Germany Shocked by 'Disproportionate' Police Actions

[Thanas]

Yeah, they´re not supposed to be aimed at the eyes. However, in situations like that it´s not really possible to guarantee that the water doesn´t hit a couple of heads. This means that the police accepted the risk and fired.

Why do you fault them for that? Would you have preferred they go in with batons? I assure you, that results in far more damage.

Batons? They used batons and there were a whole bunch of broken noses, ribs and other stuff.

Batons instead of watercannons, I mean. Do you prefer that?

No, in general i´d prefer them using non of these methods against mainly peacful demonstrators.

Okay - so what is your plan then? Let the protesters just blockade the whole project? At which point do you think police intervention is warranted?

Yeah, a doctor from a hospital links it to the European Karate Championship in Koblenz "where young men with bloody eyes came in every minute."

Yeah, way to miss the point here. We got four injuries so far, way less than usually happens at sport events like the Championship he mentions.

[RogueIce]

The number of injuries is still fairly small, given the number of demonstrators who did get water-cannoned. Water cannons are a crowd suppression weapon and it's almost inevitable that somebody would get hit in the eyes if they don't know to shield them specifically. That kind of pressure is like being hit hard when the target is such soft tissue. The problem being that eyes are such a vital organ, so any damage is significant.

Therefore it is difficult to see actual police misconduct in this case.

I think the key aspect here is that you have to A) look at why they were doing what they were doing, and B) look at what options and tools they have available to accomplish that task. It's all well and good to say "well water cannons aren't ideal" but if that's the best alternative out of what tools they have available, it's hard to say their use was inappropriate. The police can't use crowd control methods and tools they don't have, after all.

Essentially I look at it like this: did the police have a need to disperse the crowd as they did? Obviously if you feel the answer is no, no use of force to disperse the crowd would be justified. From the description of people throwing chairs at police, which indicats potential for violence, I would say they did have cause to attempt to disperse the crowd. Of course, I am no expert on German law and police procedure so I'll defer to those who are and could make a better judgement.

And then secondly, since I'm going with the "the police did have a requirement to disperse the crowd" the question of whether they used the appropriate tools comes into play. And for that you have to consider what they have available. Given the choice between water cannons, tear gas, and wading in with batons, I would think the water cannons were probably the better option. Having a line of cops go in with batons has obvious dangers and problems. And from what I've seen, tear gas is not always effective, and can cause problems with those with breathing problems, and I imagine all the smoke that is generated (and thus loss of visibility) is not a good thing either (EDIT: people running around panicked and unable to see as well, for instance). Which leaves the water cannons, which can cause injury, yes. So can batons (that goes without saying) and tear gas.

I think it boils down to the relative risks vs the relative effectiveness of each method as a crowd dispersal technique. Of course I imagine they probably used all the methods they had open to them, depending on the nature of the scenario and what conditions were like on the ground.

[salm]

Batons instead of watercannons, I mean. Do you prefer that?

No. But you´re setting up a false dillemma. It´s not either batons, watercanons or nothing. There are more options.

Okay - so what is your plan then? Let the protesters just blockade the whole project? At which point do you think police intervention is warranted?

They can intervene as long as it´s in an adequat manner. Watercanons and batons were, in my opinion, not justified.
They could have used other means like carrying them away or macing them or even using their watercanons laced with tear gas (which i believe they did) and spray the demonstrators with that. After all there are more than one way to use a watercanon.

Yeah, way to miss the point here. We got four injuries so far, way less than usually happens at sport events like the Championship he mentions.

No, i think you are missing the point. The doctor says that the only time he´s seen more similar injuries was a tournament where you purpusfully try to punch the other guy.
I don´t know why this quote is supposed to be relevant anyways. It doesn´t say anything about the danger of watercanons compared to other methods of getting rid of crowds. It´s just an emotional appeal in a news article.

[Thanas]

Okay - so what is your plan then? Let the protesters just blockade the whole project? At which point do you think police intervention is warranted?

They can intervene as long as it´s in an adequat manner. Watercanons and batons were, in my opinion, not justified.
They could have used other means like carrying them away

They did - the problem is that this can injure the people as well if they refuse and is simply not practical with such a large mass. Otherwise it would take all through the night, at which point you have to let the people carried away go, leaving them to return tomorrow, and all day the blockade has not been lifted.

or macing them

You mean with pepper spray? That stuff usually hurts way, way more than being hit with a watercannon, unless you are one of those unfortunate ones who get hit in the eyes.

or even using their watercanons laced with tear gas (which i believe they did) and spray the demonstrators with that. After all there are more than one way to use a watercanon.

You want to avoid using tear gas because of the risk of panic.

No, i think you are missing the point. The doctor says that the only time he´s seen more similar injuries was a tournament where you purpusfully try to punch the other guy.
I don´t know why this quote is supposed to be relevant anyways. It doesn´t say anything about the danger of watercanons compared to other methods of getting rid of crowds. It´s just an emotional appeal in a news article.

Very well, let us disregard it. The real matter is whether watercannons were a less violent means of removing the persons than pepper spray and batons, which I think is obvious.



So what we have here are two issues:
a) Are watercannons more violent and dangerous than using batons, pepper spray etc?
b) Were the police justified to act in removing the demonstrators?

As to the first, see above. I think watercannons are a lot more humane than using batons or any of the other stuff. As to the second, I think they were. The protestors were there illegally and they were impeding legal operations. It is also not as if they had been denied ample opportunities to protest elsewhere or had not protested before. Plus, at least some protestors were getting violent.

[Edi]

I think the key aspect here is that you have to A) look at why they were doing what they were doing, and B) look at what options and tools they have available to accomplish that task. It's all well and good to say "well water cannons aren't ideal" but if that's the best alternative out of what tools they have available, it's hard to say their use was inappropriate. The police can't use crowd control methods and tools they don't have, after all.

[snip]

I think it boils down to the relative risks vs the relative effectiveness of each method as a crowd dispersal technique. Of course I imagine they probably used all the methods they had open to them, depending on the nature of the scenario and what conditions were like on the ground.

Hmm, I got the impression somehow that you interpreted me as being critical of the police. My fault then, I was not. I agree with everything you say and think they did a pretty good job with the available tools.

[RogueIce]

I think the key aspect here is that you have to A) look at why they were doing what they were doing, and B) look at what options and tools they have available to accomplish that task. It's all well and good to say "well water cannons aren't ideal" but if that's the best alternative out of what tools they have available, it's hard to say their use was inappropriate. The police can't use crowd control methods and tools they don't have, after all.

[snip]

I think it boils down to the relative risks vs the relative effectiveness of each method as a crowd dispersal technique. Of course I imagine they probably used all the methods they had open to them, depending on the nature of the scenario and what conditions were like on the ground.

Hmm, I got the impression somehow that you interpreted me as being critical of the police. My fault then, I was not. I agree with everything you say and think they did a pretty good job with the available tools.

No, I knew you were supportive of what they did. I guess my post was more a "food for thought" thing than anything else.

[Phantasee]

I've been water cannoned, and I've seen people hit with batons. I'd take an hour long water cannoning over that, or pepper spray, any day.

[salm]

So what we have here are two issues:
a) Are watercannons more violent and dangerous than using batons, pepper spray etc?
b) Were the police justified to act in removing the demonstrators?

As to the first, see above. I think watercannons are a lot more humane than using batons or any of the other stuff. As to the second, I think they were. The protestors were there illegally and they were impeding legal operations. It is also not as if they had been denied ample opportunities to protest elsewhere or had not protested before. Plus, at least some protestors were getting violent.

Hi,
sorry for taking that long to reply but i wasn´t home over the weekend.

Concerning the watercanons vs other means:
I think batons are worse than watercanons as they are more likely to injure.

I prefer pepper spray to watercanons.
Pepper spray will cause more pain on many people than watercanons but doesn´t have the devastating effect on the unlucky view who get their eyes shot out. Pepper spray is more likely to not cause any permanent damage.

The second question isn´t that clear. The students who were there were demonstrating legally in a registered demonstration for example.
Furthermore, it´s not the fact that the police removed the demonstrators, which i have no problem with. It´s the proportionality principle that i think has been violated (and is violated in a lot of demonstrations when the police move in).

What if the demonstrators hadn´t moved despite the watercanons? Should the cops be allowed to gun people down with real guns at a certain point? Where do you draw the line?

[Thanas]

Hi,
sorry for taking that long to reply but i wasn´t home over the weekend.

No worries.

Concerning the watercanons vs other means:
I think batons are worse than watercanons as they are more likely to injure.

