Mass Arrests, Tear Gas, Sound Weapons used Against West Illinois University Students

reply to post by Freenrgy2

So my comment was completely logical. Nazi's = Germans.

Actually that's akin to stating Jew = Zionist...

I think you need to freshen up on definitions.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Decent was used as an adjective describing an action, not as an adjective describing the Nazis.

You clearly do not know how to read if you imagine that statement was calling the Nazis decent, it was stating that in comparrison to, by way of the actions being compared, in this case the brutal public beating and humiliation of law abiding groups of people versus the private denigration and torture the Nazis would met out as being more decent in comparison.

That is not calling the Nazis decent, but is in fact a stinging indictment of the police brutality and collective punishments you favor and support.

Why is this even an argument that has been going on for 26 pages? It's obvious from the eyewitness reports and videos that the police violated people's rights. It's obvious that the majority of the reaction from the students came after the Man stepped in with riot gear and sound cannons. It's obvious that Law Enforcement's reaction was way out of proportion to what was occurring prior to them stepping in. It's most likely as in almost every other thing like this that there were agent provocateurs involved. Someone had mentioned Kent State:

For some Kent State researchers, including Thomas, the strange case of Terry Norman led to a suspicion that the FBI, or some other federal intelligence agency, had placed agent provocateurs on the Kent State campus to stir up trouble. Several witnesses reported seeing two or three men run from the commons and into a waiting station wagon, disappearing moments before shots rang out, said Peter Davies, the New Jersey-based author of The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience (1973). "Those were the agent provocateurs, we think," Davies said.

www.astraeasweb.net...

So again, why is this even an argument? The police overstepped their bounds and violated people's rights. The students were largely peaceful and eyewitness reports state that the police allowed whatever hooliganism happened prior to the riot gear, mace, and sound cannons.

I actually stumbled across this post just a little bit ago and felt that I should join in.

I am actually a student at Western and I did attend Wheeler Block Party. I'm not sure if anyone had heard about Wheeler from the previous year but to put it simple, things did get out a little out of control. Building up to the weekend of Wheeler, our University President sent an e-mail to students and parents stating that WIU did not support Wheeler and there would be punishment for the students that went against the fact that WIU didn't want the block party to happen.
Normally, students are allowed to go in the road only on Wheeler street for a certain period of time and socialize and drink but this year it was completely different. The police were literally walking up and down the street keeping students only in the grass. If a student were to step in the road/sidewalk with an open container, the police could automatically arrest them and give them a ticket.
When the police stated that a "riot" started they automatically started taking complete control of anything and everything by having the riot squad line up and march down the road- tear gas, mace, and even tackling kids that started to run from the madness. As I was standing in a friend's yard, the riot squad actually came up into the yard and sprayed mace in the yard towards not only me, but many of my friends that were there on the private property when we were just sitting on the porch.
Also, two days ago the police went to Wheeler street and gave the residents tickets- $75 for trash in the yard and $100 for noise. This is two days AFTER Wheeler had happened.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Honestly you would think there would be no argument here, however sadly there are some people who's own vested interests and bias, such as those who claim to be Police Officers or their ardent supporters, who for some strange and dubious reason feel the need to attempt to justify such actions, while attempting to slander those that condemn such actions.

I suppose it's a form of 'job preservation' or 'professional courtesy' that is ill thought out to the extreme.

Clearly more and more Americans are alarmed and disatisfied with the 600,000 codes that govern every aspect of our lives, with over 280,000 having criminal penalties attached to them.

Congress creates on average of 4 more every week to add to the list.

With 600,000 largely unknown rules, the truth is that it is virtually impossible for anyone to be a law abiding citizen as there are far too many laws for any citizen to possibly know them all.

Meanwhile specialized law enforcement is growing right along with the prison industrial complex, much of the latter becoming privatized and corpratized and is a huge big dollar business.

So yes, sadly we see misquided Americans who through some personal ego driven fantasy, misguided desire to do good, or desperation for a pay check and or all of the above, work for, and support, and praise and yes defend this system even in the face of it's many and growing excesses.

They have a vested interest in not just preserving the system but growing it and their own lattitude and leeway to act in increasingly aggressive ways to make the population conform and adhere too all these codes, that they derive their income from, and personal love of power and control from too.

