. Male Striker 4: Well were just standing on the line and the police felt it was too close for them and they started pushing with the sticks and one of them pushed at me and I put my hand up and before I could tell anything another one, a big guy leaned over with the mace and shot me right in the face, in fact, almost directly in the eyes from less than a foot away. Male Striker 5: I'm out here supporting my union, I've been a member of this local for twenty years, and I'm not leaving. Female Reporter: What do you think the police are doing here? Male Striker 5: Making absolute fools of themselves, showing that they're bought out by this town and this company. Female Reporter: Are you prepared to get maced today, if they do anything to you. Male Striker 5: I wasn't prepared for it but I lived through it, I guess I'll live through it again. Female Reporter: You did get sprayed earlier? Male Striker 5: Yes I did. Female Reporter: What did it feel like? Male Striker 5: Like I was on fire, I've been through it before, I was in the service. I'm a vet - a locked out vet- they got a lot of appreciation, don't they? Female Reporter: What do you think the police are doing here? Male Striker 6: Only their job, only what corporate greed tells them to be doing. Phillip Babich: In September 1998 the National Labor Relations Board charged Gannett and Knight Ridder with violating 9 labor laws and illegally provoking a strike. They were ordered to reinstate the union workers. Currently, the workers are still locked out while the board reviews the companies' appeals. A small percentage of striking workers have returned to their jobs, some with pay cut in half, others with full-time reduced to part-time. Incidentally, the Detroit Newspaper Agency made payments as donations to the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan, where Gannet and Knight Ridder's main production plant is located. The city accepted the money to cover expenses for equipment and supplies used by local law enforcement during the strike, including pepper spray. There have been several other pepper spray incidents involving union members, including the dousing of strikers at the Staley Plant in Decatur, Illinois. Another example of excessive use of pepper spray occurred on Columbus Day 1997. It was the 28th National Day of Mourning, a Native American event that takes place at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, lamenting the so-called discovery of America and the loss of countless Native American lives. Female: I think a lot of you must have seen, when you came in this morning, the state cops surrounding Plymouth rock, they brought out about sixty state troopers today to "protect" Plymouth rock. What we are going to do, is we're going to form up now, those of you who are going to join us, behind this orange banner that says, "We are not vanishing. We are not conquered. We are as strong as ever." Phillip Babich: Native Americans and supporters marched peacefully but police insisted that the demonstrators halt their procession. When members of the march chose to proceed rather than stop, the police sprayed them with pepper spray. (Shouting and screaming) Marcher: Is this how you want to deal with this?!! Back off and don't be violent, back off and don't be violent!!! Laura Livoti: You're listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. This program can now be heard across the United States and Canada, South Africa, and around the world on Radio for Peace International short-wave. You can also hear us on the Internet. If you want more information about the subject of this week's program, give us a call, it's toll free: 800-529-5736. Call that same phone number for tape and transcript orders. That's 800-529-5736. We also welcome comments and suggestions for future programs. Phillip Babich: Police departments and federal law enforcement authorities have used a variety of chemical sprays for years. The first was tear gas, a compound formulated by Smith and Wesson called CN, an acronym for its chemical composition. It was rarely made available to the public. Another version of tear gas is known as CS, also an acronym. It's stronger than CN, which causes a sharp, burning sensation and lasts about half-an-hour. But, CS takes a bit longer to cause a reaction. The most popular chemical spray on the market is OC, more commonly known as pepper spray. The agent is an inflammatory substance, not an irritant like CN and CS. It causes immediate dilation of capillaries in the eyes and other mucous membranes, according to sales literature. It results in temporary blindness and instant inflammation of the respiratory system, "cutting off all but life support breathing." With effects like that, it would seem that pepper spray is extremely effective for police in stopping violent assailants. As it turns out, this is not the case, according to Phil Messina, director of Modern Warrior, a New York City-based law enforcement training organization that has performed independent tests on the effectiveness of pepper spray. He explains to Making Contact's Stephanie Welch that Modern Warrior tested whether people who were pepper sprayed could still accomplish an assigned task, such as walk through a series of obstacles and find the person who sprayed them. Messina begins by talking about why police departments switched from CN -- tear gas -- to OC -- pepper spray. Stephanie Welch: When was OC spray introduced to law enforcement as a means for self-defense? How was it presented; why did they decide to go ahead and use this spray? Phil Messina: Well, a lot of it had to do with the ineffectiveness of the CN A lot of law enforcement people stopped using CN because they found it just didn't work against violent subjects. Basically it didn't cause a lot of physical damage, and also it was very unreliable as far as effectiveness went unless you used it in high concentrations. And there was concern about using chemicals in high concentrations. And so, a lot of companies went over to OC which theoretically at the time it was believed could be used in high concentrations without causing any long term medical effects. Stephanie Welch: Now you've done extensive testing on the effectiveness, like you said in self-defense situations, and have shown that's its not so effective when a person has a goal or is goal oriented. Could you talk a little bit about that and the conclusions that you came to from your testing? Phil Messina: Well basically, when we saw the original experiments that were being done back in 1989-1990, virtually all the experimentation was either being done by manufacturers or by the FBI. The FBI was the only non-manufacturer who was doing any experimentation on the effectiveness. And we had concerns about the passive way that these experiments were being done. We were concerned with the way the experiments on effectiveness were being carried out. So we carried out the first of what was called "active experiments," where what we actually did is we gave the test subjects goals to accomplish before they were sprayed, and then we sprayed them. And the object was to see if they could accomplish those short term and long terms goals after being sprayed. And what we found out is that in every case, our initial experiments were with 60 ... our last experiment brought over 200 subjects, in every case the subject has been able to carry out either a short term or long term goal. Jennifer Haas: I was sprayed twice. It went in. I know it went in because I felt it go in. And then I was sprayed again. And then I was told to complete my goal. And to tell you the truth, I had no problem in completing my goal. Phillip Babich: Jennifer Haas is executive director of the American Women's Self Defense Association based in New York. She participated in the Modern Warrior pepper spray tests. Jennifer Haas: My goal was to find the person who had sprayed me and we actually had a rubber knife and I had to go through vital targets with that knife. And then I walked over to the decontamination center. I had a doctor interview me because at the time we were doing another experiment as to what works best to go through the decontamination process. I answered all his questions fine. And then I just walked over to a pool, and I jumped in. If I was sprayed in a violent confrontation, it would not stop me. And I'm only 115 pounds, and I'm five foot two. Stephanie Welch: How have some of the companies responded to the independent tests that you have put out or to the conclusions to your tests? Phil Messina: Well, the funny thing is, initially, they requested the tests. At least one OC manufacturer requested the tests and then after we gave them our initial results they didn't want to know us anymore because our initial results were exactly what I told you. We informed them that, although we felt that OC was more effective than CN, that it still was not effective to the level where it would work against either violent or goal oriented subjects. Our concern was that the law enforcement community was being told to use OC sprays on non-compliant subjects, and to use higher levels of force on violent subjects, because the OC was unlikely to work. Yet, civilians were being given a weaker product and told that it would work on violent subjects and this contradiction bothered us, and we made it very well known, so naturally it didn't put us on the best side of the OC and the chemical companies. Stephanie Welch: Talking about non-compliant victims, when police in California swabbed and sprayed the eyes of activists who were restrained, in order to force them to release the lock on their lock boxes which held them down, few actually complied, and the police usually ended up cutting them out with the means that they successfully used in the past, for example using a saw or scissors. What sort of regulations exist that address the use of pepper spray by police on people who don't pose a violent threat? Phil Messina: Generally, most departments use OC spray at a level of force which is between verbalization, that's talking to the subject, and what they call hard empty handed tactics. OC spray is most generally used between those two phases. So, in other words, if you tell a subject to , "get out of the car," and the subject does not get out of the car, he's non-compliant, he's not violent, he's not even resistant, he's just non-compliant, at that point, before reaching in and doing what we would call a hard