CROWD/RIOT CONTROL (police)

 

Any large gathering of people presents special challenges to law enforcement agencies regardless of the type of crowd or its reasons for assembling. Problems associated with crowds range from minor acts of public disorder and vandalism to large-scale riots. Understanding the dynamics of crowds and crowd behaviors is essential in formulating and implementing appropriate law enforcement responses.

Explanations of Crowd Behavior

Traditional crowd theory was originated with the work of Gustave Le Bon (1885). He believed that individuals in a crowd lose their “conscious personality” and become enmeshed into the crowd mentality and behavior. When this occurs, crowds become irrational, impulsive, and destructive. Le Bon argued that there were three stages to crowd behavior: (1) when people lose their individuality and take on the crowd mentality (submergence), (2) when people seem to lose their ability to make sound decisions and begin to follow others in the crowd (contagion), and (3) when the crowd ideas and emotions become unruly and violent and then become group mentality (suggestion).

Self-categorization theory extends traditional crowd theory by attempting to understand the relationship of the individual to the crowd along with the relationship of the crowd to the individual (Turner 1987). When identifying oneself in a crowd, individuals do not lose their conscious personality; they simply shift their values and identity to that of the crowd. A person’s social identity fluctuates depending of their social context. For instance, a person may think of themselves as a Boston Red Sox fan while at a baseball game, a Democrat while voting in the national election, and a Catholic while attending church. Self-categorization theorists argue that there is a shared collective understanding among individuals in a crowd that drives the crowd’s behavior. Moreover, crowd behavior is greatly influenced by the actions of other groups or crowds with differing collective understandings (for example, the police or opposing political protest groups). A key aspect of understanding crowd behavior is to include the role and behaviors of other groups (Stott and Reicher 1998).

Mob sociology is similar to traditional crowd theory and is based on the belief that any crowd can become lawbreaking and violent (Schweingruber 2000). Crowds become mobs when a significant event occurs that causes ”spiral stimulation” (Momboisse 1967). As the excitement or tension created by the significant event increases, individuals lose their self-consciousness and respond to the influences of the group. During this time strangers within the crowd develop camaraderie or shared bonds. The resulting unruly behavior is attributed to the crowd rather than the individual, who has temporarily lost the ability to make rational decisions and has become an anonymous component of the crowd.

Raymond Momboisse (1967) has identified four types of crowds: casual, conventional, expressive, and hostile or aggressive. The casual crowd is defined as a large gathering of people who happen to be at the same place and have no type of organization or purpose (for example, crowded city streets during rush hour). Conventional crowds have a specific purpose but are not organized (for example, spectators at sporting events or parades). Expressive crowds also have a specific purpose but are not organized. They differ from conventional crowds because expressive crowds are participating in an expressive behavior, such as singing or dancing. Hostile or aggressive crowds lack formal organization but have come together for a specific purpose (such as political protests). Hostile or aggressive crowds are the most unpredictable and raise the most concern to law enforcement agencies because the individuals in these crowds may already have destructive or unlawful intentions prior to joining the crowd.

Crowd Control Goals and Law Enforcement Responsibilities

As stated earlier, any crowd has the potential to become unruly and violent. Police responses to crowds and riots have been developed from components of the previously discussed theories. Regardless of the response, law enforcement agencies dealing with crowd situations need to consider several goals and responsibilities (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 2003).

There are four overarching goals and responsibilities of law enforcement agencies when creating and implementing crowd control policies and practices (these are not listed in any priority). First, it is very important that any response does not jeopardize the constitutional rights of anyone involved, especially individuals in the crowd. While it may be difficult for police officers to allow protesters to express controversial or inflammatory beliefs, these lawful activities are considered free speech and are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, another important goal and responsibility is to protect life and property. This goal involves not only maintaining the safety of innocent bystanders and their property, but also the lives of those individuals participating in the crowd. Police officers responding to aggressive crowds are placed in vicarious situations because they are being asked to protect the general citizenry from the rioters, and the rioters from other rioters, all while using the least amount of force possible in order to minimize police-induced injuries to the rioters.

Third, police agencies must develop crowd control strategies that include the protection of critical facilities in or near the crowded areas. These critical facilities include but are not limited to hospitals, power and telecommunication companies, police stations, chemical factories, and government buildings.

Fourth, crowd control policies and procedures must maximize police officer safety. This goal includes supplying responding police officers with the proper equipment, establishing clear procedures for engaging crowds and using force, maintaining constant communication with all officers involved, deploying a sufficient number of police officers to the area, and having adequate medical and emergency services personnel nearby.

Common Approaches to Crowd Control

Several different types of crowd control and crowd management strategies can be used depending on the type and behavior of the crowd. In any case, the best approach is one that is well thought out, includes various community stakeholder agencies and groups (for example, prosecutors, town elected officials, emergency services agencies, hospitals, social service agencies, hospitals, local businesses, and religious officials), and is proactive rather than reactive.

Proactive strategies seek to understand the type and behavior of the crowd, coordinate activities with community stakeholders, and establish procedures for when and how to engage the crowd, if necessary. Some of these activities include the following:

• Coordinate incident planning and preparation

• Host prearranged meetings with group organizers

• Coordinate preincident training

• Conduct preincident community education

• Designate public assembly areas when reasonable

• Separate opposing factions

• Provide effective means of communication

• Establish rules of conduct

• Define illegal activity

• Create a photo/video chronology of events

• Ensure on-the-scene incident command (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 2003)

Given the nature of crowds, it is not always possible to be proactive to individual events or have firm knowledge of crowd activity. Therefore, it is necessary to establish crowd control policies and procedures that are also reactive. The primary reactive activities are:

• Establishing contact with the crowd

• Implementing dispersal orders

• Using force

Police tactics have often been seen as the contributing factor in crowd aggression and hostility (Schweingruber 2000; Stott and Reicher 1998). Therefore, crowd control policies and procedures need to explicitly state who is to establish contact with the crowd and the format in which this contact will take place, how and when dispersal orders will be carried out, and, most importantly, when and what types of physical force will be used.

Physical force should be viewed as the last viable option but one that must be applied to minimize the likelihood of police officers needing to use deadly force. Types of nondeadly physical force vary but generally consist of nonlethal chemicals (for example, pepper spray, mace), electrical control devices (for example, tasers, stun guns), and less lethal options (for example, bean bags, rubber bullets). In using force for crowd control purposes, the legal standard is based on reasonableness of the force used. That is, consider whether the amount and type of force used reflect the overall circumstances presented to the law enforcement agency (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 2003).

The unpredictable nature of crowds raises serious concerns of law enforcement officials, elected officers, and the general public. However, these concerns can be greatly minimized with the creation of proactive crowd management strategies between law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders, the establishment of detailed police policies and procedures regarding crowd engagement and use of force, and extensive training of law enforcement personnel.

Next post:

Previous post: