Laserfiche WebLink
Also in response to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Brown said he was present at the June 17-18 incidents and <br />believed that if General Order 801.10 had been in existence and information regarding compliance <br />had been communicated to the protesters, it might have made a difference. He did not know if <br />such information was provided by the police at that time, but now it was in policy. <br /> <br />Addressing Mr. Kelly's question, Mr. Prozanski said as long as the individual was passively <br />resisting arrest, neither impact weapons or OC spray would be used to effect the arrest. The <br />findings and recommendations also suggested that the department consider other alternatives to <br />force before it would utilize any type of tools against political protesters who, for example, were <br />sitting on the ground and locking arms. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked what happened when a person was asked twice to leave the middle of the <br />street, refused to do so, and then went limp when the officer attempted to arrest him; what affect <br />did that have on officer's ability to complete the arrest? Mr. Prozanski said that it should not <br />impact that ability; at that point, the officer would take the steps necessary to effect the arrest. If <br />the individual abandoned passive resistance and moved to the status of active resistance, officers <br />may need to consider other options. Mr. Denner added that the commission was "raising the bar" <br />in terms of training standards for officer performance. <br /> <br />Mr. Prozanski clarified that the police would still be able to use control holds on a passive resister <br />to gain compliance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought Mr. Kelly's question difficult to answer given the differing natures of protest <br />events. He referred to the Community Values Statement and said that each time he had a <br />question about the policies he returned to the statement. He thought it the most astonishing thing <br />the commission had done as he believed it was difficult to come up with values for a community <br />like Eugene, and everything the commission had done had flowed from that statement and was <br />consistent with it. Mr. Meisner said the statement addressed the responsibilities of both the police <br />and citizens. He was pleased with the recommendations and had no changes to offer; he merely <br />wanted to see them implemented. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting at 5:57 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor had the same question as Mr. Kelly. She suggested the answer to his question <br />depended on the officers present. She asked if the commission considered a policy banning the <br />use of pepper spray and tear gas for all individuals except criminals. Ms. Newbre said the <br />commission discussed that possibility, but the department had made a convincing argument that <br />officer safety was of paramount importance in effecting an arrest. Because officers must have <br />discretion, especially in dynamic situations, and because of evidence that the use of OC spray <br />prevented injuries to both officers and those being arrested, it was difficult for the commission to <br />place tighter restrictions on its use and feel comfortable with that decision. <br /> <br />Also in response to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Prozanski added that the officer needed to have a tool to gain <br />compliance. Alternatives such as batons were more dangerous and resulted in abrasions and <br />broken bones. The commission had asked the department to continue to research and monitor <br />the use of OC spray both in Eugene and other parts of the country. He thought OC spray was a <br />viable tool that needed to be accompanied by recommendations for its appropriate use, and the <br />commission had developed recommendations to that end. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />