If you thought the pepper-spraying of non-violent demonstrators in a police riot at UC Davis was unjustifiable, think again:
[UC Davis police chief Annette Spicuzza] said officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them. They used a sweeping motion on the group, per procedure, to avoid injury, she said.
The students were informed repeatedly ahead of time that if they didn't move, force would be used, she said.
It's revealing to see Spicuzza unselfconsciously endorsing the notion that giving a warning validates subsequent violence; every thug who's ever told a victim that if they just cooperate they won't get hurt will recognize that logic.
And about "per procedure", there's this:
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 [...]. After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.
"What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Kelly said.
Yeah, Chuck, that much is clear. But the most interesting part to me is the notion that curling into a ball constitutes "active resistance", and that if you instinctively adopt this purely defensive pose—say, in an attempt to protect yourself from further excruciating pain when you're being attacked with the "compliance tool" of pepper spray—you've now given the police justification to beat you with truncheons, so you'll unroll yourself into a more vulnerable position and they can get on with, oh, say, rupturing your spleen. Have I got that about right, Chuck?
Your government, ladies and gentlemen, protecting and serving the shit out of you.