NEWS
Students, officials sound off on Halloween
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jimmy Rahm:
- Fair trade festival hopes to create trend (December 6, 2004)
- Ethnic restaurants staple of State Street (November 30, 2004)
- ALRC continues license debate (November 18, 2004)
- Vendors discuss new locations (November 11, 2004)
- Council motion could increase tenant's rights (November 10, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Wray accepts position as police chief (October 22, 2004)
- Mayor: city set for Halloween night (October 26, 2004)
- MPD confirms death of alumnus (November 1, 2005)
- Police urge student help (October 27, 2005)
- Police make case for 30 new cops (October 9, 2007)
by Jimmy Rahm
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
In response to student concerns regarding the outcome of the Halloween weekend, members of the Madison Police Department and City Council and Associated Students of Madison representatives presented their thoughts and offered explanations for handling the event during a Tuesday night forum. Chief of Police Noble Wray pointed out that aside from some unintended consequences, the event was well planned and executed properly. “By many measurements, this was considered a success,” Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said. “There were no major injuries or incidents, though we understand [student] concerns.”
There was a large turnout for the discussion despite short notice from the police department and City Council members. Many in attendance expressed their concern for what they considered excessive use of force, particularly through pepper spray.
Throughout the Halloween celebration, Wray said police officers were encouraged to actively engage in dialogue with participants of the State Street festivities.
Once floodlights were turned on, officers expected the crowds to disperse and move on. “When the lights go on, the dialogue is over and it’s time to go home,” Wray said. Police officer John Davenport said announcements over loudspeakers positioned atop the University Inn were also used to signal the end of the night, although some contend that the announcement was never heard. Speakers at the discussion said the use of lights was confusing, and few realized their purpose.
Participants in the discussion also expressed concern that many people trying to get away from State Street were the ones officers sprayed. “When trying to manage groups returning to State Street, it becomes difficult to distinguish between who’s leaving and who’s returning to continue causing trouble,” Wray said, apologizing for these incidents. “There are going to be some unintended consequences when trying to maintain the peace for 75,000 people. We try to minimize those, and we apologize for that.”
Police officers said they felt their approach to using pepper spray was well studied and rational. The police lines and pepper spray were intended as deterrents, and people had ample time to leave the area, according to Wray. The timing and choice to employ pepper spray was also deliberated, as Wray said officers’ options are limited as how to respond to mob activity. “We’re not sitting around in our equipment waiting to get out there,” Davenport said. “We tried to maximize the avenues of escape. At no point did we attempt to catch crowds. We needed people to move on.” Wray added forces have improved on their tactics in the past few years. Verveer said strong winds caused pepper spray to spread to surrounding areas and back to officers.
The police representatives demonstrated the patience and collective approach officers took to controlling crowds and employing pepper spray through showing selected video footage. Though the video was absent of sound, it depicted the activity of the crowd and the police tactics used to break them up. The video also captured the start of a bonfire, with people rallying around and jumping through the fire. Additional footage provided by madisonriots.com was also shown, providing other perspectives of the fire.
Police said mob mentality facilitated the activity, but the situation never reached a riotous status. Police also said the pepper spray was water based, and said that contrary to popular belief, no tear gas was used, according to Davenport.
Wray and Davenport noted the size of Madison and the available resources to control the event. “It gets down to a resource issue. We’re a mid-sized city, and we we’re maxed out on available resources,” Wray said. Wray and others hosting the discussion welcomed all accounts of mistreatment for further review and consideration when planning and training for the event in the future.
The nature of the event predisposes it to being deemed “riotous,” according to Ald. Austin King, District 8. “When local media shows up and records limited footage and calls it a riot, that increases the expectation for there being a riot in the future,” King said.
All hosting the event encouraged input about the planning and outcome of the event. Police and council members encouraged more participation to help localize the event in the future to counteract negative outcomes and visitors fulfilling riotous expectations.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 6:30am):
Those rioters just never stop complaining! Who cares? If you get drunk, start trouble, you're gonna get hosed down with pepper spray. It's that simple. It's so simple, even a college student could figure it out!
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 9:25am):
Please read the article before commmenting next time.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 11:10am):
Poster #1, but apparently actually reading the article is too complex for you to figure out, huh?
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 11:19am):
I just want to thank Ald. Verveer and Ald. King for hosting this session. I was there and thought it was quite productive and a really fresh idea.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 12:07pm):
im guessing poster #1 voted for bush. *sigh*
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 12:08pm):
im guessing poster #1 voted for bush. *sigh*
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 2:30pm):
I did read the article, morons! And I'm still not convinced that they had anything to complain about!
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 2:44pm):
Aw, poor Kerry supporters can't riot without getting sprayed. Then you have to assume the first supporter is 1) illiterate and 2) a Bush supporter. Anyone who disagrees with is automatically a political adversary. Well, I saw the folks who rioted in the video footage, and they all looked pretty liberal to me. By the way, I'm a liberal myself.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 2:54pm):
"I did read the article, morons! And I'm still not convinced that they had anything to complain about!"