empty handed tactic, like a wrist lock or an arm bar, you would use an OC spray. So, most police departments use it at a relatively low level of force, and it generally seems to work at that low level of force, its once you get to that higher level of force that it, not only tends to fail, but it tends to make the subjects even more aggressive, and it tends to make the cops react in an even more aggressive manner because they've been told that this stuff worked on grizzly bears and now they have somebody walking right through it. Stephanie Welch: The company that produces mace is involved in a lawsuit brought against them by the Federal Trades Commission, could you talk a little bit about that, and why they were targeted for this. Phil Messina: Well, the reason why that particular company was targeted, and I hear there was a couple of companies that are actually targeted now, they were targeted because they were the largest distributor of deterrent as a matter of fact. I would go so far as to say their ads were down right dishonest, they were down right wrong. They would say, "this will stop the most violent attacker, someone will not be able to see after being sprayed with this, "and slogans like, "just aim, spray, and walk away" things that were very misleading and led people to believe they were carrying a panacea with them and no matter how violent the subject, if they just sprayed them in the face the attack would stop. And that is not the case. If you spray someone, even in a civilian scenario, when you spray someone, you better be able to follow up that use of the spray. If that's a highly aggressive, agitated, or violent, or goal oriented person, you just gave them an adrenaline dump, and now they're stronger, faster, and more pain tolerant than they were before. So, if you don't have a back up system, other than that spray, you're in serious trouble. Stephanie Welch: I watched people being sprayed, I watched the activists being swabbed, and it seems excruciating and especially to the extent of the use, because usually they're not just sprayed with one or two little sprays from eight feet away, or whatever the manufacturers recommend. They were sprayed back and forth at close range and swabbed directly in to their eyes, and it seems like at that level, it seems very violent and tantamount to torture. In Amnesty International's report, they actually condemn the swabbing of the eyes of non-violent activists as torture. Do you have any comment on that? Phil Messina: I believe that, any technique, once proven ineffective, if it's repeatedly used, verges on brutality. Phillip Babich: Are the manufacturers of OC sprays aware that their products are being used against demonstrators and protesters? Phil Messina: Oh yes. I see it in a lot of their ads. I see that it can work against demonstrators, that it can work against passive demonstrators, that it will work against non-compliant demonstrators, and it will even work against people on drugs. You see it on a lot of the various advertisements for different sprays. I can't remember what company put it out, but I remember a company putting out a training tape and in the training tape they were spraying demonstrators. Phillip Babich: Phil Messina of Modern Warrior, a law enforcement training organization based in New York, speaking with Stephanie Welch. There are few federal regulations setting limits on the use of pepper spray. Many police departments use pepper spray as a primary pain compliance technique, acting on the assumption that it is less severe than a baton as a means of coercive force. The New York City Police Department, for example, uses pepper spray as the first line of defense in situations where substantial force is necessary if an assailant is being non-compliant -- in other words, not responding to verbal commands. NYPD regulations recommend two one-second bursts directly to the face. When it comes to civil disobedience actions these definitions become a little fuzzy. A striker or a protester may be technically trespassing or obstructing business -- whatever the case may be -- and could quickly find themselves being non-compliant by exercising what they believe to be their first amendment rights. But, does this mean that they should be subjected to intense pain, disorientation, or risk of serious injury or death? The line becomes even more blurred when alleged police misconduct is involved. This was the case, say some observers, during an anti-war demonstration in Santa Cruz, California, on May 22 of this year. Protesters had gathered outside a fund-raiser for Congressman Sam Farr, who had voted in favor of war appropriations to fund the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Witnesses say that Santa Cruz police tried to arrest a young woman who was playing a boom box loudly. Some of the protesters objected and confronted police. The police started to arrest another individual, a woman who had her young child with her. Steve Argue: Her hand was twisted so bad that her fingers were actually touching her fore arm bent backwards, with the hand bent backwards. The hand was purple, she was screaming out in pain and the child was screaming out "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy!" There