<p>“Receiving relatively less attention is the psychology underlying pepper spray use, which hasn’t been studied much but parallels the use of Tasers. Like pepper sprays, Tasers were supposed to be tools of intermediate physical force, an alternative to hitting a resisting suspect with batons or grappling them to the ground. But Tasers also became alternatives to less-violent tactics and were used in situations where suspects had not physically resisted arrest.”</p>
<p>Is this the same Andrew Sullivan who said that Hillary Clinton needed to take lessons to lower the pitch of her voice so that she sounded like a man?</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that he had any expertise in law enforcement.</p>
<p>The article isn’t written by Andrew Sullivan. He provides a link to it and makes some additional commentary. Read the Wired.Com article to find the author.</p>
<p>Don’t know what he thinks of Clinton’s voice.</p>
<p>I don’t think very many really care about this in the slightest. If they want to try to turn the vicious pepper spray “assault” into Kent State then fine. It will just make their “movement” even more ludicrous.</p>
<p>Andrew Sullivan has HIV and was caught engaging in behavior that would expose many other partners to HIV (I could be more blunt, but it isn’t pretty what he did.) Sullivan is a horrible person and why a magazine as outstanding as the Atlantic keeps him on board is beyond me.</p>
<p>Andrew Sullivan is a graduate of Harvard, was the editor of the New Republic for years, left the Atlantic for the Daily Beast months ago, his blog is read by over a million/day, and he has won numerous awards. That sounded like a great Rush Limbaugh parrotry.</p>
<p>Infecting others with HIV is not anti-gay, it is a crime in many states. It’s a crime even if hetrosexuals do it. If you can’t see that now i understand why you would support someone as horrible as Andrew Sullivan. What would you think if Sullivan infected one of your gay friends?</p>
<p>FWIW, I carry pepper spray on my runs and have used it a couple times on dogs. I think it’s the right option for the Occupiers. Much as they probably would love to have one of their own shot and killed that would be a very bad thing. I say keep the pepper spray flowing.</p>
<p>As for comparing the kids sitting in a row who were pepper-sprayed to dogs, sewhappy, tell me, if you see a dog sitting in the middle of the road where you’re running, do you pepper spray it or just go around it? Under your logic, you should go up to it and pepper spray it in the face. Of course, if anyone saw you, you’d be arrested. Wholly apart from the gross offensiveness of comparing these kids to dogs.</p>
<p>I simply mentioned I carry pepper spray and use it occasionally when I’m running to keep dogs off of me. The occupiers sitting in a row who got sprayed are not dogs, imo. I would never go spray a poor dog with pepper spray who wasn’t jumping on me and interrupting my run. I might an Occupier if they jumped on me and disrupted my run! </p>
<p>I just think that pepper spray is better than bullets for the occupiers. Bullets would be very bad.</p>
<p>Why Do Police Officers Use Pepper Spray? | Wired Science | Wired.com</p>
<p>“Receiving relatively less attention is the psychology underlying pepper spray use, which hasnt been studied much but parallels the use of Tasers. Like pepper sprays, Tasers were supposed to be tools of intermediate physical force, an alternative to hitting a resisting suspect with batons or grappling them to the ground. But Tasers also became alternatives to less-violent tactics and were used in situations where suspects had not physically resisted arrest.”</p>
<p>@ Sewhappy #14 The point of this original post is that pepper spray or bullets aren’t the only options.</p>
<p>You know you’ve made your point and won the argument on the facts when the immediate and only response is resort to ad hominem. </p>
<p>Don’t fall into the trap of being distracted into debating the new subject brought up by those who are unable to engage in rational discourse. The game can be played both ways, but that’s still not a substitute for critical thinking. </p>
<p>Example: </p>
<p>*A: I oppose illegal immigration, but I agree with Newt Gingrich that it is inhumane to tear apart families who have lived in this country for 25 years.</p>
<p>B: Newt Gingrich? Isn’t that the guy who ran out on his first wife when she was dying of cancer and cheated on his second wife?*</p>
<p>The subject you raised is the use of pepper spray and its impact on police practices. No one thus far has countered your point in any meaningful way.</p>
<p>Uh. I read the articles posted by the OP and the recommendation, if I’m following the rather poorly written piece, is that police should use “Talk” instead of “Pepper.” </p>
<p>Okay! Got it.</p>
<p>Here’s my take: I think the police should use pepper, not bullets, and not use the pepper as over zealously as the cop in CA. Although that incident appears to be a little more complex than the video clip would lead us to assume:</p>
<p>Actually, I imagine the pepper spray is quite a boon to the purposes of the Occupiers. It gives a good visual on TV but isn’t likely to hurt anyone seriously. It’s giving some their opening to try and inflate the Occupy movement to something actually important:</p>