This is why there is an argument and it's an argument that is only going to grow as more citizens frustrated with the sorry and tyranical state of affairs, speak out, and opt out, and more citizens are likewise employed by and profit from the ever expanding system, who need to justify it, in order to ensure the continuation of the system for their own personal and private benefit.

reply to post by flowerchild1


So in other words the local police saw this as a money/profit generating opportunity to write numerous code violations at 75.00 to a 100.00 a clip.

While practicing their riot control techniques, and at the same time trying to send a clear message to citizens that public gatherings on private property are no longer acceptable in the police state?

reply to post by flowerchild1


the whole incident is a clear example of a pre planned police "live" training exercise.

do any of the eye witnesses think that there were people "in the crowd" that intensionally incited the police ?

the "timing" is suspect for sure.....all "on que".

Yes, it was a big party. It was about to get dark and that's when things get extremely difficult to control from a police point of view. Many of those houses are no doubt rentals, owned by people who have an interest in not seeing them destroyed. When fires are being started and bottles thrown most people will reasonably expect the police to act. People complain when the police fail to act, then complain when they do.
I am no fan of police state tactics and I don't think they handled this very well. LRAD sound cannons should never be used as they can damage people's hearing and may cause seizures in others. Random pepper spraying does nothing to protect the police and only further infuriates the crowd.
That said, the students were acting very irresponsibly too. Nor were the students were using any common sense. They mostly refused to disperse thinking that somehow their annual block party is a sacred event that cannot be stopped. So they mill around taking cell phone pics and videos and then complain when they get sprayed or arrested after being told to disperse. If you don;t have the common sense to get out of the way of fully arrayed line of riot police don't expect to be treated very nicely.
Both sides had unreasonable expectations of the other and both committed acts that most of us would consider to be either dumb or violent.
If it was the intention of the school administration to shut the party down they should have never let it start. Warning the students that police may intervene if any parties get out of hand was pretty lame. Either let the party happen or not but don't leave a gray area the size of a SWAT van to drive through.
Aggressive police, irresponsible and naive students plus a wimpy school administration were the ingredients that made this fiasco occur. All of them have a share in the blame
Sometimes in life there is no "good guys" and "bad guys", there's only people and public agencies that seemingly have no clue how to interact with each other.

I am basing my opinion on several videos which showed the police spraying OC and tackling one or two students as well as using the LRAD. I saw no one being beaten.
The students were throwing glass bottles and some other debris, starting fires and taunting the police by seeing how close they could get while having their pictures taken.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Actually we have found out that most of those houses are owned by one man, who has rented them to students each year and has no problem with the part occuring.

Eight of the houses on that block are owned by that one individual.

Clearly like we have seen at many recent G-20's right before dark is when the Riot Police typically like to make their move on peaceful crowds, often agitating them in the process to acts of vandalism.

Evidently the students pay their rent on time, and take care of the properties just fine, parties and all.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


99% of the time I am entirely on the public side in these types of confrontations.
I was hoping to balance the responses somewhat by showing what I thought to be the mistakes made by all parties.
I was not aware of who owned what. Somebody is missing a bicycle now though.
The heavy hand of the state is one I have known on several occasions but they do have their orders and methods. Those aware of them can usually stay out of harms way by acting accordingly.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


As a bicycle rider I am a little amazed at how someone was so careless with theirs.

I double lock mine with both a solid metal and metal coil locks.

I remember my first Jook, a three day camp out bon fire party frequented by bikers in central Florida during Bike Week and Biketober Fest.

My girlfriend dragged me to it, and wow I was scared, I am not a biker, at the time I had short hair, dressed conservatively, and these were all Hells Angels, Pagans, Outlaws and others, hardcore biker dudes.

So I know how intimidating it can be to see a bunch of strangers partying, drinking, whooping and hollering, playing games etc.

They put me to the test, all night long the first night, and by the end of it, when I failed to swallow the bait or over react to any of it, they pronounced me "cooler than fire".

The girlfriend didn't last long but I haven't missed a Jook in ten years, I still don't drive a bike, and they still think I am cooler than fire.

Go figure.