was a cop was trying to take the kid away, and the whole thing was completely unprovoked and very brutal. We asked the officer, Lafavor, to stop brutalizing this woman and to stop doing what he was doing, which he refused to do and he just stood there, he just stood their holding this woman like that with her hand purple. Phillip Babich: Steve Argue is an anti-war activist in Santa Cruz that attended the May 22 demonstration. Steve Argue: This woman was being tortured, the child was being terrorized, I did what was necessary which was to punch the cop. I punched the cop and ran. That did stop the brutality he was carrying out against this woman and her child, she was able to escape. Phillip Babich: Argue says he had reason to believe that the woman was in jeopardy of losing her child to authorities. Next, the police went after him. Steve Argue: The first thing officer Lafavor did right after he tackled me, he was on top of me, and there was absolutely no reason for it, and it was against all police procedures, the immediate thing he did was spray me in the eyes from about two inches away with pepper spray, and then he proceeded to grab my head and stuff the pepper spray canister in my mouth and spray it down my throat. Then a number of police had arrived on the scene and they beat me, Officer Lafavor was beating me with his baton and others were twisting and contorting my body as I had been laying in a fetal position on the ground. Phillip Babich: In its report on human rights abuses in the United States, Amnesty International called for a full independent inquiry into several incidents where police used excessive amounts of pepper spray on activists. It said: "The increasing use of pepper spray by police departments in the United States despite conflicting studies into its safety is alarming." Amnesty International called for an immediate ban on the use of OC (pepper spray) against peaceful demonstrators. As a final note: many activists say that pepper spray has been ineffective in stopping and deterring direct actions, despite its intensity. Like the participants in the Modern Warrior pepper spray study who managed to accomplish their goals after being sprayed, activists stuck out the pain and remained committed to their protests. Carry McKee: They pepper sprayed me three times and the third time was definitely the worst, I got this really intense burning feeling on my face and also I couldn't breath and there was pepper spray dripping on my face into my mouth and stuff. Phillip Babich: Carry McKee is a 20 year-old environmental activist who was pepper sprayed last year during an anti-logging protest. She says despite severe pain, she still did not unlock from the shackles that bound her to other activists as they blocked a logging road. Carry McKee: I guess they think that people are more scared of physical pain than they actually are. I don't know, it doesn't work because I would do that again, I'm not really scared of it. They put it on you and they tell you to unlock, but what's the point, its still going to hurt even if you leave. Phillip Babich: But, that pain is generally additional punishment, according to Alicia Littletree of the environmental group Earth First! She says activists know there are consequences for engaging in direct action. Alicia Littletree: If we are protesting and we're using non-violent civil disobedience, essentially we are trespassing, so it's our fault for putting ourselves in that position. And of course, the argument that we use is, no you don't give up your rights tortured when you engage in civil disobedience, you still have your rights. Generally, we get arrested when we trespass, if we go in and we lock ourselves down, together like they were when they were pepper sprayed in 1997, if we do something like that, generally we're expecting to get arrested. And generally we get taken to jail and go through the process, which isn't the most pleasant process in the world anyway. Sometimes we spend several days in jail, and we go through the whole court system which can last several months and we pay the penalty at the end of it. It's not like we just walk, there definitely is a system that we go through and it's part of the principle of our actions, that you face the consequences of what you've done, you go through the legal system and pay your debt to society. In this case, the police and Pacific Lumber Company took the responsibility of being the judge, jury, and executioner, essentially and didn't let us go through any kind of due process. We weren't even subject to a trial, whether or not we were guilty of the crime, the people who were victimized by this were tortured right there. Phillip Babich: That's it for this edition of Making Contact -- a look at pepper spray and social activism. Thanks for listening. And, special thanks this week to Andrew Thompson who provided background information and editorial assistance. Stephanie Welch helped write and produce this program. Laura Livoti is our managing director. Peggy Law is executive director. Our production assistant is Shereen Meraji. Norman Solomon is senior advisor. Our national producer is David Barsamian. And I'm your host and managing producer Phillip Babich. |