I prefer pepper spray to watercanons.
Pepper spray will cause more pain on many people than watercanons but doesn´t have the devastating effect on the unlucky view who get their eyes shot out. Pepper spray is more likely to not cause any permanent damage.

I doubt that. Pepper spray can cause death in people who have asthma and can in theory cause lasting cornea damage itself.

Also, there is the trouble of supplying enough etc.

The second question isn´t that clear. The students who were there were demonstrating legally in a registered demonstration for example.
Furthermore, it´s not the fact that the police removed the demonstrators, which i have no problem with. It´s the proportionality principle that i think has been violated (and is violated in a lot of demonstrations when the police move in).

What if the demonstrators hadn´t moved despite the watercanons? Should the cops be allowed to gun people down with real guns at a certain point? Where do you draw the line?

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. Guns are definitely out and disproportionate. But what they were using is the same things that have been used time and time again. What makes Stuttgart so special that it deserves special exemption from that?

And the proportionality principle is a legal argument - how many times have courts found this was the case in the past when the police used water cannons?

[salm]

I doubt that. Pepper spray can cause death in people who have asthma and can in theory cause lasting cornea damage itself.

Also, there is the trouble of supplying enough etc.

If that is the case then they´ll have to resort to something else. If there is not good other method they just might be shit out of luck. It isn´t the demonstrators problem if the police is badly prepared.

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. Guns are definitely out and disproportionate. But what they were using is the same things that have been used time and time again. What makes Stuttgart so special that it deserves special exemption from that?

I don´t think it´s a slippery slope since i´m not saying that they will use guns if they´re allowed to use watercanons. I´m asking you where you´d draw the line. I guess that´s to what this whole argument boils down to. We´re both of the oppinion that it´s moral to use a certain amount of force to remove demonstrators. However, your threashhold appears to be higher than mine.

Nothing makes Stuttgart special. That´s why my first post in this thread focused on the good aspect of theses injuries: A part of the population (old and conservative) was hit. They´re the ones who will usually declare the demonstrators to be the guilty, just for being at a demonstration. As long as the demonstrators consist of obscure student twentysomethings. Violence against protestors hasn´t been on their radar since ´69.

And the proportionality principle is a legal argument - how many times have courts found this was the case in the past when the police used water cannons?

Why is it only a legal argument? It´s also a moral one and the moral aspect of the argument is what i am discussing.

As far as i know the way the watercanons were used in Stuttgart was legal. That´s one of the things i have a problem with.

[Thanas]

If that is the case then they´ll have to resort to something else. If there is not good other method they just might be shit out of luck. It isn´t the demonstrators problem if the police is badly prepared.

There do not exist other options, so they went with the least violent one.

I don´t think it´s a slippery slope since i´m not saying that they will use guns if they´re allowed to use watercanons. I´m asking you where you´d draw the line. I guess that´s to what this whole argument boils down to. We´re both of the oppinion that it´s moral to use a certain amount of force to remove demonstrators. However, your threashhold appears to be higher than mine.

Yeah, this seems to be at the core of our argument. At the same time I am not sure if I can give a definite reply as to what I think is acceptable force because it all depends on the circumstances. In the circumstances of Stuttgart, I think it was acceptable to remove the protesters with watercannons as pepper spray and carrying them away was not working.

Also - usually, watercannons will fire a few warning salvos over the heads of the protesters before going to full force. If you get sprinkled on then you have usually plenty of warning.

So I think given the circumstances it was a legal and pretty professional action.



I also agree with you in principle that using force against protesters is problematic, however I am also of the opinion that the police should have the right to break up protests if they impede a legal operation beyond a reasonable degree. In this case, they made the cutting of trees almost impossible. At that point, they also had made their point.

[RogueIce]

If that is the case then they´ll have to resort to something else. If there is not good other method they just might be shit out of luck. It isn´t the demonstrators problem if the police is badly prepared.

If you're going to say the police were badly prepared, than I think you should explain just what they should be using in place of watercannons when pepperspray and teargas don't work.

Because yes, there are times when the police need to break up a crowd. So they can't just say, "Oh darn, we don't have an ideal tool that won't possibly hurt anyone. Guess we just have to pack up and leave them be, eh?"

So what alternative do you think they should have used if watercannons were not "moral" and acknowledging that pepperspray and teargas may not have been effective?