Well at least you read it before your second post. And why should people just trying to get home complain about being pepper sprayed. Not everyone that got sprayed was rioting, you dolt.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 2:57pm):
Dolt! Dolt! Sounds like a UW-Madison student to me.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:08pm):
"Well at least you read it before your second post."
Why is it that when Madison liberals encounter someone they disagree with, they assume that the person has not done any research, or that they voted for the other guy? Are you that desperate to win an argument? Didn't your profs teach you anything about the dangers of assuming?
Yes, the guy read the article and, like he said, he's still not convinced that the folks involved in the riot had anything to complain about. I feel the same way. Does that mean I'm a Bush supporter too? Actually, I voted for Kerry.
The last two Halloweens were nothing but trouble on State Street. How could anyone expect this year's Halloween celebration to be any different?
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:19pm):
For the sake of argument -- am I the only one who things all this attention to the matter actually increases the likelihood of future problems?
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:27pm):
The people complaining weren't the rioters.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:29pm):
Poster #1: The reasons that I think that you either did not read the article or read it but did not comprehend it: according to the police, there was no riot. According to citizens present, they could not hear the amplified police orders to disperse. The strong winds helped to spred pepper spray, affecting those not even in the immediate location.
These are not "rioters" complaining. I was a block away from the crowd and the police, and I still got a lungful of pepper spray.
If you had understood the article, you would know that this meeting wasn't about "rioters" vs. the police. It was police, city officials and citizens reviewing the events of Halloween weekend, the police preparation and response, and what worked, what didn't, and what should be done in the future.
And to all the posters: what's with the Bush and Kerry talk? The election is over. Move the fuck on.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:40pm):
"Poster #1: The reasons that I think that you either did not read the article or read it but did not comprehend it: according to the police, there was no riot."
Just because there was no riot doesn't mean there was no one there who wanted to riot. There were people there who would have rioted if the police hadn't stepped in before they had a chance to riot. Every year there are troublemakers who show up with the express purpose of starting a riot.
Second, the meeting between police and students was supposed to be and exchange of ideas, but it quickly disintegrated into a heated argument about how the police handled the event. Police Chief Noble Wray made some perfectly valid arguments as to why they acted pre-emptively. The situation could have been a lot worse if they hadn't. But thanks to the idiots who just showed up to argue, the meeting didn't accomplish as much as it could have.
There is a big difference between what was intended and what turned out to be. NOW let's move the f*** on.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:51pm):
"And why should people just trying to get home complain about being pepper sprayed. Not everyone that got sprayed was rioting, you dolt."
They can complain to the people who started bonfires. Here's a simple equation. Drunks punching horses + fire on street + drunk people throwing more stuff on it and dancing around it = potential riot. The response is pepper spray. Who's at fault here? Would you rather the fire have raged into the night? Funny that you complain about the only people actually trying to make sure the night went off safely. Do you think that the police would've sprayed people if no one had punched a horse or started a fire? Ridiculous.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:52pm):
^^^^ Were YOU at the meeting? And have you ever gotten blasted in the face with pepper spray? Well, I have and it's not pleasant. And no, I am not a troublemaker nor was I even on State Street during the time of the riots. I was in a bar, and after bar time turned down a side street, on my way home, when I encountered a group of people and a line of riot police spraying everyone. I think the police did what they had to do, but there could have been alternatives. Hence, the meeting. So...I think YOU need to learn the dangers of assuming. You can't assume everyone who goes to State Street on Halloween is a riotous idiot- there are a lot of us who would like things to be fun AND safe.
P.S. I agree-drop the Bush v. Kerry crap. I voted for Kerry, he lost. Bush won. Deal with it.
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 3:58pm):
"Not everyone that got sprayed was rioting, you dolt.""
Dolts, dolts and more dolts! Gosh, we college students just love to whine and complain, don't we? We're never satisfied. We just don't like to lose.
Actually, I'm glad the police were rough on all of you. It kinda makes up for all the trouble you all cause downtown every weekend. Heh-heh! Suffer!
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 5:03pm):
To the person who began with "^^^^" Assuming you were referencing the post directly above you and not 4 above... I in no way assumed that all those who got sprayed were guilty of bad behavior. I said blame the bonfire starters and horse punchers. Read what i said. Can you think of an effective alternative apart from more serious measures? The drunks determine whether or not people will get pepper sprayed. If they don't start fires, fights, or assault police animals, then things would go off ok. The collateral damage is pretty minimal. Some innocent people getting pepper sprayed pales in comparison to innocent people getting seriously hurt or their apartments or property burned to the ground, wouldn't you agree?
Anonymous (December 8, 2004 @ 5:13pm):
"Some innocent people getting pepper sprayed pales in comparison to innocent people getting seriously hurt or their apartments or property burned to the ground, wouldn't you agree?"
Damn good point! A couple of years ago, someone started a fire in the trash dumpster outside our building out here on West Wilson. It happened the same night as the Halloween celebration. Yeah, I'm glad the cops moved in when they did. It saved the city from a lot worse trouble. Too bad if some people can't accept it.
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 3:10am):
http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/gay_opinion/2004/11/gay-rights-are-inevitable.html
You should all be proud of Rob Deters
