Documentation of 11/3/22 COB Public Forum

Documenting the Community Oversight Board’s (COB) Public Forum and Subsequent Actions in Response to PSU Campus Protest Event on October 24, 2022

The purpose of this section of the Community Oversight Board’s (COB) website is to document a) the community concerns expressed at the November 3, 2022 COB Public Forum, b) the COB’s proposed recommendations and actions to address concerns raised at the Public Forum, and c) the State College Police Department’s (SCPD) formal responses provided to the COB regarding the community concerns, the COB’s recommendations, and the COB’s actions.

A pdf copy of this webpage can be downloaded here.

Before presenting details on each of these, we provide some background information.

 

Background

On October 24, 2022, a Penn State student group hosted an event titled “Stand Back & Deliver”, which featured Alex Stein, a self-proclaimed comedian, and Gavin McInnes, co-founder of the Proud Boys. The event was coordinated by Uncensored America, a free speech advocacy organization that had organized similar events at other Universities.

The featured appearance at this event of a Proud Boys co-founder, an organization considered by some to be an extremist organization, caused concern with many PSU students and members of the community and a public protest was held outside the event venue. During the protest, the anti-event protesters were violently confronted (including being pepper sprayed) by a few pro-event protesters.

Since it was a PSU sponsored event that occurred on the PSU campus, the Penn State University Police (PSUP) were responsible for security and crowd control protocols. Prior to the event, due to the potential volatility of the event and the number of demonstrators, the PSUP requested support for additional law enforcement resources from local/state police departments through “mutual aid” agreements.

Law enforcement mutual aid is a contractual relationship between municipalities outlining the resources, personnel, facilities, equipment and supplies provided in the event of an emergency need. These resources fill the capability gap among emergency service agencies. Within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mutual aid is defined as " Mutual assistance and sharing of resources among participating political subdivisions in the prevention of, response to and recovery from threats to public health and safety that are beyond the capability of an affected community to respond.” (Pennsylvania Laws Relating to Emergency Services, Legislative Reference Bureau, February 15, 2021, page 135 https://av.pasenategop.com/brochures/emergency-law.pdf).

In response to the PSUP request for mutual aid, the State College Police Department (SCPD), the Patton Police Department and troopers from the PA State Police provided support at the protest event. The PSUP were in overall command. It should be noted that while supporting a mutual aid event, supporting law enforcement organizations are under the tactical command of the police agency responsible for the event. However, supporting organizations are still bound by their own specific policies and procedures.

The police actions during the protest raised community concerns and calls for clarity and transparency about what transpired and how SCPD officers behaved during the protest.

One of the COB’s roles is to engage with the public on any significant issue relating to policing in State College. In response to public outcries over the jointly executed police action at the protest, the COB held a Public Forum on November 3, 2022. Held in the State College Borough Municipal Building, there were over 75 people in attendance and many articulated their concerns. Given that the COB’s oversight responsibilities only extend to the SCPD, the COB Public Forum was focused on the SCPD’s role in the police action. SCPD Chief of Police, John Gardner, was in attendance and participated in a Q&A session with community members. The minutes of the Public Forum are publicly available through the COB website here.

Following the COB Public Forum, the COB produced a “Report on the Police Response to the Protest on the PSU Campus” at its 4/19/23 meeting (hereafter, “COB Report”, 4/19/23). The SCPD provided a formal response to the COB Report on 5/25/23 (hereafter, “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23). Both the COB Report and the SCPD Response were presented by the COB Chair to the Borough Council on June 5, 2022.

The COB Report 1) provided an overview of the concerns expressed by the community at the Public Forum, 2) provided several recommendations, and 3) outlined several actions that the COB would take based upon the community concerns. We now provide the details on each of these, along with the SCPD formal responses to each.

1. Overview of the Community Concerns Voiced at the COB Public Forum on 11/3/22

In this first section, we provide an overview of each of the major complaints expressed by community members as documented in the COB Report on the Public Forum (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23), each of which is followed by the SCPDs formal responses (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23).

a. Police Response to Protesters. Many community members expressed outrage over the perceived lack of police responsiveness to protesters who were injured by pepper spray. Victims were not helped by SCPD, nor were assailants arrested at the event. Another person was upset at the lack of police response when she told them that she was sexually assaulted during the protest. Community members who were present overwhelmingly expressed their belief that the police should protect all protesters and help them when they are injured. This lack of police response left many community members distrustful of the SCPD, damaging their impressions of the police force. It furthered an impression, for some speakers, that all police agencies and officers act to protect property and not people. The following quotes reflect these views: “Police should be there to protect the right to protest.” “Why were the SCPD there if they are not going to protect people?” “Police just standing by while people are being pepper sprayed is appalling.” “What you are hearing in this room from the community is that they do not trust or feel supported by the police department.” “How can we trust the SCPD if they are going to let us down?” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: This was a Penn State University Police Operation, and therefore the planning and management of the event was Penn State’s direct responsibility.  The overall police mission in policing an event such as this is to first protect individuals and second to protect property.  Police do not choose sides, nor do they favor one group over another.  Police must remain neutral, while attempting to maintain order. The SCPD was but one agency assisting in policing this event.  There were numerous other agencies present as well, yet from some of the comments made at the COB meeting, one could be led to believe that SCPD was the only police agency present. As I noted several times during the COB meeting that followed the October 24, 2022, event on campus, one of the main reasons police do not make arrests or take reports from citizens regarding in progress crimes at events such as these is to preserve police resources. To take police reports and make immediate arrests at the event would quickly take numerous officers out of service, thus jeopardizing the overall mission of ensuring the physical safety of all those present.  In a volatile environment such as a protest with opposing factions, police must focus on overall safety, not on making immediate arrests for summary violations.  As I stated before, police would take immediate action and intervene if someone was in danger of serious bodily injury or being subjected to potentially lethal force by another.  Officers did correctly and accurately direct individuals who had complaints about crimes committed to the Penn State Police station to file a report.  The issues reported all happened on the Penn State campus and therefore lie within the jurisdiction of the Penn State Police. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)

b. Perceived Police Support for the Counter-Protestors. Several community members expressed outrage over their perception that the police were there to protect the Proud Boys and other counter protestors who pepper sprayed protestors. Community members cited a video they said that showed a police officer being patted on the back by one of the Proud Boy counter-protesters. This is a well-known tactic of right-wing provocateurs. They incite outrage by implying with such gestures that the police are ”on their side.” Outrage was also expressed over the perception that the police treated the event organizers and counter-protesters in a more protective manner than the protesters. One community member asked: “Why were Nazis escorted out with a tank, while protesters were not helped?” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: Please see the above response which addresses most of these same points. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


c. Police Methods Used to Control the Crowd. Many concerns were raised over the police methods used to control the crowd, including the use of horses to push back protestors. Several community members were very upset about the use of horses and perceived their use to be linked to a history of racist policing. Also, people were outraged that a mounted police officer yelled, “F#%$ you” at the protesters while pushing the crowd back with his horse. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The mounted units (horses) employed at this event, to include troopers, were the assets of the Pennsylvania State Police.  The use of horses to move or control a crowd has been a long-standing and acceptable tactic to maintain order and has proven to be the most effective and most expedient way in which to end a disturbance before it turns violent.  Horses also provide a safe vantage point for officers to observe crowds and move quickly to potential trouble spots before they spiral out of control. The Penn State Police were the host agency and requested the presence of the mounted units for this event. It is my understanding that there were no reported injuries to anyone as the result of the horses being used for crowd control. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


d. Methods Used at Events and Protests Involving White Supremacist and Other Hate Groups. Community members noted that extremist groups like the Proud Boys are known to use strategies to provoke protesters and turn the police against the protesters. As one community member said: “Fascists understand how to push the limits of the situation and to turn protests violent.” Therefore, community members raised questions as to what the SCPD has done/is doing to prepare for such events. “What policies are in place when known terrorists come into town?” “What training do departments have in dealing with fascists?” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The SCPD is constantly on the lookout for the latest and most advanced training and tactics to prepare and plan for such events.  We rely on the most up to date intelligence information from our partners at the Pennsylvania State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  We also monitor social media platforms of groups or individuals both pre-event and post event. It is important to note that every large-scale event we police presents the possibility that agitators could be present in the crowd.  We are cognizant of this concern and will continue to remain vigilant in planning for future events. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


e. Vetting of Extremism Among Police Officers. Community members asked what measures are taken to ensure that police officers are not, themselves, members of white supremacist or other hate groups. Their comments included: “Are police officers vetted for being white supremacists or extremists?” “What is done to prevent police officers from becoming radicalized after becoming cops?” What does the police department consider to be extremism that would disqualify someone from being on the force?” “Are there criteria that could be posted so that the public knows what is being looked at?” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: Every officer hired by SCPD must pass a written examination, successfully complete a (B-Pad) scenario-based video test, and an oral board interview.  If a candidate makes it through this initial process, they then are subjected to a rigorous background investigation before they are considered for employment, followed by a polygraph examination.  The final step in the hiring process for a police candidate is an interview before the Borough Manager, the Chief of Police, and the Human Resource Director.  If approved at this stage, a conditional offer of employment will be extended contingent on the successful completion of a psychological evaluation, a medical examination, and drug testing.  The background investigation, polygraph examination and the psychological examination all explore an applicant’s potential for harboring extremist viewpoints or ideology.  Again information, complaints, or concerns uncovered during this phase would be further investigated and, if found to have validity, would form the basis for disqualification of an applicant. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


f. Jurisdictional Issues. Many questions were raised by community members about the presence of SCPD police at this event (given that it was on the PSU campus) and how joint policing operations work. The following are some of the questions asked: “Which departments were there?” “Who made decisions?” “What was the actual chain of command for this event?” “Why wouldn’t SCPD have done more?” “What is the protocol when SCPD are in a support role for other departments?” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: As stated earlier, this was a Penn State Police operation that occurred in their jurisdiction (on campus).  Penn State Police prepared an operations plan and thus were the incident commanders.  It is important to remember that regardless of where an event is taking place, our supervisors and officers are required to follow the policies and the procedures of the SCPD. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


g. Follow up on Criminal Actions. Chief Gardner during the Q&A said that there were individuals that were identified (i.e., pepper sprayers) during the event, and that further action would be pursued against them. Several community members expressed concern that the perpetrators of violence might not be held accountable. As one community member put it: “We witnessed actual crimes, there needs to be accountability.” (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The responsibility for follow-up and any potential arrests resides with the Penn State Police in consultation with the District Attorney’s Office.  Again, it is my understanding that the complaints received by Penn State Police were, in fact, reviewed by the District Attorney for potential arrest and prosecution.  Penn State Police and the District Attorney are in a much better position to answer this question. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


2. COB Recommendations

Here we provide the COB recommendations section of the COB Report on the Public Forum (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23). We also provide the SCPD’s formal responses to each recommendation (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23).

Based upon the community feedback the COB received at the Public Forum, we held a series of conversations as a Board and with the SCPD administration. What we learned is that SCPD are obligated to assist other agencies when an event is likely to draw a crowd too large to be handled by one agency. The SCPD is enlisted in joint policing operations even when they have not been consulted regarding the university hosting events that represent a reasonable public safety risk and/or are liable to result in heightened confrontations between protestors and counter-protestors or the police and the community. This puts the SCPD in a difficult position; that is, they and borough administrators are not given a voice in approving events that are likely to impact public safety, even when they believe there is a significant risk to that safety. At the same time, they must participate in the resulting police action and are subsequently held responsible by the public for actions in which they had little decision-making power or active participation.

Therefore, the immediate recommendations that we make are aimed at the jurisdictional issues raised during the Public Forum. When an event featuring a person or group known to espouse hate speech and/or foment conflict and violence, two well documented aspects of the Proud Boys and McInnes, we recommend the following:

1. If the university plans to hold an event that meets the above threshold, SCPD command ought to be consulted in advance of the event’s approval so that they can weigh in on threats to public safety posed by holding such an event. The City Council might consider whether participation by the SCPD in policing of university-sponsored events with speakers espousing hate or violence ought to be contingent upon prior consultation with the SCPD. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The issue is not that the police departments are not communicating, it’s that the decision to schedule these events is usually made without consulting the affected police departments beforehand.  Once the decision is made to host an event, police have both a duty and an obligation to render assistance to our law enforcement partners, considering this event, or others like it, have the potential to impact our community as well. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


2. If the event proceeds, a joint command post with representatives from all policing agencies should be established to provide closer coordination and communication and engage in joint decision-making during the policing action. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: This recommendation already exists in practice in most, if not all, joint operations. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)

 

3. At such events, the SCPD will assemble an arrest unit charged with responding to incidents of alleged criminality in the moment, that cannot be addressed by officers engaged in crowd control. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: This event was a Penn State operation, and therefore any pre-established arrest teams would be the responsibility of the host agency, in this particular case Penn State.  The SCPD does establish arrest teams in our operational plans for major events that occur in our jurisdiction when staffing levels permit. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


4. The Borough City Council should review SCPD participation in qualifying events defined above and determine whether they wish to institute reforms that might define, limit, or even prohibit the SCPD’s active participation in policing actions linked to events of this kind. This is particularly important in instances where the SCPD is not given a voice in decision-making about hosting such events, cannot help decide the tactics used in controlling a crowd at such an event, and where the policing operation is likely to involve actions that deviate from SCPD established policies and protocols. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The danger in restricting SCPD’s ability to respond to a call for help when one of our partners requests our assistance is that SCPD may be in the position of needing assistance and having no one responding to assist us. Regardless of the event, public safety is paramount.  Police Departments cannot refuse or deny services or requests for assistance in times of need. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)

3. COB Actions to Address Other Concerns

Here we provide the section of the COB Report on the Public Forum (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23) that detailed several additional actions that the COB would take in response to the community’s concerns.  We also provide the SCPD’s formal responses to each action (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23).

To address the other concerns voiced by community members, the COB will do the following:

1. Determine and publicize the type, number, and frequency of bias training completed by officers and whether such trainings have been shown to be effective in reducing bias applicable, the COB will recommend additional trainings or other actions for improving such training. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The SCPD has provided many such trainings to its officers and has made several presentations to prior councils detailing the training.  These training presentations are posted on the borough’s website. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


2. Determine and make recommendations for improving the type, number, and frequency of de-escalation training officers receive and ascertain whether those trainings have been shown to be effective. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: SCPD officers routinely receive training on de-escalation methods and tactics.  Before de-escalation training became the norm, police received training in Verbal Judo.  Additionally, new SCPD officers are scheduled for CIT [Crisis Intervention Team] training, where the principles of de-escalation are put into practice.  Officers have received Surviving Verbal Conflict training since 2018 and have also received Integrated Communication And Tactics (ICAT) training.  ICAT training is sponsored by PERF [Police Executive Research Forum] and has been studied for effectiveness.  A gold standard study was conducted in Louisville, Kentucky in 2020 by the University of Cincinnati where it was found that officers who received ICAT training were involved in fewer use of force incidents. SCPD officers employ all of the above skills and training on a daily basis while performing their duties. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


3. Assess the SCPD background check protocols and processes both for applicants to the SCPD, as well as on an ongoing basis once they become officers to ensure to ensure that they are not affiliated with white supremacist and/or other organized hate groups. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: Please see the response provided in response to the community concerns (1E) Vetting of Extremism Among Police Officers, that describes the extensive background investigation required to be approved and hired as a member of the department.  The department does conduct random or periodic checks on officers throughout their careers to ensure they are adhering to policy and the law.  As recently as 2020, the staff received training from our labor attorneys on the proper use of social media and adherence to social media policy in general. The SCPD will investigate an Officer for any suspicious or unlawful activity whether it was discovered by the police department, or whether a specific complaint was made by a community member.  The borough also instituted random drug testing for police several years ago that had to be negotiated with the police union for it to be enacted. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


4. The COB will provide additional resources to the public to help better inform community members about what police crowd control operations at protests or other mass gathering events generally entail. Our doing so is not an endorsement of current SCPD crowd control tactics; rather, it is aimed at providing greater transparency around the current SCPD crowd control operations as a basis upon which we can facilitate further dialogue between the community, the Borough Council, and the SCPD about such practices. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: As stated earlier, the crowd control methods employed by SCPD are accepted methods and have been in practice for years.  SCPD has always viewed public safety and officer safety as the primary concern when policing an event, while property damage is seen as a secondary concern. SCPD has posted its policy manual on-line in as much detail as possible, however we must remain mindful of protecting tactical and operational procedures. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


5. Research, and where applicable, make recommendations for the SCPD holding trainings that will better prepare officers for the types of tactics used by extremists' groups to disrupt protests, incite violence, and/or turn the police and protesters against one another. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: SCPD is constantly in search of new trainings and tactics to enhance our ability to respond to rapidly evolving events in our ever-changing world.  We remain open to suggestions from the COB or any other community group regarding new or updated trainings that become available. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


6. Determine and make public whether the SCPD or other policing agencies have arrested any of the individuals who committed acts of violence at the protest. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: This was addressed in the response provided to the community concerns (1G) [Follow up on Criminal Actions].  This event occurred on the Penn State Campus and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the Penn State Police.  It is my understanding that Penn State Police followed up on the allegations and consulted with the District Attorney.  Penn State Police and the District Attorney are better positioned to answer this question. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


7. Increase our efforts to hear from community members as a regular part of COB monthly meetings, rather than in response to a particular event. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The SCPD believes this recommendation has merit and should be encouraged.  (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


8. Evaluate how/whether the new COB Civilian Complaint Process (CCP) is being utilized effectively by the community. And, if this is not the case, solicit further community feedback to improve the process or otherwise increase public confidence in the CCP as a mechanism for reporting alleged police wrongdoing. (source: “COB Report”, 4/19/23)

SCPD Response: The SCPD agrees that this recommendation has merit. (source: “SCPD Response”, 5/25/23)


REFERENCES


Back to Community Oversight Board Information Page