[salm]

If that is the case then they´ll have to resort to something else. If there is not good other method they just might be shit out of luck. It isn´t the demonstrators problem if the police is badly prepared.

If you're going to say the police were badly prepared, than I think you should explain just what they should be using in place of watercannons when pepperspray and teargas don't work.

Because yes, there are times when the police need to break up a crowd. So they can't just say, "Oh darn, we don't have an ideal tool that won't possibly hurt anyone. Guess we just have to pack up and leave them be, eh?"

So what alternative do you think they should have used if watercannons were not "moral" and acknowledging that pepperspray and teargas may not have been effective?

Why? It´s not my job to think up a good way to end a peaceful demonstration. Like i said before: If they don´t have a good method they just might be shit out of luck. Having to chop down a couple of trees isn´t a strong enough reason to risk serious injuries in my oppinion.
And it´s not like the demonstrators started the whole mess. They only started thorwing stuff (mainly harmless crap like chestnuts) after the police had escalated the whole thing with massive use of force.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Deploying LRADs probably could have broken up the demonstration in a safer way but I imagine the german police simply don't have any as they are a relatively new technology.

[Phantasee]

So now we're going to potentially destroy hearing instead of maybe knocking out an eye or two? Seriously, I'd prefer a good soaking any day over batons, pepper spray, or those LRAD things.

[Uraniun235]

Why? It´s not my job to think up a good way to end a peaceful demonstration. Like i said before: If they don´t have a good method they just might be shit out of luck. Having to chop down a couple of trees isn´t a strong enough reason to risk serious injuries in my oppinion.

There is no technology that can compel people to disperse that does not carry the risk of injury. Water cannons are already out. Sound is either defeated by earplugs or can damage hearing. Tear gas can cause severe respiratory distress. Hell, even sufficiently foul-smelling odors could conceivably lead to someone having an allergic reaction or choking on their own vomit, although it's possible that people would be committed enough to sit in a pool of their own vomit rather than retreat.

So the only safe method remaining would be to personally go in and carry people out, right? Except that also carries the risk that troublemakers could violently resist, provoking a harsher police response, which in turn could provoke an irrational response of hostility or violence from the crowd - effectively inciting a riot. I'm sure you're aware that any riot (or heck, even just a stampede) itself carries a risk of severe injury or death.


By your standard, no demonstration should ever be broken up, because any measure taken to disperse the crowd carries a risk of significant injury or even death. Thus, even when the greater public may support a legal public works project, a sufficiently large crowd of people can override their wishes by sitting in the way. Government by demonstration is an interesting concept, but it doesn't seem likely to lend itself to accomplishing much.

[Uraniun235]

Actually, to be fair, there is one method that could conceivably work - a blockade of police officers, basically a human wall encircling the protest, refusing to let people within the wall but allowing people to leave. The protesters would eventually leave to find food, water, and sanitation... although even this carries the risk that the well-prepared demonstration would pack in food and water beforehand, requiring any such blockade to last even longer.

Of course, that many officers for that amount of time would be enormously expensive in terms of overtime pay.

[SVPD]

Actually, to be fair, there is one method that could conceivably work - a blockade of police officers, basically a human wall encircling the protest, refusing to let people within the wall but allowing people to leave. The protesters would eventually leave to find food, water, and sanitation... although even this carries the risk that the well-prepared demonstration would pack in food and water beforehand, requiring any such blockade to last even longer.

Of course, that many officers for that amount of time would be enormously expensive in terms of overtime pay.

Not to mention that doing this would be incredibly difficult and hazardous.

[salm]

@Uranium: I´m neither claiming that no force at all should be used nor am i claiming that the amount of force used in this particular scenario can never be used in any scenario.
I´m saying that this amount of force was too much for this particular scenario.

Concerning carrying people away: You have to know the situation in order to be able to estimate the risk of inciting a riot when carrying people away.

- The demonstrators have been peaceful the entire length of the demonstrations, and they´ve been going on for months.
- They got carried away before without rioting
- A lot of them are high school students and senior citizens.

I really doubt that they´d have incited a riot.

The police unnecessarily escalated the situation by use of harsh force and is to blame for the injuries.

[Thanas]

Why? I mean, they had been giving the protesters a lot of leeway. How much leeway are they required to give to protesters before going in?