Amazingly they happen to be some of the kindest most charitible people in the world, if you got a kid that needs a cancer operation and you are short of money, they will empty out their pockets and turn the guy next to them upside down if need be to see he does the same.

Judging books by their cover...

Not a great idea.

Thanks my friend.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I am not confused at all. First I do not condone violence as a solution to problems. All sides lose in confrontations, in some way or some form.

Then what exactly do you plan to do about such 'grave injustices?'

Second we aren't talking about these forums, we are talking about a very specific block party.

It's one in the same. If the event were isolated, then you and I would not be discussing it, as neither of us were present or at all involved.

Third while I do condemn it even in such forms, as overly provacative and counter productive most of the people making statements of supporting violence against the police, is as a self defensive measure in cases of abuse such as the one we have seen here at this block party.

Please... describe the "abuses."

All you complain about is some people - scary looking - who show up and make some arrests for vandalism and assault.

Having said that it's been my own experience that those who talk about using violence in conversational settings, are the least likely to employ it in actual confrontational settings.

Well, you seem to have a lot of experience that makes your opinion absolute, now don't you.

In all honesty - such talk is discouraging. People like that are simply not worth protecting. Whether they really mean violence or not - they are unwilling to participate in the system yet insist upon making demands of it.

I can't believe you are this out of touch with reality. It's a party, guys drink and want to get laid, cops showing up at your party tend to scare off the girls, and make it hard to get laid, this make guys who want to get laid unhappy.

Have you even paid attention to the environment? It was the middle of the day. The police were -outside- and dealing with issues -outside- .

The cops had been present since the party began, checking IDs. Nothing changed until there was interference with EMS and the vandalism began.

This can lead to them displaying that unhappiness at those responsible for them not getting laid.

And unemployment can lead to people not having incomes. That doesn't suddenly make theft legal.

Bull crap.

Right back at you.

I live in Miami Beach and we get upwards to 400,000 visitors flooding into a few square miles every weekend. The police some times do have to make hard decisions to let ordinances go unenforced to prevent riots from occuring.

The Aztecs had this practice every time a solar eclipse came around. They believed a dragon, if I remember correctly, was devouring the sun-god. Sacrifices were made to strengthen the sun-god so that he could overcome the dragon (or something to that effect). It worked every time. The sun went back to being normal.

Good for them, and good for your police officers.

Some promoter sells 5,000 tickets to a venue that the Fire Marshall has rated for 3,000. They make decisions as they need to, to maintain the peace.

'Sall well and good until there's a fire.

The chief of police is going to get an ass reaming in the event that happens. And rightfully should.

All the police were in similiar uniform, polo shirts and shorts, no riot gear, and there was hardly any trouble at all, a broken window a half a dozen arrests, compared to Seattle and South America and every G-20 since, it was a miracle, or was it just a good old fashion cop, doing some good old fashion proactive police work, treating people with respect and dignity, and putting a personal face on it all.

Sure - that's fine. But you can bet they had plenty of multi-district task forces stationed in the area and ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

We can monday-morning quarter-back all we want to. A different approach from the beginning may or may not have curbed the events later in the day. The problem is, however, that regardless of what actions the police department took before-hand - the citizenry had no right under the law to commit vandalism or assault police officers. Once these events started, the police were deployed as a measure to prevent further escalation of the situation.

Whether the actions taken early-on are successful in delaying the onset of civil unrest/riots, or not - it does not change the law or the responsibility of law enforcement to uphold the law within their allowed means.

Yes, I am not hampered by a chain of command or a book that I have to follow with standardized thinking and have a wealth of experience in all kinds of crowds and social situations.

On the surface to most people a group of hundreds of kids drinking and milling about looks intimidating, until you step back and realize that's all they really are doing and want to do.

This is all well and good - until you factor in the "seemed like a good idea at the time..." effect. You are correct, in that most crowds will tend to mind their own collective business and not be a bother.

But if that were absolute, we wouldn't have riots. Riots always start over some conflict or another - some idiot brings up politics in one of these drinking parties and starts a rift. Someone gets angry at a car for some irrelevant reason and starts bashing it - and soon it becomes the thing to do to bash cars. The more agitated the crowd - the more likely they are to amplify the destructive tendencies of their individuals, rather than ignore or subdue them.

Teenagers and young adults without families are far more likely to riot and commit to violent acts than those without families. Simple as that.

While the behavior of crowds can be explained and resolved - it cannot be predicted beyond probability. Random events pop up within the members of a crowd that may or may not be amplified by the crowd as a whole. Predicting when, where, and what those events will be is subject to the uncertainty principle.

They simply want to be left alone in the process, or at least respected in their right and ability to hold such a function.

You have the right to peacefully assemble. You do not necessarily have the right to do so without registering the event with the local government, and you don't have the right to break other laws and local ordinances in the process.

Nor do you have the right to hold such a function and be without law-enforcement observation/interaction.

Once again this is a siege mentality laced with paranoia.

That's pretty rich.

Yet you are presenting what is a sound argument for much fewer numbers to have to coordinate and a much more reasoned approach to crowd control.

That is a very small task force for riot control. Considering that is a multi-jurisdictional task-force (which would be about the only response to riots) - they simply need more training working together.

For crowd-control, you need numbers - unless your objective is to -kill- the people in the crowd. Then you could easily address a riot of a few thousand people with a team of only a hundred or so - depending upon how many thousands are present and the relative terrain.

The more riot police you have, the less likely it will be necessary to resort to lethal force. The better organized they are - the less likely they are to be attacked or exploited.

The more elements you employ, which you have already admitted lack training and discipline the more likely one will engage in a needless provacative act in the confusion that such large numbers create.

Rule number one, keep it simple, keep it stupid.

And, yet - they were the best equipped and trained to handle the situation.

You don't get into government and suddenly have time-control abilities. Neither is this a cliche anime plot-line where you have access to a "hyperbolic time chamber" and give teams weeks of training in a few hours. You've got what you've got... ready or not.

Which you concede this overly large, and overly armed force was not. Hence the situation escalating with their presence and actions not deescalating.

I wouldn't say the force was too large. Nor were they over-armed. Not one was armed with more than a side-arm - in terms of lethal weaponry. Had they not been wearing protective gear - a number would have suffered considerable injury from flying glass bottles - which would have been thrown at them regardless of their attire (in several of the videos - we can clearly see bottles being thrown at the standard officers near the squad car making requests of the crowd).

They were not equipped with full defensive shields (which can often house a 'tazer' system) or ranged riot-control weapons ('rubber' bullets and the like). It was a rather mild response.

Providing the money in budget stretched departments allow for it.

Law Enforcement is a business, one that operates on a budget, one that is designed when and at all possible to earn a profit.

Most local law enforcement budgets are being cut and restricted as a consequence of a declining real estate tax base due to the foreclosure crisis.

Using a anual party as a pretext to conduct such training makes it easier to sell city managers, councils and police cheifs on overtime.

It's very simple. Welcome to the real world of real logic.

Has this region's budget seen cuts to the police force?

Can you provide any other evidence of this conspiracy you dreamed up?

Burden of proof is with you, buddy.

Other than the riot police showing up, and you not personally seeing a reason for it... what else leads you to believe this was a training exercise?

The deployment of such a force was unessecary, it led to more destruction and violence than it curtailed. It was an utter failure and disgrace to the Department heads that authorized and deployed it.

The force deployed to deal with the crowd was not enough at the time. The 'normal' police officers were getting pelted with beer bottles and had started setting fire to property and vandalizing public property.

A force capable of dealing with the situation was deployed. The destruction was already being caused after 'typical' police action was being taken. The videos clearly show that the longer the riot police were in the area - the fewer bottles were hurled in their direction - such that as they withdrew, few things were thrown their way. The party was allowed to continue - with the majority of people just looking on and marking it as an 'interesting' event.

Deploying this excessive and ill trained force on peaceful college party goers was a retarded idea.

Calling that party "peaceful" is retarded. It certainly started that way - but it rapidly took a turn for the chaotic.

Because there would have been no need for the riot police.

Simple sherlock.

Logic fail. You really must be a lawyer. I could take your job in my sleep.

Your logic: Riot police were necessary to control the crowd, therefor, plain-clothes police and proactive measures were not in place.

You're relying upon the notion that plain-clothed proactive police measures will prevent riots and civil unrest. This is not the case - there is no causal relationship between the two that is so absolute that the break-out of riots or civil-unrest indicates a lack of such initiatives.

You have failed to establish actual attacks on the EMTS and proactive police work properly done would have more or less ensured no such confusion took place.

Not sure what to tell you, buddy - that's the word in the news reports from a number of sources. Without having access to confidential information and records - I can't really offer you more. How about we subpoena the hospital for records of EMT dispatches related to alcohol poisoning on that day?

Further - your claim that "proper proactive police work would have ensured no such confusion" is kind of silly. While true in an ideal case - the real world is never so forgiving. The only way you can determine what is "proper" is in the post-operation debrief. You never have all the information you need going in, and never know enough about what is going on at the time decisions are made.

You simply want to cower them with force, and cowering people is the least effective way to control them, as the video displays some people will in fact fight back when attempts to cower are needlessly employed.

Please do not make assumptions about my personality.

I agree - were I doing the debrief of this operation, I would have been stressing better proactive measures. However - I would not have neglected the reactive measures. When you react to a developing situation such as this with force - the time for being optimistic is over. You deploy, you do so professionally, and you don't second-guess what you are up against - you go in prepared for the worst and don't start thinking "that wasn't so bad" until tomorrow at noon.

There are two sides to the coin. Your proactive initiatives and your reaction forces. Both are equally important.

Were I in this department, I would likely have my own criticisms about the way events unfolded within the command structure and more knowledge of how things actually were going on the ground through the entirety of the day. Since I don't - I can only go based off of what I have read in the news and seen in the videos.

The 'normal' police simply weren't cutting it and the crowd was being obstinate. At which point - crowd control was called in, being equipped to handle the situation. A logical choice.

Was the issue worth pressing? Should the police have just let it drop? That is something best left up to the city council and state government to review - as they have far more of the relevant data and can call far more witnesses than you or I. Personally - it is rather irrelevant to our little discussion whether or not it was really worth it. They did - and from our perspective, that is all that really matters. That is why we hold elections for the executive positions that make those kinds of decisions - and why those executives are held accountable to the voters of that district.

If that is the type of response that community want to such actions - that is the type of response they are free to encourage. If not - they can prompt legislators to write laws curbing such deployments, and/or vote in executive authorities that speak out against such actions.

And that, I believe, is the most important set of points I can make - perhaps I will have to post them separately so as they will not be obscured within a bunch of back-and-forth drivel.

Let me ask you did you see any kids in these videos with side arms, night sticks, mace or sound cannons?

Man up already, these are a bunch of kids, not the SAS.

You don't seem to understand the concept of law enforcement.

Going into a situation equipped equally to those you are trying to enforce the law upon is, to be blunt, stupid. Law enforcement is always out-numbered. If all of those students wanted to - they could have torn those officers to shreds. The whole entire premise of law enforcement is to deter attack and be equipped to quickly handle those that are more determined to be obstructive.

reply to post by Aim64C

The force deployed to deal with the crowd was not enough at the time. The 'normal' police officers were getting pelted with beer bottles and had started setting fire to property and vandalizing public property.

Got a source for this claim All I have seen reported was a bicycle put on a stop sign, which doesn't even count as vandalism.

Your statement here is contrary to what has been reported so far.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Not against the law, unless a no-burn decree is in force by the Fire Marshall.

This is the only thing that might be not correct. In the last town I lived in in NY, you actually had to go down to city hall and get a permit to have a fire in your yard, ludicrous isn't it? You had to pay 75 bucks for a year permit...

Of course it is not an arrestable offense, just 150 bucks fine if you got caught. All about extortion these days, BS written by the rich, and enforced by the mindless drone police.

Other than that bravo, keep handing these police apologists their asses again and again, maybe one day they will see the light. I can only hope one day their children will be abused at the hands of the uniformed thugs, sometimes that is the only way they see the light. Then again sometimes they will take a fellow thug's word over their own family as well....

reply to post by poet1b


It's right there in the videos I linked.

There was a squad car with a few 'normal' police officers addressing the crowd. At some point - people decided it was a good idea to start a fire out of beer boxes and a bicycle, and tear down a stop sign. Some police show up (or were already there) and the party goers decided they did not like what the officers had to say, and started chanting "# the police" and throwing full beer cans and glass bottles at them.

Then the riot police showed up and the group causing the problems pissed themselves.

www.youtube.com...=80s - The fire and bicycle.

www.youtube.com...=97s - the stop-sign being torn down

www.youtube.com...=105s - It's the cops! # them!

At 1:56 - the fire seems to also be more than just beer boxes.

How absolutely violent and horrific!

www.youtube.com...=210s

- They obviously are brow-beating everyone in range. And, as I said before - a few seconds later you see the camera-man get maced, and the officer who did that was being a dick and was rather unnecessary. That said - he was practically -in- the gig-line... And the entire point is for them to keep the flanks clear.

reply to post by D377MC


I could care less if you take exception to the words I used. They are what they are. The students were drunk, inibriated, intoxicated, 6 sheets to the wind, insert whatever here.

They were so intoxicated, that EMS had to respond to deal with alcohol poisoning.

PIcking apart words tells me you dont have any argument you can defend. Period.

The students caused the probvlem by acting in an irresponsible manner. That is not in dispute, contrary to the way others want to portary what occured. The facts are there, the articles are there, the video is there.

There is nothing to debate - The foficers ctions were within policy, they were within State Law and they were within FEderal law.

There was NO violation of 42 USC 1983.

reply to post by TKDRL


Burn ordinances within city limits can be enforeced by the Fire Marshall or the Police Department. ITs not considered an R code.

reply to post by poet1b


All of the articles, the reports and press releases are consitent. The Police who were present throughout the day were uniformed officers, not riot police. Near the 6pm time frame in all the sources, when things started to get out of hand by the drunk students, is when those officers began to tell people to disperse.

When EMS was called and were dealing with students who had alcohol poisoning, they were pelted with beer bottle being thrown at them. Police moved in and were pelted themselves, which ius when the call for additional officers went out.

The Chief himself stated they did not want to use the emergency command unit (which sends out the state wide alert for more officers) but were forced to due to the number of people involved (in excess of 3k students).

He went on to state that the bulk of the students did comply and left the area. The ones in the videos are the ones who refused to comply, and that is coroborated by the fact the officers you see are in riot gear.

reply to post by colbyforce


What exactly are you offering to the debate? To date the only thing you have done is proven the ability that you can check protos colon for pollups with your head. Aside from coming in here and pretending to act like an adult, you have done nothing but make comments that are irrelevant, while at the samne time ignoring the questions being asked of you. If it helps, by all means find a person who can read the questions to you, so you can answer them, instead of ignoring them.

Again, my guess is you cant answer them, because you dont agree witht he student actions. All that is left then is that you are one of those people who have to be part of the perceived cool group to fit in.

You have no clue how the law works, you have no clue what personal responsibility is, and you seem to be ok with drunk people destroying property.

Those of you siding with the students in this case have all failed to answer the most simple questions -

Why do you condone the action of the students? Why do you find it acceptable to destroy city property, to vandalise other peoples property, to start fires in the street (whcih the youtube video shows), and to throw beer bottles at EMS while they are treating patients, and then throw beer bottles at the police?

The block party was technically eillegal since they permit for it was denied. However, the city and police worked with the students. As a matter of fact they worked with the students ALL DAY, until around 6pm when some students went stupid.

To chastise the police, to suggest they are jack booted nazis, to suggest they are infringing on peoples rights is an absolute joke coming from people who are so misinformed and ignorant its not even funny.


You have leveled enough accusations at the police and we know where you stand, so by all means answer the following -

Why do you condone the action of the students? Why do you find it acceptable to destroy city property, to vandalise other peoples property, to start fires in the street (whcih the youtube video shows), and to throw beer bottles at EMS while they are treating patients, and then throw beer bottles at the police?

Proto - BIB - Colby and the others...

Please answer the question -

Why do you condone the action of the students? Why do you find it acceptable to destroy city property, to vandalise other peoples property, to start fires in the street (whcih the youtube video shows), and to throw beer bottles at EMS while they are treating patients, and then throw beer bottles at the police?