CC Minutes - 05/29/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor said she understood the use of OC spray in cases where a person was hurting someone or committing a crime, but she did not understand it in cases where the crime in question was "just being somewhere" and no force was necessary. Mr. Prozanski said that officers were trained to base their response on the type of resistance they faced. OC spray was not to be used punitively. Unless there was resistance, OC spray would not be used. Mr. Rayor referred to Attachment G, General Order 901-2, and suggested that just as long-range impact weapons were not to be used on people in danger of falling, OC spray should not be used on people in danger of falling, for example, from trees. Mr. Prozanski said that as the strict definition of static resistance could include someone holding onto a tree, the policy would provide for the use of OC spray, if appropriate. The department made it clear that before the decision was made, some different criteria would be reviewed by the officer in command. Mr. Prozanski said that the department did not promise it would never happen, but could not offer a situation in which OC spray would be used against protesters in trees. He emphasized that the policies were not "set in stone" and would be modified as warranted. Mr. Prozanski added that the department uses the Department of Public Safety Standards & Training (DPSST) use of force continuum, which does not distinguish passive from static resistance. The commission recommended, and the department accepted the recommendation, that the department separate the two types of resistance. Mr. Rayor expressed concern that he had seen officers tackling people during protests the previous year and he did not see that type of arrest discussed in the policies in the packet, and he did not see where it fit into the use of force continuum. In the situation he mentioned, two women were carrying a banner, and one was tackled. He did not understand that. Ms. Newbre said that one of the commission's problems was that it was not a review board, so it had to "dance around" the issues of whether what was done was appropriate. The commission could use those incidents to guide it but could not specifically address incidents. She said that the department could not have a different set of policies for enforcement of civil disobedience than it did for other arrests. Mr. Prozanski suggested that Mr. Rayor's focus was on effecting the arrest, which these policies did not address. He said he could only assume that the officers involved in the arrest witnessed by Mr. Rayor were directed by Command staff to take action, and at this distance and time he suggested the question was "out of our league." Mr. Kelly agreed that the commission was not a review board, but he thought that incidents should inform the commission's decisions. Ms. Newbre responded that the commission attempted to address those incidents contextually. She cited the commission's use of phrases such as "proportional response." To tighten the police response further removed much of the discretion the police needed. She said the police had heard the commission's concerns about enforcement options and would address them through training and different management strategies. Ms. Parisi referred Mr. Kelly to page 2 of General Order 801-10 and said that several commission members, including Ms. Bettman, had worked to get policy changes included that addressed his concerns. Page 2 included the statement officers needed to take into consideration, when contemplating enforcement, what the department's normal enforcement posture for a similar offense would be. Page 3 of that order stated that officers would ensure that enforcement actions would be appropriate to the situation and the conduct of the individuals involved. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the answer, saying it argued that things would have been different during the June 2000 incidents if the policy had been in place. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 4 Work Session