In response to vandalism and in efforts to maintain order and control, without the man power for mass arrests, police began using non-lethal crowd dispersal tactics. This included tear-gas and concussion grenades (Gillham & Marx, 2000). However, just as the police seemed to not expect the protesters to follow the agreed upon script, the protesters also expected the police to detour from the agreement. The negotiations established that police would not be using chemical irritants and similar non-lethal dispersal weapons, yet the protesters had prepared themselves with gas masks and vinegar soaked bandanas to protect themselves from precisely these types of tactics (Gillham & Marx, 2000). As a result these tactics were largely ineffective in achieving police objectives. Protesters were protected and mostly unhindered by the gas, while unintended targets, such as shoppers, WTO delegates, and city officials were affected (Gillham & Marx, 2000). Instead of dispersing the protesters these tactics fueled protester distrust, anger, and sense of betrayal, escalating the aggression of the crowd and strengthening protester resolve against police. After the first day of protests proceeded much differently from the agreement, the city passed an emergency zoning ordinance to effectively ban protest in the downtown area where the WTO event was taking place (Herbert, 2007). The protesters didn’t see this as a legitimate action, because they had gained approval for that location in the prior negotiations and had already occupied the space from the first day of the protest (Gillham & Marx, 2000). The protesters treated the ordinance with an attitude of “no take backs” and continued to occupy the applicable zone. Police found these actions to be a challenge to their authority and control (Gillham & Marx, 2000; & Herbert, 2007). After tear gas had proven less effective than anticipated, police also utilized rubber bullets and concussion grenades to move protesters to more desirable locations in the Capitol Hill neighborhood where they could more easily control the crowd out of the way of business and commuters. From this point the situation again escalated, with increased aggression and disorder (Gillham & Marx, 2000).
Facebook
Twitter