Editorial
Pepper Spray Protest Misses
Some Salient Points Of Fact

By Steve Kelton

The popular press and leftist politicians are all a’twitter over allegations that Humboldt County, Calif. deputies used "excessive force" to dislodge anti-logging protesters in two recent incidents.

Egads! What could those deviant deputies have done to provoke such outrage? Did they send vicious dogs in to tear the poor protesters limb from limb? Set upon them with billy clubs? Fire point-blank into the crowd with shotguns?

Well ... no. Actually, they daubed pepper spray on them and made them cry.

A bit of background is in order. The protesters, who have had much success with the technique on privately owned forest, apparently found that they could thwart both handcuffs and efforts to dislodge them by joining arms within metal tubes. They used that technique in late September when they invaded the Scotia, Calif. offices of Pacific Lumber Company, and last month when they repeated their stunt in the Eureka office of U.S. Rep. Frank Riggs, R-Calif.

In both instances, sheriffs’ deputies repeatedly asked the protesters to leave, explained their intentions, then offered the troublemakers several additional opportunities to comply before they acted. They used the pepper spray only as a last resort, and they chose that method rather than attempt to forcibly separate the individuals and possibly cause them physical damage. The spray has been proven to cause no lasting harm, though there are rumors that it prompts a short-term craving for guacamole and tortilla chips. At any rate, it delinked the intruders and brought the incidents to a close.

Now the "victims" are suing, and even the FBI has gotten into the act. Understandably happy to have something to do besides dream up excuses for not investigating Clinton administration campaign crimes, the feds are threatening to prosecute the local lawmen.

Lost in all the hysteria is the central fact of the case — the "rent-a-mob" protesters were not simply exercising their rights to free speech; they were trespassing, and that is a crime. Granted, today’s society gives short shrift to private property rights, but allowing trespassers to act with impunity can only serve to diminish those rights further. The lawmen had no choice but to act, and they did so in a manner calculated to cause the least possible harm to the criminals.

Personally, we think they should have gotten rougher on them. In such confined situations, it would serve the rascals right to be assaulted with a strong dose of recorded flute music by Zamfir; if that didn’t do it, the authorities could have resorted to old Wayne Newton records, interspersed with periodic injections of Tiny Tim.

On a more serious note, it would seem the best way to deal with such situations would be to head them off at the pass. We humbly offer the following as food for thought:

Close observers of these trespass/protest situations note that the same old faces seem to show up over and over, regardless of the nature of the protest or where it is conducted. These people are professionals, they are organized, and they are experienced.

They also cross state lines to carry out their "missions," and that makes it a federal matter. Combine organization, criminal activity and federal jurisdiction, and you have a "RICO" case — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Under that statute, federal authorities can and do confiscate vehicles, equipment, even real estate and bank accounts if they can be remotely connected with the crime.

RICO, moreover, is usually employed peremptorily, meaning seizures can occur weeks or even years before cases are tried, not to mention settled. In many cases no charges are ever even filed, but assets are taken and held — perhaps even disposed of — anyway. It’s a nasty little law, and it hurts a lot of innocent people. It seems only fair, then, that it occasionally be used against those who are not so innocent.

These trespass/protest incidents, as we’ve noted, don’t happen spontaneously. Just like drug deals, they are planned and coordinated, and perpetrators recruited, through the mail, over phone and fax, with computer e-mail, and in face-to-face meetings. They involve telecommunications equipment, vehicles, bank accounts, offices and homes.

Perhaps the FBI should take as serious an interest in the people and organizations who commit these crimes as they do in harassing the local lawmen who are forced to deal with them. Over the years, environmental activist groups have amassed millions of dollars, built themselves fine office palaces on costly real estate, and rewarded their top brass with handsome salaries and costly perks.

It’s our guess they would consider rethinking their tactics if those riches were placed in jeopardy.

And if not, there’s always Wayne Newton.